text:
What is the relation between Astrology and Buddhism?
Is there a relation between Buddhism and Astrology? Is Astrology present in all Buddhist traditions? Did the Buddha or his disciples make use of Astrology?

At one time it was a big deal: https://sites.google.com/site/dharmadepository/buddhist-astrology/astrology-in-buddhism On the otherhand, in some sutras it's against the rules for monks to engage in it.

In terms of horoscopes, it is definitely not a Buddhist practice to explain one's future or decisions based on some external forces (planets).
However, phases of the Moon have some importance in Buddhism. Many significant events in Buddha's life coincided with the Full Moon - birth, giving first teachings or death, to name a few. Full Moon is also considered to be the Amitabha Buddha Day (Buddha of Limitless Light and the principal Buddha in Pure Land Buddhism). One can find full lunar calendars where different Moon phases are associated with various Buddhas, practices etc. One example of observance days based on the lunar calendar is Uposatha when practitioners intensify their practice and make conscious effort to keep the 5 precepts.
One may wonder why bother with the Moon. In the simplest terms, the reasoning behind it is that our body is mostly composed of water and just like the oceans, the body (with its energy channels) does react to the Moon phases.
The main point is that the Moon phases are not used to predict one's future but rather to mark favourable or auspicious days for specific practises. One could coordinate one's practise with the Moon so that in different days one could focus on specific Buddha forms or teachings. So the Moon should be considered as a support and not an oracle of some sort. It might be helpful but it is not necessary to follow it.

As far as I know, Buddhism doesn't have an overlap on Astrology.
In astrology, it is said that the planets and stars can affect on us and our future can be predicted according to that. So they also provide some remedies to survive from disasters as well. As for their explanation, astrology is an extended version of mathematics which uses the placements of planets to predict about people's behaviors.
But in Buddhism, it is said that everything that happens is based on what is being previously done/happened. So the people make their own fate from the things they do and the choices they make. It may be hardly depending on some planets and stars far far away. But it never says that astrology is false.
Personally, I have seen incidents where astrological predictions became true. And many cases where it haven't. But Buddhism, it is true. It's only a matter of fact how far you're gonna believe and understand it.
Hope this helped.

I think in Tibetan Buddhism there is a great overlap between Buddhism and Astrology, I would like to understand it better!

In DN 2 quoted below, the Buddha denounced practices like astrology, palmistry, divination, face reading, omen reading, magic, dream interpretation, predicting the future and so on as wrong livelihood and "animal arts" for monks. I highlighted the relevant parts.

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
his virtue."

I come from a Japanese Zen background and currently practice in a Engaged Buddhist sangha under Thich Nhat Hanh. I have never heard of a connection with Zen Buddhism and astrology. That is not to say there is none though. And even if there is no historic connection between the two, if one is mindful they can see the dharma in all things. I do not have knowledge in astrology, but I would bet that if one looked at astrology with mindfulness that you could find the dharma there as well. May you be happy.


text:
What are the verses relating to meditation in the Tripitaka? And to what type of meditation does it relate to?
Works like Visuddhimagga covers 40 types of meditations. I am looking for the original source of these meditations within the Tripitaka. Ideally with complete bibliographical references to the occurrences within the Tripitaka.

The excerpt given below provides some references but in the pages following this one, the meditation subjects are explained and many more references are given. With this in mind, I suggest going to the link provided at the end of the excerpt and read these pages to extract the additional references.

§75 FORTY CONCENTRATION EXERCISES
There are forty concentration exercises (kammatthana) leading to the tranquility of the
absorptions. They are:
I. Ten kasina exercises: (1) earth kasina, (2) water kasina, (3) fire
kasina, (4) wind kasina, (5) blue kasina, (6) yellow kasina, (7) red
kasina, (8) white kasina, (9) light kasina, (10) space kasina. The
older suttas replace the light kasina with the consciousness kasina,
as at AN 10:29.
II. Ten perceptions of loathsomeness (asubha-sañña): a swollen-up
corpse, a bluish discoloured corpse, a festering corpse, a split
corpse, a gnawed corpse, a scattered corpse, a dismembered and
scattered corpse, a blood-stained corpse, a corpse full of worms, a
skeleton. More or less identical with these exercises are the nine
cemetery contemplations in MN 10 and DN 22, and the contemplation in
AN 4:14, quoted below.
III. Ten contemplations (anussati): (1) on the Buddha, (2) the
Doctrine, (3) the Community of Noble Disciples, (4) morality, (5)
liberality, (6) heavenly beings, (7) death, (8) body, (9)
in-and-out-breathing, (10) peace. While 1-6 are mostly explained in
one and the same sutta, (7)—(10) are described each separately in
different suttas, e.g. (7) in AN 8:73f. (8) in MN 119 (but not as in
MN 10, while in Vism the meditation refers to the thirty-two parts of
the body); (9) in MN 118; (10) in AN 9:52-61, 10:26.
IV. Four divine abodes (brahma-vihara): (1) all-em bracing kindness
(metta), (2) compassion (karuna), (3) altruistic joy (mudita)), (4)
equanimity (upekkha).
V. Four immaterial spheres (arupayatana): (1) sphere of boundless
space, (2) sphere of boundless consciousness, (3) sphere of
nothingness, (4) sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
VI. Perception of the loathsomeness of food.
VII. Analysis of the four elements.
Neighbourhood concentration may be reached by III 1-7, 10; VI; and
VII.
The first jhana may be reached by II 1-10 and III 8.
The first three jhanas may be reached by IV 1-3.
The four jhanas may be reached by I 1-10 and III 9.
The fourth jhana may be reached by IV 4.
The immaterial attainments may be reached by V 1-4.
The acquired image (uggaha-nimitta) and counter-image
(patibhaga-nimitta) will arise only on realizing I 1-10; II 1-10; III
8, 9: hence in twenty-two exercises.
For a full explanation of these forty exercises, see Vism III—XI.
For further details about jhana, etc., see Fund. IV.
-The Buddha's Path of Deliverance, p.75 by Nyanatiloka Thera

Great answer but could be a bit more bibliographic. The Vinaya also has Anapana and perhaps the Abhidhamma also may have some references.

I up voted your answer. If I do not get a better answer in some time will accept it.

If you were intent on getting more comprehensive answers then I suggest editing the question but bear in mind that being exhaustive with the references is quite difficult & time-consuming some times.

I made some edits. See if this is sufficient.

Your answer does cover many of the references so is pretty good as it is.

I think it's sufficient. This way people intending to answer will know exactly what you are looking for.

I would only add MN118 and MN119.  I wish I had this answer years ago!

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
How are the Seven Purifications (satta-visuddhi) practiced in daily life?
What are the 7 Purifications in laymans terms and how is this practiced in daily life?

I noticed you've tagged this question with Theravada, so I assume you are only interested in this from a Theravada point of view (and not Mahayana)?

Not really. This is inclusive of any other branches but at least one answer from some one from the Theravada perspective.

This book is focused only on this question:

The Seven Stages of Purification & The Insight Knowledges by Ven. Matara Sri Nanarama

Hope it helps.

Thanks. Is it would have been better if you could have made a summary here. But any great pointer.

I appreciate your comments. Some people object when I give a link without totally answering the question. I found a source that I thought would provide the answer but did not have the time to read the whole source and summarize. Thanks for the question.

The only sutta that fully explains the seven purifications is Rathavinita Sutta. It explains in full the seven purifications (SAPTHA VISUDDHI) taught by the Buddha:
see The Ratha-vinita Sutta: Relay Chariots  (MN 24; M.I,145).
The only place in the Canon where these 7 kinds of purification are mentioned is M. 24,, The Simile of the Stage-coach; There it is said that the real and ultimate goal does not consist in purification of morality, or of mind, or of view, etc., but in total deliverance and ceasing. Now, just as one mounts the first coach and travels to the second coach, then mounts the second coach and travels with it to the third coach, etc., in exactly the same way the goal of (I) the purification of morality (sila-visuddhi) is  (II) the purification of mind (citta-visuddhi) its goal: (III) the purification of view (ditthi-visuddhi) its goal: (IV) the purification by overcoming doubt kankhāvitarana-visuddhi its goal: (V) the purification by knowledge and vision of what is path and not-path (maggāmagga-ñānadassana-visuddhi) its goal: (VI) the purification by knowledge and vision of the path-progress  (patipadā-ñānadassana-visuddhi); its goal: (VII) the purification of knowledge and vision (ñānadassana-visuddhi) but the goal of this purification is deliverance freed from all clinging.
If you practice the first two of the seven purifications to the best of your ability, everything else will fall into place. The goal of  purification of morality (sila-visuddhi) is the purification of mind (citta-visuddhi).
The purification of mind (citta-visuddhi)  is towards cultivating a mind that does not to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action,  attitude,  etc. as one would repent after one’s thoughtless acts. This is eradicating mind-defiling defilements that lead to suffering.
This leads to  purification of view (ditthi-visuddhi); This is a difficult one as the idea that truth always triumphs over power is one of those pleasant falsehoods. This idea that ‘Truth Always Wins’ was first coined by the Hindus. Today the Buddha Dhamma is lost to the masses. what they call as ‘Buddhism’ is  ‘adhamma’ – a falsehood. Just compare todays views to the Sutta & Vinaya Pitaka, and you will find this out.
If you overcome this hurdle of purification of view (ditthi-visuddhi); its goal:
the purification by overcoming doubt (kankhāvitarana-visuddhi) – yet another big hurdle. So I wish you the best. If you are a person of humility, and always trust the original scriptures only, and makes this practice your one and only pastime you will succeed.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Where can I learn more about cita niyama?
In What is the Buddhist point of view of the Law of Attraction?
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/suminda-sirinath-salpitikorala says that law of attraction is part of citta niyama.
Where can I learn more about it? How come thinking about something affect the outcome that I am thinking about? I know of many ways actually. However, are there complete listings on how this come to be?

