text:
Please explain when and where to use the terms Theravada and Hinayana
I understand that Hinayana as a term is generally pejorative when referring to Theravadin practitioners. Where is the use of the term Hinayana proper, and why is it still used if it's considered offensive to Theravadin practitioners?
I believe that the term Hinayana is mainly used in the context of displaying "faulty" logic by earlier schools of Buddhist philosophy than the Madhyamikas. Can you say more about this?

The term Hinayana's usage is confused at best. It's mostly used now as a synonym for Theravada along with some other early Buddhist schools, but some people think Theravada needs to be specifically excluded from that group. From Pali Buddhism, Hoffman/Mahinda:

It has been a repeated mistake to identify Hinayana with Theravada.
  But at this juncture the denial of the absolute and independent dharmas itself
  testifies to the fact that Theravada is neither Yogacara nor Hinayana.
  Some scholars continue to make the mistake of identifying Hinayana with Theravada.
  The Theravadins themselves never call their religion "Hinayana."
  Therefore, it is inappropriate for anyone to dub them with derogatory names.
  A few Buddhist schools, such as Sarvastivadins, claimed the existence of
  independent dharmas and mainted the pluralistic realism in the early history of Buddhism.
  Theravadins were not among them.
  All in all, Theravada is not Hinayana, and Hinayana is not Theravada;
  therefore, the criticism of Hinayana does not fall upon the Theravada.

I think the idea here being that the term Hinayana arose as a point of doctrinal criticism, one which Theravada did not practice, so it's not valid to use here.
But somehow I'm willing to bet no one but scholars views the term Hinayana so narrowly within its historical context. I think the term has evolved past its original scope.
Hinayana is mentioned in Robinson/Johson's The Buddhist Religion: A Historical Introduction:

At any rate, because Buddhist monastics were wandering the length and breadth of India,
  the anti-Abhidharma partisans eventually joined forces with the new Buddhist savior cults and other like-minded
  factions to grow into a widespread movement calling itself the Mahayana
  (the Great Course or Great Vehicle--yana: a going, a course, a journey; a vehicle).
This was in contrast to the