Following is a link to the Niyama Dhammas in Wikipedia. Following is a translation from Pali Sources. Also this is a text by Ledi Sayadaw called "THE NIYAMA-DIPANI: The Manual of Cosmic Order".
If you have the power of deep Jhana and make a strong determination (which is part of the perfections) then there is a possibility that the something similar desired outcome materialises based on the power of your mind (depending how deep the absorption Samadhi is). This can be done to a more limited extent without Samadhi also as this moment influences the next as per Dependent Origination.
But this is not recommended as this may generate bad Kamma as this practice can lead to covetousness. See Kammapatha. Also such use of Samadhi will not be Samma Samashi.
Matter of clarification, these are two concepts but there are much similarities.
I hope this helps. Comment if you want more information.


text:
What are the sub divisions of the Tripitaka and what do these areas cover?
Is it possible to list out the section of the Tripitaka summarizing what areas they cover.

Do you mean Vinaya, Sutta Pitaka and Abidhamma?

a good point would be to explore what is more important for lay people inside Tipitaka

The Pitaka are the highest division. These have further subdivisions.

Since I don't know how deep in the Tipiṭaka's structure you want the answer, I'll try to give the most in-depth answer. I'll present the structure in a tree chart and, beneath it, I'll refer to an article with an in-depth analysis of the canon which provides the summaries.

Structure
(Click to enlarge)

Summaries
Summaries are provided in "Chapter I: Textual Analysis of the article "An Analysis of the Pāḷi Canon" by Russell Webb. It also contains an excellent index of the canon, and an extensive bibliography.

Can I please get a hi res version of this chart, and a source for who owns/created it? When I click on "enlarge" the chart image goes black.

try copy it and past it on a word page to have no black background, householder Abhaya Darpana

https://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh217_Webb_Analysis-of-the-Pali-Canon.html

@AbhayaDarpana I don't know where the image is from but I uploaded a new version of it which has a white instead of a transparent background -- https://i.stack.imgur.com/I2YXI.png


text:
Who is a Gandhabbha?
Are gandhabbhas belongs to gods or demons? I tried to find details about them. But couldn't solve my problem. According to the Buddhas Teachings, I want to know whether Gandhabbhas are divine people or evil people.

A class of semi divine beings who inhabit the Catummaharajika realm and are the lowest among the devas. They are generally classed together with the Asuras and the Nagas. Beings are born among them as a result of having practised the lowest form of sila. They are said to be able to receive merits from humans.

May triple gem bless you! It's really helpful.

Theruwan Saranai!


text:
Special types of Kamma Vipaka
According to Buddhism the same good or bad deed has different results depending on who you are and the person being affected by your action, a few examples:
Giving food to a Buddha x Giving food to an ordinary person.
Lying and cheating if you are a monk x if you are a lay person.
Killing your parents x Killing ordinary people.
Ok, it does make sense, but the question is: Is there a simple logic behind it? Depending on the impact in the world per haps?! And what kind of force understands that you are doing the good/bad deed against a different (not ordinary) being?

The karma is a product of

The mind of the person doing the action
The mind of the person subjected to the action

If the person who is subjected to the result of the action has a pure mind then the results are applied may it be good or bad.
If I give to a Buddha (very pure mind) with great piety the results would be great. If I do the same for a animal the results will not be that great since the results are not "amplified" due to a lower state of mind the animal has.
The Buddha has made great sacrifice to create the Sasana. So if we do something in line with the Buddha's will and intentions then the results would very much greater than any other action. Similarly if we go against it.


text:
Is a monk allowed to receive money?
I have seen different answers to that question, so I assume it varies from school to school, is it right?
I am not talking about donations to the Sangha as a whole, like a fund, but giving cash to a monk.

10th precept to non touch money. The means of funding a full time Buddhist life vary dramatically overtime and place, from begging, to state support, to self sufficient farming to the paid speaking circuit, writing books to sell & leading two week retreats for fee.

I know a place where you can give money inside an envelope, so theoretically they are not touching the bills... but it sounds strange to me...

According to the Monk's Sila, they can not accept money, since money is related to sensual pleasures. Therefore when monks have to deal with money, it's better to take help of a lay follower. In Sri Lanka, in the past and even nowadays in some places, there's a lay follower called "abittiya" is residing in the temple or the monastery to intervene in actions like dealing with money in order to help monks. In some occasions the chief donater of the temple too engage in such activities to help monks. So it's better if someone can help monks in such actions because it's a great help and also a meritorious act since it help a monk to protect his Sila.

At least in the West some monks and nuns do have credit cards and some assets because getting credit for an one-monastic temple or even a sangha isn't easy. They still live a life with the tiniest amount of personal belongs but they travel, own real estate, own & rent cars and shop online. They consider their assets as belonging to a sangha and manage it that way even when technically there isn't one. In some circles (at least mine) it takes six monastics to make a proper sangha.
So in that case I guess by saying "for the sangha" they can take it and they're really getting the money.
I speak as laity that assists a nunnery in such matters. Technically a thư ký.

From my understanding, a monk still can receive money but he should not be holding it. A good practice is that when you make donation to a monk, always treated like donation to the Sangha as a whole as you mentioned.
Please read great explanation from BHIKKHUS AND WEALTH
and it's also good to know about A BHIKKHU'S STEWARD

Householder Konrad, interested,
NO, he is also not allowed to order or ask to use money, not allowed to own, possess, means of trade and exchange.
Lay people may organice fonds for requisites give the look over to someone assisting the monks. Monks may accept such allowed, if wishing so. Nevertheless the monk would not be allowed to hold power over them. In cases the requisite might not be received later on, he may inform the original doner that his gift was not received.
There are ways how a monk would be allowed to let a helper known a lack indirectly.
A good and firm faithful essay on this matter, now sadly a means of certain trade already is "The Use of Money by Monks", by late Venerable Bodhesako.
To be clear, it's also impossible, while respecting the tradition of the Noble Ones, to control and hold bank accounts, credit cards, cheques, insurance founds... further, what ever trade with lay people is not allowed as well as asking lat people for fonds, one benefits from, as well.
Not causing others to use money on ones account (telling, signs) includes of course ALL money donation calls, even if not for ones own sake. A very common misdeed, btw. Getting involves in things like installing a "donation-box", for what ever purpose, fit here as well as an improper conduct.
Those who do, having not enough faith or other objectives, one does right to regard them as poor and they are actually poor in all regards, living with signs of householders in the robes of the Arahats.
Faithful lay people provide joyfull all of what is required for the holly life and there is no need of money or controll at all.
What one feeds, inwardly and outwardly grows for one. That's always important to consider. And good monks are only near to wise and generous, attentive observing ones. That is where one can change ones current conditions to a better and make the most benefical of ones sacrifices.
Vinaya leaves enough "holes" for those still holding on possessions and control via mind and one does not even need to attain Noblehood to respect Vinaya. Those who have really abound the householders way are less, very less, so gifted if meeting or perceive one as such.
In regard of not-knownly receiving: even here are given ways. Should if happen that a monk accidently accepted money or means of exchange - say he received a bag and it contained money hidden in it - he needs to confess it and abound it, attended by fellow, behind the monastery boundary. (Something possible problematic in relation to certain laws, so good if not bringing monks in "troubles" by such.)
...giving cash to a monk
Giving is never wrong if not harmfull. Whether a monks receives, accept, is allowed..., that's the monks part. Even if not receiving something, one should not forget that intention is kamma. If one knows that monks are not given by the Buddha to accept, hold, use money, one does of course harm, harm in three ways: first oneself, because feeding lack of faith, secound the individual monk (who might be not strong enough or bad informed), third the reputation of the Sangha at large. So good, after having read all here, proved and understood, to simply abstain from such if used to do.
It's not wrong at all to ask a monk whether he has someone who could take care of a fund for him or the Sangha and to inform about such after then.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)


text:
Should we correct Buddhist wrong believes or respect it?
Allow me to give the exemple of meat eating for this question: In the suttas we can clearly see (many times) that eating meat is accepted in Buddhism under a few conditions. We cannot kill, ask someone to kill or hear/see the animak being killed.
In addition some meats should not me eaten (human flesh, elephants etc...), but most of the meat we eat today is clearly accepted in the suttas, still there are people that look down on you if you eat meat, mixing personal views with Buddhism.
There is a sort of "main stream" Buddhism with things clearly not coming from the suttas, in this case, should we correct them? Or should we respect other peoples view?

What is the harm in pointing out the passages in the suttas?

Mainstream where? Which sutras? Vegetarianism and it's support in sutra is a settled matter in Chinese Buddhism. Are you complaining about observant vegetarian Theravada Buddhists? Is there a serious problem about vegetarian Theravada Buddhists making you feel bad about your moral choices?

I think you should correct them pointing out this is the view from xxx sect and yyy linage.

Ideally this it a question for the Meta site. Can somebody move it there?

Since this is not particularly targeted at any sect different view should be able to core exist but you should correct it based on your belief system. People from other belief systems should be discouraged to downvote or do something similar as this will lead to one sect not respecting and downvoting other sects. They are welcome to provide an alternative answer. Also the values system should take precedence over SO/SE rules and norms.

Voting to close, since this question seems to be asking for other people's opinions rather than facts or references.

The following two answers are valuable. So may be put on hold.

Lets close the question them, the point was never about vegetarianism, it was just to ilustrate that people sometimes mix sutta with "non suttas" ideas and think this is the real Buddhism, what should one do? maybe I got a bad exemple (too polemic)! I will make a new question, more clear, ok?

I have just made a new one, it is more clear I guess :)

Those rules you have mentioned are only for monks. They do not apply to lay people. Lay people can consume any type of meat even if the animal is killed for them, as long as they don't break the 1st precept.
Yes, you can try to explain to people who look down on you, saying that being vegetarian is merely a food preference in Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism seem to recommend a vegetarian diet by default. But that is not an excuse to look down on someone. You might also come across some confused Theravada Buddhists who follow vegetarianism like a religion, even putting it above what's said in the Suttas. Such practices usually fall under Silabbata-paramsa. One gives up on that when one becomes Sotapanna. Trying to correct them might push them away from the Dhamma. You can always practice Upekkha alongside Metta in such cases.

For this question you can get clear answers by reading Kalama Sutta. In Kalama Sutta The Buddha said;

'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.'


text:
What is the 3 lifetimes interpretation of the 12 nidanas?
Can anyone outline the 3 lifetime interpretation of the 12 nidanas. To me there only seems like there are at most two lifetimes in there. One goes from ignorance to becoming then the other goes from becoming to death. I know this is a misunderstanding so I would appreciate anyone clearing this up for me.

Here is an excerpt from the source of the three life-times interpretation:

287. The past, the present and the future are its three times. Of these, it should be understood that, according to what is given as
  such in the texts, the two factors ignorance and formations belong to
  the past time, the eight beginning with consciousness belong to the
  present time, and the two, birth and ageing-and-death, belong to the
  future time.
  -The Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga), p.600

For additional information, I suggest reading the entire page from which the above excerpt was extracted and the pages that succeed it.


text:
Are Western Buddhists generally older?
I was listening to the introductory podcast from the Buddhist Geeks series. The guys presenting are of the younger demographic i.e. in their twenties. They felt that this was unusual and most Western Buddhist practioners were older - baby boomer generation.
Does anyone have any surveys or statistics that analyse self identified Buddhists in the West by age? Do they tend to be older? Or is the age range pretty much similar to the population at large?

I'm not hugely satisfied with the term Western Buddhist but I can't think of a better short term. I may ask on meta.

I am 32 and I live in Florida. Florida is full of older people and they outnumber us 20s and 30s year olds. As for Buddhism, the ratio stays pretty consistent to the overall demographic. In my sangha of over one hundred, and I maybe one of three people under 40 years old. Our local university often sends students to experience the sangha for extra credit, but they rarely stay past the assignment.
However I have started a wake up sangha for people in their 20s and 30s (www.wkup.org) here in Fort Myers, and the wake up sanghas do seem to be growing.

I does seem that Buddhism is more popular among baby boomers in the US, see e.g. http://approachingaro.org/is-buddhism-just-for-baby-boomers
However, as it refers to baby boomers, it looks like it's a US-specific phenomenon, I don't think it applies to Europe or other Western countries.


text:
To debate or not to debate? and When to debate? and How to debate?
When we have several people with different understanding of Buddhism, how should we decide who is right? Debate is very tempting in Buddhism, but on the other hand, we must respect other people's views and not create conflicts in the Sangha, so what should we do?
Sometimes Buddhists cannot agree with each other, especially if these Buddhists come from different schools or traditions. An idea that is considered correct in one linage may be considered wrong in another.
Did the Buddha teach how to handle these situations? How were these disagreements handled in the past?
(See also: famous debates in canonical Buddhist texts)
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS by @Yeshe Tenley:
Under what conditions is it proper? Under what conditions is it improper? Is it a bad thing? Can it be a good thing? What is the proper motivation to do so? What are improper motivations? What is skillful? What is unskillful?
Assuming it is desirable to show respect while debating, how should this respect be manifested? What are examples of disrespectful debate and how can the line be drawn? What's the difference between debate and proselytizing?
... and references to dharma teachings, historical events, or opinions/literature of noted teachers also welcome and encouraged!

In the suttas, there are many helpful instructions for conduct discussions and exposing the Dhamma. Here are some excerpts from Aranavibhanga Sutta (MN 139, Nanamoli translation):

So, bhikkhus, how does there come to be over-rating and under-rating and failure to speak only Dhamma?
When a man says “All those engaged in such pursuit of enjoyment, which pleasure is linked to sensual desires, low, vulgar, coarse, ignoble and connected with harm, beset by pain, by vexation, by despair and by fever, and they have entered upon the wrong way,” he thus under-rates some.
When a man says, “All those not engaged in such pursuit of enjoyment which pleasure is linked to sensual desires, low, vulgar, coarse, ignoble and connected with harm, are without pain, without vexation without despair, and without fever, and they have entered upon the right way,” he thus over-rates some.
[...]
This is how there comes to be overrating and underrating and failure to speak only Dhamma.
And bhikkhus, how does there come to be neither overrating nor underrating but speaking only Dhamma?
When a man does not say, “All those engaged in such pursuit of self-mortification, painful, ignoble, and connected with harm, are beset by pain, by vexation, by despair and by fever, and they have entered upon the wrong way,” and says instead “It is the “being engaged” that is a state beset by pain, by vexation, by despair and by fever, and it is the wrong way,” then he speaks only Dhamma.

and:

He should not utter covert speech, and he should not utter overt, harsh speech.” So it was said. And with reference to what was this said?
Here, bhikkhus, when a man knows covert speech to be untrue, incorrect and harmful, he should on no account utter it. When he knows covert speech to be true, correct and harmful, he should try not to utter it. But when he knows covert speech to be true, correct and beneficial, he may utter it, knowing the time to do so.
Here, bhikkhus, when a man knows overt, sharp speech to be untrue, incorrect and harmful, he should on no account utter it. When he knows overt, sharp speech to be true, correct and harmful, he should try not to utter it. But when be knows overt, sharp speech to be true, correct and beneficial, he may utter it, knowing the time to do so.

Also, in Abhayarājakumāra (MN 58, Nanamoli/Bodhi), the Buddha exposes his own criteria for uttering speeches:

So too, prince, such speech as the Tathagata knows to be untrue, incorrect and unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does no utter.
Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is also unwelcome and disagreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter.
Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true, correct and beneficial, but which is unwelcome and disagreeable to others: the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech.
Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true and correct but unbeneficial, and which is welcome and agreeable to others: such speech the Tathagata does not utter.
Such speech as the Tathagata knows to be true, correct, and beneficial and which is welcome and agreeable to others: the Tathagata knows the time to use such speech. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has compassion for beings.

Finally, in Kosambya (MN 48) the Buddha exposes principles of cordiality which provides a broader foundation for the specific orientations above.

from Kathāvatthu Sutta:

Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, wanders from one thing to another, pulls the discussion off the topic, shows anger & aversion and sulks, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t wander from one thing to another, doesn’t pull the discussion off the topic, doesn’t show anger or aversion or sulk, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.
Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. If a person, when asked a question, puts down (the questioner), crushes him, ridicules him, grasps at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person unfit to talk with. But if a person, when asked a question, doesn’t put down (the questioner), doesn’t crush him, doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t grasp at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.
...
For that’s the purpose of discussion, that’s the purpose of counsel, that’s the purpose of drawing near, that’s the purpose of lending ear: i.e., the liberation of the mind through lack of clinging/sustenance.
Those who discuss
  when angered, dogmatic, arrogant,
  following what’s not the noble ones’ way,
  seeking to expose each other’s faults,
  delight in each other’s
          misspoken word,
  slip, stumble, defeat.
  Noble ones
  don’t speak in that way.
If wise people, knowing the right time,
  want to speak,
  then, words connected with justice,
  following the ways of the noble ones:
  That’s what the enlightened ones speak,
  without anger or arrogance,
  with a mind not boiling over,
  without vehemence, without spite.
  Without envy
  they speak from right knowledge.
  They would delight in what’s well-said
  and not disparage what’s not.
  They don’t study to find fault,
  don’t grasp at little mistakes.
  don’t put down, don’t crush,
  don’t speak random words.

From AN 5.165:

All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations.
  Which five?
One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question with this thought,1 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly

Sn 4.8 Pasura Sutta:

"Only here is there purity"
    — that's what they say —
  "No other doctrines are pure"
    — so they say.
  Insisting that what they depend on is good,
  they are deeply entrenched in their personal truths.
Seeking controversy, they plunge into an assembly,
  regarding one another as fools.
  Relying on others' authority,
  they speak in debate.
  Desiring praise, they claim to be skilled.
Engaged in disputes in the midst of the assembly,
    — anxious, desiring praise —
  the one defeated is
    chagrined.
  Shaken with criticism, he seeks for an opening.
He whose doctrine is [judged as] demolished,
    defeated, by those judging the issue:
  He laments, he grieves — the inferior exponent.
    "He beat me," he mourns.
These disputes have arisen among contemplatives.
    In them are         elation,
                dejection.
  Seeing this, one should abstain from disputes,
    for they have no other goal
    than the gaining of praise.
He who is praised there
    for expounding his doctrine
    in the midst of the assembly,
  laughs on that account & grows haughty,
    attaining his heart's desire.
That haughtiness will be his grounds for vexation,
    for he'll speak in pride & conceit.
  Seeing this, one should abstain from debates.
  No purity is attained by them, say the skilled.
Like a strong man nourished on royal food,
  you go about, roaring, searching out an opponent.
  Wherever the battle is,
    go there, strong man.
  As before, there's none here.
Those who dispute, taking hold of a view,
  saying, "This, and this only, is true,"
    those you can talk to.
  Here there is nothing —
    no confrontation
    at the birth of disputes.
Among those who live above confrontation
    not pitting view against view,
    whom would you gain as opponent, Pasura,
  among those here
  who are grasping no more?
So here you come,
    conjecturing,
  your mind conjuring
    viewpoints.
  You're paired off with a pure one
    and so cannot proceed.

Most people approach debate as if it was a sword fight. They debate to win, as if losing meant death. They do not make any effort to understand the other person's perspective!
They keep on fighting until they see an opening in the opponent's defense. As soon as they see a little inaccuracy or a logical error, they happily grasp on that -- even if it does not change the main idea the other person is trying to convey.
When the other person gets confused for a moment and says something obviously wrong, they happily make fun of him and keep pushing until the opponent is completely lost.
This kind of people firmly hold their ground, their confidence coming from their limited perspective and narrow view. Having won another debate with aggression and cunning, they are proud of themselves.
But if they see they cannot win, they get very envious of the winner, they get nervous, start changing topics, lie, resort to personal attacks, get angry, and finally go down to rudeness and yelling.
Instead, the noble students do not debate, they have conversations. They discuss things. When they thus sincerely talk they try to see each other's perspective. They understand that each (truthful) perspective is valid from its own side. So they try to see the value of the other perspective, and appreciate the factors and conclusions of the other side. Then, by combining the two perspectives, they come out with a more complete, more thorough understanding of the original problem. Each side lets go of its attachments and delusions as it accepts the other side's point of view, and integrates them together.
Also, see MN18 for an in-depth analysis of the psychology of reification underlying debates and arguments.

I don't think we should be afraid of debating with people who have different views to our own. The Buddha himself was very happy to do just that. In the Assalayana Sutta the Buddha has a full and frank exchange of opinions with a young Brahmin. Just to give a flavour of the discourse

What do you think, Assalayana? Is it only a noble warrior who — taking
  life, stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, telling lies, speaking
  divisively, speaking harshly, engaging in idle chatter, greedy,
  bearing thoughts of ill will, and holding wrong views — on the
  break-up of the body, after death, reappears in the plane of
  deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell, and not a
  brahman? Is it only a merchant...? Is it only a worker [...]

And again in the Upali sutta the Buddha debates with a Jain about points of doctrine. Again another flavour of the robust debate

Then Dighatapasssi said to the Blessed One: ‘Friend Gotama, how many
  punishments do you declare for doing demerit and its perpetration?’
  ‘Friend, Tapassi, it is not the practise of the Thus Gone One to say
  punishment, it is the practise to say,action.’‘Friend Gotama, how many
  actions do you declare for doing demerit and its perpetration?’.
  ‘Tapassi, I declare three actions for doing demerit and its
  perpetration. They are bodily, verbal and mental actions.

So I would say that debate is squarely in the Buddhist tradition, certainly as understood by the Theravadans. However as other posters have said this needs to be done with the context of a metta-ful response.

My answer is not bas3d on scriptural references but on experiences I had both in scientific community as well as religious groups.

The very first point is to make sure you are not doing it for Ego gratification. The purpose of 'debate' per se is to win over other. However this should not be the case. You should try in utmost polite language to get your poibt across. If the other party still hold on to their opinion you should end it up as just that-- 'their opinion'.
Make sure the dialogue exchanged contributes to exchange of knowledge and you both together end up with broadened line of thinking. Dont use Ad Hominem arguments.
If the debate gets centered around things which cannot be proved or confirmed no matter what...for e.g. you enter into debate 'wheater there really is a heavenly or hellish realm as told in scriptures or its just a metaphor'. Now no amount of intellectual and logical thought exchange is going to settle that. In such cases dont go into debates. Its a waste of time and mental energy and moreover it leads the sangha nowhere.

Debate in the worldly sense has no much purpose in buddhism. What is there to win in a debate in Buddhism? If I debate you and win you over, what does it mean to me?
I would debate only if there is something for me to learn out of it. That would be debating to loose. Can you call this debating?
Another thing would be digging deep on a teaching with another person using debating as a tool. This is two people trying to understand something deeper But that's not really debating ether.
To my view only situation it may work debating in the worldly way is if you know the other person is misguided or being misguided and you know for sure that you can help them see the truth without confusing them any further. This is primarily what Buddha debated for.

I think we should debate following the Lord Buddha's example in MN 35:

Suppose, Aggivessana, there was a person in need of heartwood.
Wandering in search of heartwood, they’d take a sharp axe and enter a
forest. There they’d see a big banana tree, straight and young and
flawlessly grown. They’d cut it down at the base, cut off the top, and
unroll the coiled sheaths. But they wouldn’t even find sapwood, much
less heartwood. In the same way, when engaged, pressed, and examined
by me on your own doctrine, you turn out to be void, hollow, and
mistaken. But it was you who stated before the assembly of Vesālī: ‘If
I was to take them on in debate, I don’t see any ascetic or
brahmin—leader of an order or a community, or the teacher of a
community, even one who claims to be a perfected one, a fully awakened
Buddha—who would not shake and rock and tremble, sweating from the
armpits. Even if I took on an insentient post in debate, it would
shake and rock and tremble. How much more than a human being!’ But
sweat is pouring from your forehead; it’s soaked through your robe and
drips on the ground. While I now have no sweat on my body.” So the
Buddha revealed his golden body to the assembly. When this was said,
Saccaka sat silent, embarrassed, shoulders drooping, downcast,
depressed, with nothing to say.
Knowing this, the Licchavi Dummukha said to the Buddha: “A simile
strikes me, Blessed One.”
"Then speak as you feel inspired,” said the
Buddha.
“Sir, suppose there was a lotus pond not far from a town or
village, and a crab lived there. Then several boys or girls would
leave the town or village and go to the pond, where they’d pull out
the crab and put it on dry land. Whenever that crab extended a claw,
those boys or girls would snap, crack, and break it off with a stick
or a stone. And when that crab’s claws had all been snapped, cracked,
and broken off it wouldn’t be able to return down into that lotus
pond. In the same way, sir, the Buddha has snapped, cracked, and
broken off all Saccaka’s tricks, dodges, and evasions. Now he can’t
get near the Buddha again looking for a debate.”

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How is the Cognitive Process described according to Buddhism? How does it relate to modern Cognitive Psychology?
How is the mind matter process described and explained according to the Buddhist teachings? How does it related to Cognitive Psychology? How is the next moment created from the current? What is the mechanism behind it? How does this process sustain its self? What are the variation with regard to this if any?

You have many questions, I'd suggest splitting them into two.

Read the buddha and his teachings by narada

Cognitive Process in Buddhism: Paticca-samuppada
Modern Science: Mental Modules come close to what the Buddha described. It was one of the topics in Robert Wright's course mentioned above.

As for your second question, the relation between the Buddhist teaching and cognitive psychology is a topic researched by Robert Wright and presented in this course: https://www.coursera.org/course/psychbuddhism

Great course!!!

You chose the correct answer as one that refers to this answer. Why wouldn't this answer qualify for being the correct answer? Peculiar!


text:
Understanding the mix of karma
I'm still struggling with the concept of good karma, bad karma, and both good and bad karma.  If all actions are one of the above- and, as I understand it, mostly the latter, it seems as if we will always be generating bad karma.  Is following the 8-fold path going to insure only creating good karma or will we still be generating both as we struggle on the path?

I recommend you watch the video on youtube about Kamma by Ven Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, excelent source.

I think its helpful to bear in mind the different between Karma and it's fruit (or vipāka). An action may have a karmic effect if it has ethical or volitional weight but it's fruit doesn't occur immediately. It might occur years later, in another life or it might fizzle out before it ever occurs.
The relevance of this is that a person might generate a whole lot of 'bad' Karma but this karma might only bear fruit well after the person has undergone a tremendous amount of spiritual progress. So 'bad' Karma storing up to bear fruit won't stop them on the spiritual path. They might however have to deal with the effects of that bad action when they are an entirely different sort of person.
A good example of this (from the Pali Canon so this has a Therevadan focus now) is the story of Angulimala. He was a notorious bandit and murderer who encountered the Buddha and then became the Buddhas disciple. His 'bad' Karma didn't stop him ultimately becoming a ahrant. However he still had to deal with the fruits of his bad conduct well after his conversion. At one point his was seriously attacked by resentful villagers while on his alms round. Even though he was no longer a murderer he still had to deal with the consequences of his 'bad' Karma.
So just to summarise, your previous bad Karma won't necessarily stop your progress on the spiritual path. But it's likely that you will at some point have to deal with the fruits no matter how spiritually adept you may become.

The process of creating Karma will only stop when you are liberated.
In the mean time what you can do is:

Do good Karma
Reduce bad Karma as much as possible

With regard to reducing bad Karma is the be mindful and equanimous with respect to all sensations you experience. If you look at Dependent Origination, there is a link between feeling (sensation) and craving. So once you get a pleasant, unpleasant or neutral feeling you have to be equanimous with the knowledge that it is impermanent. Then momentarily craving does not arise. When you manage to do this continuously you are not generating any new Karma. Then all you old stock of Karma will start manifesting themselves as pleasant, neutral and unpleasant sensations and pass away once they have given result as a sensation. Once you maintain equanimity and all your Karma that can lead to rebirth in lower realms has passed away you will experience a dip into sainthood.
When all the seeds of bad karma giving rebirth in lower realms have are passed away you are not creating any new Karma taking you to lower realms, you mind is ready to take the 1st dip into the 1st stage of Sainthood as interpreted by Ledi Sayadaw linage.


text:
How many Buddhas are there?

If you believe in Shakyamuni Buddha the answer is No, because Buddha
  was clear about the previous Buddha Kassapa and the next Buddha
  Maytreia

If that's the case, then buddha must be very few in numbers. Why so many want to be a buddha and reach nirvana if only very few would win the lotery?
I've heard that there are many buddhas. Sidartha is buddha sankyamuni. That there are many buddha that are simply less famous.
If that's the case, is there any living buddha in the world now?

Nirvana can be reached without being a Buddha. Practising the teaching of the Buddha leads to Nirvana.

what is so cool about nirvana anyway?

So many reach Nirvana without reaching buddha hood. Is that a good idea?

There had been infinite number of Buddhas before and there will be many more.
In this Kalpa, We already have four Buddhas and there will be one more Buddha. That's why this Kalpa is called Bhadda-kappa.
Extracted it from here.

In the current kalpa, it is said we are fortunate to have experienced
  five Buddhas. Kusanda Buddha, Konagamana Buddha, Kasyapsa Buddha and
  Buddha Shakyamuni. The Buddha of the future is called Maitreya Buddha.

Read more about Bhadda-kappa from here. At Page 12

According to the Mahayana text the Lotus Sutra, the number of Buddhas are innumerable. In fact a significant proportion of the text is spent emphasising just how many Buddhas (and Bodhisattvas) there are and just how many world systems they cover.
This is just from the introduction

and the nun Yasodharâ, the mother of Râhula, along with her train;
  (further) with eighty thousand Bodhisattvas, all unable to slide back,
  endowed with the spells of supreme, perfect enlightenment, firmly
  standing in wisdom; who moved onward the never deviating wheel of the
  law; who had propitiated many hundred thousands of Buddhas; who under
  many hundred thousands of Buddhas had planted the roots of goodness,
  had been intimate with many hundred thousands of Buddhas, were in body
  and mind fully penetrated with the feeling of charity

The text goes on for another twenty eight chapters drilling that message home.
NOTE - even though it is highly repetitive I love this text. If you want a flavour of the cosmic vastness of Mahayana Buddhism then I recommend. It's a mind blowing read.

The "White Lotus Sutra" (悲華經) is a fake Sutra, it is suspected made up by certain person with ill-intend, it's not sure how it slipped into the collection of Sutras. Don't confuse it with the Lotus Sutra 《妙法蓮花經》. I read that White Lotus once, doesn't taste right.

@Bhumishu米殊 I actually meant the Lotus Sutra. I haven't read the White Lotus Sutra - a typo. Thanks for pointing it out

There are many people that are technically buddhas in this world right now (having removed the four veils, as described in "the luminous mind: the way of the buddha" by Kalu Rinpoche), however, according to the buddhist traditions, there are "founder" buddhas only from time to time. Each "founder" buddha guides many beings to buddhahood, that in turn will guide many beings to buddhahood. By many I don't mean millions, but I guess, without proof, that there are several thousand buddhas right now in this world.

Hi Gezim and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

In one Buddha Sasana period there can be only one Buddha. Buddhas are indeed few if you look at the gap between Buddhas. But time into the past is infinite hence there are infinite number of Buddhas. Our Buddha got definite prophecy from 28 Buddhas Dipankara Buddha.

It will vary according from school to school, in Theravada tradition there are 6 Buddhas, 4 before Shakyamuni Buddha, Himself and Maytrea (Next Buddha). This is what Buddha saw when he contemplate this world and past lifes while meditating.
In Tibetan Buddhism they talk about 35 Buddhas, Chinese Buddhism will probably give you a different number and so on, but answering strictly from a Suttas' perspective I believe 6 is the answer, at least that is what Shakyamuni was able to see we cannot know if Maytrea will look into the future and see more Buddhas.
Bear in mind I am talking about full enlighted Buddhas that teach the Dhamma, not private Buddhas, most of Buddhas are private Buddhas and they can go on unnoticed by regular people.

Can you give a source where you found 35 Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism? Never heard of such a statement.

Hi, it is very common im Tibetan Buddhism to prostate to the 35 Buddhas, there are also pictures of them, more info here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_Buddhas

Ok, but they are not ALL the Buddhas in Tibetan Buddhism. Those 35 Buddhas are used in some prostration practices, but in different practices other Buddhas appear as well.

That is what I said: they talk about 35 Buddhas, just to illustrate that Tibetan Buddhism believe in many Buddhas, while Theravadins talk about 6 Buddhas usually (maybe more to come, but 6 is the number seen by Shakyamuni)

My point is that for some readers it might seem that whole Tibetan Buddhism talk about 35 Buddhas although in fact it is only used in a very specific practice (but you didn't mention that). I practise Tibetan Buddhism and such a statement looks inappropriate and misleading to me.

ok feel free do edit the answer and make it more complete. I do not practice Tibetan Buddhism, so I'm not really a specialist in that, I was only mentioning as one of the main schools...

Buddhas are born once in a Kalpa. Altogether there are 28 buddhas.
Kalpa is a time period which is described as when deva(similar angel) flys among the skys once a hundred years when her clothe brush against himalayas a little of himalayas will fall. like that one day it will come to the ground level. That period is know as kalpa.
There is no famous in famous in Buddhism. Every buddha's story is given as example in buddha's preaching. Maybe you have heard of few. Because Every bodhisatwa(one who travel's in the path of buddha) have to get niyatha wiwarana(prediction from buddha).
In that case on one got prediction from buddha to be Maytree in next kalpa.
No he is not living in this world now. Maybe there are one bodhisatwa.
Once he got predictions he will live in thawsitha diwya(like a heaven) waiting for his time.

Although there are many pase buddha.(Who discover nirwana by them selves and not telling to anyone)


text:
Can we reach enlightentment with recreational drugs?
Some drugs, like ecstasy, help build empathy and help our mind see things from a different point of view.
What about if meditation is the obsolete ways to see enlightment and perhaps drugs are the easier ways?

I think this clearly goes against the Buddha's teachings, they had intoxicants at that time so this it not new as you suggest, this is clearly not the way to enlightment, maybe it is a way to other things, but not desired by Buddhists

According to this Salon article from 2002, ecstasy was studied as possible therapeutic drug. However, Wikipedia says, says "MDMA currently has no accepted medical uses" and "A review of the safety and efficacy of MDMA as a treatment for various disorders, particularly PTSD, indicated that MDMA has therapeutic efficacy in some patients; however, it emphasized that MDMA is not a safe medical treatment due to lasting neurotoxic and cognition impairing effects in humans".

I don't think the question is about morality or Buddha. Some drugs are used by some religions in controlled settings, Native American practices, etc. No doubt there can be a temporary elevation in state of consciousness which in time can lead to higher permanent stages and increased enlightenment. But I think it's generally regarded as a shortcut, there are risks, and recommended use is restricted and limited, and is certainly no substitute for meditation, though I think it can supplement if done responsibly. In my experience those who dismiss it entirely have no experience with it.

Plus just because some drugs are used most commonly for recreation doesn't mean there are no therapeutic, medicinal or spiritual applications. Take cannabis for example. Besides being a powerfully effective medicine for certain diseases and conditions, it was also used to anoint according to religious texts. Just because a substance tends to be abused on street doesn't make it purely a recreational drug.

Conventional reality has an almost unshakeable hold on people leading almost everyone to accept the common game plan of life unquestioningly.
For some LSD or other drugs have led them to question their own unchallenged assumptions.
Ram Dass nee Richard Alpert, Timothy Leary, Alan Watts and others of the 60s went pretty radically into such experimentation, and some teachers like Osho Rajneesh were known to be sympathetic to these attractions among their followers.
Ultimately these only get one to give up the traditional hoarding patterns of life - to the point that one decides to seriously knock on the door of enlightenment.
Whether the invisible gatekeepers will open the door depends on a lot of factors (some unknowns for sure, but generally morality & ethics, concentration and wisdom), but LSD isn't one of them.
In fact, with prolonged use some brain damage can occur which can seriously hamper practice.

From the perspective of the 5th precept then the answer would be no. The fifth precepts states

I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that
  causes heedlessness

But I've often seen this rendered as

I undertake the training rule to abstain from intoxicating substances

While the fact that it breaks the precept might leave you unconvinced these precepts are viewed as training principles i.e. it is the best way to achieve liberation or enlightenment. So in many traditions intoxicants are not seen as an aide to liberation.
Also the point of the Buddhist path is to see things as they really are. It's difficult to see how one might see things as they really are when one's mental processes are been influenced by recreational drugs of any sort. Reality is difficult enough as it is without dulling, altering or confusing the six senses (I'm including mind here as one of the senses).
The founder of the the sangha that I practice with, Sangharakshita, has taken psychedelic drugs on a couple of occasions to see if there are commonalities with the Buddhist path. From his perspective there wasn't though I believe he found the experience interesting. I have to say this was a controversial action by an often controversial figure. I have never heard any recommendations from him to try this approach so this would be another reason that I would personally discount recreational drug use as an insight practice.
As an aside, the beatnik guru Alan Watts (another contraversial figure) had a more sympathetic attitude to this approach. The most famous quote (which I will include with a little context) is

Psychedelic experience is only a glimpse of genuine mystical insight,
  but a glimpse which can be matured and deepened by the various ways of
  meditation in which drugs are no longer necessary or useful. If you
  get the message, hang up the phone. For psychedelic drugs are simply
  instruments, like microscopes, telescopes, and telephones. The
  biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope,
  he goes away and works on what he has seen

So even Alan Watts wasn't a whole-hearted proponent of this approach. He saw them as a tool at best and in no way replacing meditation or other traditional insight methods. Just to be clear though - Alan Watts wasn't a traditional Buddhist if he was one at all so this comment though interesting has probably limited relevance to this site. Please see it as a footnote to this answer.

Complementing, there is a popular roshi (http://sweepingzen.com/de-souza-claudia-coen/) from soto zen school in brazil who, if I recall correctly, said she had her first insight experience with LSD. She abandoned drugs when learned buddhism meditation and, afterwards, spent 8 years in a japanese monastery. From her talks, I believe she shares Alan Watts views on this matter: acknowledge the glimpse one can obtain, but does not really suggest using them; its easy to have it be just a waste or worse, a harmful trap of entertainment/sense-indulging.

Well I feel that it is extremely naive to think that taking recreational drugs can help the mind build empathy. It is almost the same as saying that watching pornography helps build empathy towards women. I know what I say may sound controversial, but I will explain this from a medical perspective. In reality, consuming recreational drugs such as marijuana, cocaine etc. has almost the same medical effects as engaging in sexual activities, over consuming food, watching pornography, consuming large quantities of alcohol or engaging in any other activity deemed by Buddhism as "Activities that disrupts focus, attention and concentration; while garnering unwholesome feelings such as distraction, lack of focus, attention deficit, impatience and anger, while over-accumulating uncontrolled negative energy within our mind and body (sexual/filled with greed)".
This is explained by taking into account the medical effects of the afforementioned "addictive activities". All these activites succeed in doing almost the same thing within the brain matter: that is, elevating/creating imbalance in the chemicals in our bain. When we see a meal/person/situation that generates greed in our mind, it is actually something that causes release of DOPAMINE in our brains. Different activites have different levels of Dopamine releasing effects; with MORPHINE administration (as a painkiller in certain patients) , viewing pornography, consuming drugs that creates addiction having the highest degrees of dopamine release. Dopamine imbalance is caused by repeatedly engaging in such aforementioned activites, that leads the person into an Addictive Cycle, that is both viscous and extremelt difficult to overcome. This is quote on quote "viciously addictive" purely by the fact that all these activites done in immoderation causes what is reffered to as "tolerance" in our brains. That is, we need to consume/engage in ever increasing amounts of afforementioned activites, to create the same level of dopamine release in our brains, that ultimately results in our brain to experience the same level of satiety as before.
We are in reality, hijacking our brain's natural rewarding pathway. The pathway that normally cause us to "feel rewarded by engaging in a wholesome activity" is replaced by the "perception of feeling rewarded" purely by consuming a substance- that does not require hardwork, commitment and focus. Hence as an animal filled with greed, the mind would crave the easy route.
Hence in conclusion, such activities are unwholesome and creates lack of focus, which is the ultimate enemy for any meditator. Our level of focus is primarily our weapon in progressing our practice of meditation further than it was before. While engaging in such activities, the brain only percieves the feelings of empathy, happiness, fulfilment; and they aren't necessarily "true feelings". I say this because, for a feeling to be "true", it should not be codependant on consuming an unnatural substance. For example, empathy that arises from consuming drugs is not true empathy that we can garner say by practicing Metta meditation or by helping another human being, since the latter actually creates the feelings of happiness and compassion without co-dependance on consuming any other substance. Hence, it is extremely dangerous to be the victim of such dangerous habits that eventually breaks down our mind's eye of what might necessarily be "right" and "wrong".

Would you please add a reference to the source of that graph?

The full image is available here. http://www.nerdgraph.com/porn-effects-on-dopamine-levels/

A better explanation on drug abuse and drug addiction effects is available here. http://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/the_addicted_brain

Comparing numerous powerful substances to viewing porn makes no logical sense to me, sorry.

My answer is based on the teachings I got from Vajrayana teachers.
It is useful to use a metaphor of a mirror or a screen. Our mind is a perfect mirror and all our experiences are the reflections on that mirror. In our everyday life we habitually focus on and identify with those reflections - when something nice is appearing, we are happy, when something disturbing pops up - we are sad. With the help of Buddhism we want to understand the mirror itself - our perfect mind that is aware and able to experience everything. Enlightened Buddha is not disturbed by negativity around him because he has a full understanding of the nature of things around him - everything is empty in its essence and has nothing to do with good or bad. He is also not disturbed when something beautiful disappears - impermanence is all-pervading, whatever has a beginning will eventually has an end as well. The only lasting thing is the perfect, indestructible mind.
So now let's look at drugs. They indeed can change our perception and allow us to experience extraordinary states of mind. But do they help us to recognize the mirror? Not really, they only change the reflections on the mirror. We don't like our grey everyday life so we take some drugs to add some colours to the movies reflected on our mirror. As soon as the drugs stop working, the colours bleach out and we suffer because we get attached to those more vibrant images and handling grey everyday reality becomes harder. So in a way drugs can make us attached to fascinating experiences which, sadly, are not permanent.
Think of a movie theatre - there is a modern screen and advanced sound system. Spectators can enjoy watching various movies and if they pay extra (drugs taking), the advanced technology is turned on so they can have breathtaking experiences while watching the latest 3D HD sci-fi movies. But the screen is also capable of screening dramas, thrillers and really violent and disturbing images. Spectators have their likes and dislikes so they will be demanding only nice and fascinating movies, but sometimes they would buy a ticket and will be disappointed that the movie they've just seen wasn't as great as they expected. Buddhism invites you to become the owner of the cinema - to learn how the screen works and understand that the pictures are just reflections on your awesome screen and the technologies you have in your theatre are fantastic. You won't be bothered by the type of the movie or the ugly/annoying actors. Rather, you would say - wow, this theatre is capable of this, how fascinating!

What is permanent? Doesn't meditation change those mirrored reflections? Doesn't that state wear off as we slip back into the daily grind? Yes it carries over, but so do some experiences with drugs. Several double-blind placebo-controlled studies show that Psilocybin ("Magic Mushrooms") can enhance long-term psychological wellbeing.

The Maha-satipatthana Sutta says that this is the on and only way for enlightenment hence recreational drugs will not help in this aspect.
Also another Sutta which give guarantee of Enlightenment, if practiced in the right way, is the Anapanasati Sutta.
The above meditation are generally called Vipassana. When practiced you will get the Knowledge of What is the Path and Not the Path with other Insight Knowledge. Then it is when you will know for sure. But until then you could take the description in the scriptures at face value, that chemicals may really give you enlightenment, and path to enlightenment is the Noble 8 Fold Path and the practice Vipassana until you find out for yourself by verification through your pratice.

Being respectfull on everyones answers and to the question, i think that this question in particular doesn't need any references from buddhism knowledge. The answer would be no simply, because enlightment is not an experience you could replicate or that, the brain it self experiences, as, lets say lucid dreams or abnormal perceptions. Enlightment is the fully transformation of the mind and the brain you could say too. Enlightment is a path, it means a life of dedication. Psychoactive drugs, are just a pleasure ride in comparison. Good question nevertheless.

I guess the question (e.g. about ecstasy and empathy) was whether drugs could cause a condition in which enlightenment may arise.

Disclaimer: This is not a Buddhist perspective this is just what I think about the matter.
I've had my fair share of experiences with various mind-altering substances. When I first had those experiences they challenged many assumptions that I had about pretty much everything. Those experiences allowed me to see how fallible this mind is. They also allowed me to see just how dependent my experience was on the neurochemical activity of the body. That was a long time ago. I was not practicing Buddhism back then. These days I derive no benefit whatsoever from drugs and I see them as a hindrance to the path. It's just another thing that belongs to the world and is bound up with suffering. If you're really curious about something and decide to take something please do as much research as possible and take all the necessary precautions before you do. But no drug is going to make you enlightened, I guarantee you that much.

Can we learn to ride a snowboard with recreational drugs?
Enlightenment is not something you "see". It is more like a skill. Like riding a snowboard, you can't quite put it into words, but you once you have acquired it, you know how it works. Like with snowboarding, there is a bunch of little elements that go into it: you know how gravity works with different types of terrain, you have a good feel for different snow conditions, you have intimate familiarity with the edges of your board etc. A drug may make you temporarily more sensitive to some of these, and less sensitive to others, but it won't make you a good rider, only practice will.
Enlightenment is a skill in the area of experiencing reality, shaping reality, and interacting with reality. A drug may show you some interesting sides of reality. But it won't make you a good shaper and surfer of reality. Only practice will. And the practice involves learning to control your perception, starting with basic reactions, like getting frustrated or obsessed, all the way to your perception of your own identity. By working with your emotions and thoughts, both in day to day life and in meditation, you become intimately familiar with "the edge of your board". You get my metaphor.
Drugs may be useful for someone stuck in a bad loop  - to help them realize that reality is an interpretation we make. But that's about all they can do. If you are not too stupid you can achieve the same result by crossing your eyes. The rest of the path requires effort, lots and lots of it.

"Enlightenment is a skill." Excellent way of describing it.


text:
Was Alan Watts a Buddhist?
I've just answered a question referencing Alan Watts. I'm aware he isn't a straightforward figure though I've always found him provocative and interesting. At one point I though he was a Buddhist having written books such as The Way of Zen. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case now.
So the question is what kind of relationship did Alan Watts have to Buddhism. Was he a practitioner at any point in his life or did he just use the ideas in a kind of heady new age type of mix that he was pushing at the time?

According to Wiki he was at least in death.

Alan Watts appears to be a renaissance man that is not feeling constrained by any religion or philosophy. You can read general history and maybe get clues to who he was at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts
here is an excerpt

"Alan Wilson Watts (6 January 1915 – 16 November 1973) was a
  British-born philosopher, writer, and speaker, best known as an
  interpreter and populariser of Eastern philosophy for a Western
  audience. Born in Chislehurst, he moved to the United States in 1938
  and began Zen training in New York. Pursuing a career, he attended
  Seabury-Western Theological Seminary, where he received a master's
  degree in theology. Watts became an Episcopal priest then left the
  ministry in 1950 and moved to California, where he joined the faculty
  of the American Academy of Asian Studies.
Watts gained a large following in the San Francisco Bay Area while
  working as a volunteer programmer at KPFA, a Pacifica Radio station in
  Berkeley. Watts wrote more than 25 books and articles on subjects
  important to Eastern and Western religion, introducing the
  then-burgeoning youth culture to The Way of Zen (1957), one of the
  first bestselling books on Buddhism. In Psychotherapy East and West
  (1961), Watts proposed that Buddhism could be thought of as a form of
  psychotherapy and not a religion. He also explored human
  consciousness, in the essay "The New Alchemy" (1958), and in the book
  The Joyous Cosmology (1962)."

Watts proposed that Buddhism could be thought of as a form of psychotherapy and not a religion.
So if this is what he thought, he may have not taken an eastern view of making peace with the eternal within as Buddhism proposes. He may have seen Buddhism as a means to a joyous life.
To me, what I think about Buddhism is inconsequential compared to how I practice Buddhism. Not knowing him personally I would not know if his irreverence was a way past dualities that disguised a heartfelt practice.
It reminds me of the story of the zen master who laughed at 4AM in the morning every morning and awoke the whole sangha. Students would ask him why he was laughing but he would just laugh more. Even approaching his death bed he would not vocalize a reason.
After the master died his students searched through all his papers searching for the reason of his laughter, but no clues. I guess the zen master had the last laugh!

Watts defintitely did buy into 'peace with the eternal'. Afaik he endorsed Buddhist doctrine, nondualism and the Perennial philosophy. He seems to make this clear in his book 'This is It'.

He shares similarities in philosophy to a Zen/Tao outlook in my opinion, seems to know a bit about both.
i havent heard that he adheres to anything specifically.


text:
Who are the Buddhas Yet to Come and what Information do we have about them as per Theravada standpoint?
Who are the Buddha's who have got definite prophecy of Buddhahood? What is the description we have about them, their parents, family, disciples and sasana? What are the sources?

There are many schools and teachers in Buddhism. They all contribute to the growing dispersement of Buddhist teaching. The past is full of references to the Buddhas of the past like Shakyamuni Buddha, his closest students, Bodhidharma, Dogen, and all the Buddhist teachers that have come to the west in the last 75 years.
How can we know what tomorrow's flowers will look like and what scent they will carry when they are only seedlings popping out of rocky soil? Just don't know.


text:
What are the scientifically proven benefits of mindfulness meditation?
Has anyone got a good idea which benefits of mindfulness meditation have got decent scientific evidence supporting them. It would be great it someone could point to good publicly available research or authoritative sites and maybe summarise the research and perhaps the people/organisations doing it.
I'm personally convinced of the benefits due to my own personal experience but I'm interested what the scientific community is saying. I'm sure there is a lot of research out there but I find distilling it overwhelming.

I am a neuroscience researcher studying meditation and mindfulness, and also a longtime practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism.  Experience suggests to me that it's hard enough for any scientist to remain unbiased about her/his own work, and that can only be more challenging for a researcher studying something that he has already received enormous personal benefits from—like myself and meditation. So, I have chosen to cultivate an attitude of healthy skepticism about my own field.
In light of that, I'll echo Rabbit, whose answer states that the scientific field is young and it's too early to have formed any reliable scientific conclusions. I partially agree that the methodology of most of the studies is "flawed"; however, I think it's more fair to say that the methodology of early exploratory studies was necessarily limited, but now that widespread interest has developed higher quality studies are being designed. This is just an inevitable growth process of a field; high-quality human research studies are extremely expensive and that kind of funding is simply not available until after a certain amount of preliminary evidence has accumulated.
In order to understand the scientific literature on this topic, I think it's important to understand a few distinctions.
One is the distinction between Buddhist meditation and practice as a system designed to reduce suffering and cultivate compassion by softening the mental habit of grasping at a solid sense of self; and "mindfulness" as a broadly used term for a recently fashionable trend in psychological therapy which had its origins primarily in the aforementioned Buddhist tradition, but which has taken on a secular life of its own.  These two categories, secular mindfulness vs. Buddhist practice, are frequently poorly distinguished in the scientific literature, and in general usage of key terms like "mindfulness" and "meditation" is somewhat sloppy overall. Some publications reporting "benefits of mindfulness" are actually looking at comparisons of groups of, say, long-time Tibetan Buddhist practitioners vs. controls, which is a very different thing than, say, inexperienced novices randomly assigned to a MBSR group for eight weeks, which is in turn very different from an individual-differences study where randomly selected people's scores on a mindfulness psychological questionnaire are shown to correlate with some other values of interest.
Another important thing to understand is the distinction between specific and non-specific effects. This is a big issue in psychology in general; for example, Bruce Wampold has a large body of evidence showing that psychotherapy in general mainly works because of the "therapeutic alliance" between the therapist and patient, and the specific type of therapy is virtually irrelevant. Likewise, our lab has published research showing no differences between MBSR and another, non-mindfulness-based health and well-being intervention on a range of general measures (see MacCoon et. al. 2012 and 2014 at that link). This is NOT to say that the interventions in question are "ineffective"; to the contrary, they are quite effective.  What is missing is scientific evidence regarding how, specifically, one unique technique is effective, and how it might be uniquely different in its effects from the wide range of various things one might do to improve physical and mental health. This is kind of a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it's good news, because it means the science supports the idea that you don't have to worry too much about doing exactly the right thing. On the other hand, it's bad news, because in some cases it might be important to choose exactly the right thing, and we don't know how to do that yet.
Now I'm going to say a few things about what I think might be hinted at but not yet proven in the scientific literature, with regard to specific benefits related to Buddhist practice and/or the aspects of mindfulness that are most closely related thereto.
As I mentioned briefly above, the more or less uniquely Buddhist practice of suffering-reduction is based on reducing the habit of grasping at a sense of solid and enduring self that is threatened by change and uncertainty. There are a few areas where I think (but certainly can't prove yet) that the scientific literature is on the right track for this.
One starts with Jon Kabat-Zinn's own early seminal publications on MBSR. The first paper published on the topic states, "the SR&RP [earlier name for MBSR] functions as a 'net' to catch patients who tend to 'fall through the cracks' in the health care delivery system, neither improving in their medical system over time nor feeling satisfied with the results of the traditional medical management of their problem(s)... Many chronic pain patients ultimately receive the verdict that 'you're going to have to learn to live with this.' The SR&RP helps teach patients the how of living with chronic pain." The implication here is that the early clinical successes reported for MBSR were in populations that were receiving it as a last resort. They were highly motivated because all other promises of relief had failed, and they were highly primed by their last-resort status to accept the message of acceptance and non-striving that is part of mindfulness. In other words, the motivation was there to truly let go of something deep about themselves. I would say that this process is necessary for any truly specific effects of mindfulness; and the level of motivation necessary makes it very unlikely that this process will show up in studies with random assignment to groups, or non-last-resort populations. In summary, I think the literature hints that mindfulness has unique and specific benefits for populations who are truly at a last resort and have no choice but to accept acceptance.
The other regards autoimmune conditions. Among the early MBSR research was also a finding of benefit for psoriasis. Also, the work of Melissa Rosenkranz in our lab has been steadily closing in on a specific function of mindfulness for fine-tuning the immune system. Note that Dr. Rosenkranz's papers at that link do not yet fully make that case, but I am hopeful that her work is moving toward putting the pieces together to show that mindfulness, even relative to the active control intervention, has unique benefits in training the immune system to properly distinguish biological "self" from infection, which is the necessary condition for improving autoimmune conditions. This is particularly intriguing given the fundamental role of the psychological "self" in Buddhist practice and mindfulness.
So, in conclusion, I'd say that there is a lot of evidence of non-specific benefits of Mindfulness, Buddhist practice, etc. There is no conclusive evidence yet of any effects specific to any of the different meanings of the word "mindfulness". However, there is some evidence beginning to accumulate for some specific beneficial effects, particularly in areas regarding appropriately high levels of motivation, and conditions that are relevant to the uniquely self-related aspects of Buddhism/mindfulness.
Now, all that aside, my own personal experience of benefit from my Buddhist practice is a very different story from all that, but that's not really the topic of this question!

Great answer. I'm tempted to ask a similar question but specifically about the Tibetan Buddhism to see what would be your answer :) Have you seen this paper, for example? http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0102990

The USA's NIH has an NCCAM page for meditation with links to up-to-date research on the benefits of meditation:
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/meditation
Asking for scientific proof is a bit misguided, I think, and in the case of meditation it's difficult to obtain even conclusive evidence. Many of the studies are suggestive at best, but the topics studied include:

Smoking Cessation
Reducing Risk of Suicidal Thoughts
Treating Ulcerative Colitis
Effecting Genetic Changes (esp. prostate)
Treating Acute Respiratory Infections
Reducing Severity of IBS in Women
Effecting Structural Changes and Improving Information Processing in the Brain
Coping With Stress
Improving Cell-Level Processes Related to Disease
Cultivating Empathy

I would recommend to take a look at the website of Meditation and Mindfulness Research Group at Liverpool John Moores University. They not only present the results of various studies but also explain those in simpler, not-too-scientific terms. In their research blog they discuss neuroplasticity and meditation, neural mechanisms of attentional control in mindfulness meditation or Cognition and Emotion in Meditation, to name a few.
This article also seems to nicely sum up the effects of meditation with links to the peer-reviewed articles. The author groups the effects of meditation in the following categories:

It boosts your health
It boosts your happiness
It boosts your social life
It boosts your self-control
It changes your brain (for better)
It improves your productivity
It makes you wiser

On the other hand, there are also claims that there are serious drawbacks of mindfulness meditation. Mind focusing is seen as an opposite of mind wandering which tends to stimulate one's creativity. Thus, it is claimed that too focused mind can lead to decreased creativity. Another drawback is related to decreased ability to perform implicit learning:

implicit learning - the kind that underlies all sorts of acquired
  skills and habits but that occurs without conscious awareness. In the
  study, participants were shown a long sequence of items and repeatedly
  challenged to guess which one would come next. Although supposedly
  random, it contained a hidden pattern that made some items more likely
  to appear than others. The more mindful participants were worse at
  intuiting the correct answers (...)

Interestingly, here you can see the response of another scientist who researches mindfulness meditation who, in short, does not agree with the drawbacks mentioned above.
In general, the research on meditation started only recently and it is too early to state any definite answers. There are also signals that the methodology of most of the studies is flawed and much more funds and trials are needed to obtain more reliable results.

This paper provides  a synthesis of
the empirically supported advantages of mindfulness.
by Dr. Daphne M. Davis and Jeffrey A. Hayes
Pennsylvania State University
http://www.traumacenter.org/products/pdf_files/Benefits_of_Mindfulness.pdf

Welcome to Buddism SE! Great paper, but could you please summarize the main conclusions and add them to your answer. This way your answer will remain valuable, even if the link breaks.

There is Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) initiative where Mindfulness has been used for its therapeutic benefits in a scientific environment.


text:
Who are the past Buddhas mentioned in the Canonical Works?
What references do we have in canonical texts on historical Buddhas and Pacceka Buddhas? Ideally including information beyond the commonly referenced 28 Buddhas.

Why the downvote?

Yeah, I'm confused too. Seems like a perfectly cogent question, as evidenced at very least by catpnosis's equally cogent answer (not to say I agree or disagree with cat ... I have no idea about this matter). Upvoting (albeit only back to zero)

"Historical" is fact established by historical science. Even historical existence of Shakyamuni is debated. There is no other historical buddhas besides Shakyamuni. That is other buddhas are present to us only as mythological characters.


text:
I have some people coming over who practice Buddhism, what should I know?
My family is helping two people from Nepal to come to the United States to study, and their family will be visiting us temporarily.  I was told that their family practices Buddhism, but I find myself somewhat lacking in knowledge on the religion/philosophy/culture that surrounds Buddhism.  I don't wish to offend them or to put them into awkward situations, are there any significant things I should know?  I've been reading online and I seem to get the impression that Buddhists do not eat beef.  But do they eat meat at all?
I have a little statuette of the Buddha that a friend gave to me as a gift once when I was going through a phase with eastern philosophy,  due to an inside not quite joke that I share with this friend she had drawn a geometrical symbol on the belly of the statuette.  Would this be something they would find offensive?
To sum up my question:  What do I need to know about Buddhism to interact with Buddhists from Nepal in a way that is respectful of their beliefs?

Treat them like any other human beings - be kind. If you want to find out what they eat, just ask them.

I have been to Nepal on a retreat, it is a Hindu country, but there are many Buddhists.
The main Buddhism there is Mahayana by far, with a large influence from Tibet (monks who escaped after the situation with China).
Most of them do not eat meat (I spent days without eating meat there), but they used to eat eggs. You should ask, they will not be offended.
Most Buddhists take seriously how we treat a Buddha statue, so do not put it on the ground, do not put it on the bathroom or too close to shoes, treat it and buddhist books with basic respect, as if it were a guest in your house. Incenses are very common in Nepal, if you want to be extra nice you can put some together with the statue.
Most Nepalis I met (not monks) were very curious about technology and other cultures, internet there is very bad and slow, also it is a very, very poor country, so most of them dont know much about America, they will probably appreciate a visit around the city with some background stories :)

As a Floridian Zen Buddhist, it is not the Buddhism that I would be concerned with. I would be more mindful of Nepal culture and cultural and language differences. Buddhism is buddhism really wherever you go, but cultural practices and cultural identity varies. Or in other words, Buddhism morphs and adapts to the culture and environment it is in. I do not know anything about Nepal, but perhaps googling Nepal culture or Nepal culture in America might be more beneficial than just Buddhism as a whole.

You can erase the symbol and keep the statue in a high(respectable) place. Don't use it as a decorative item. Buddhist(Theravada) lay people are allowed to eat any type of meat. But your friends might be vegetarian due to personal preferences. They might also prefer spicy food since they are from South Asia. Avoid swearing and telling religious jokes. Buddhists don't say grace at the dinner table. So don't be surprised if they start having the meal immediately after sitting.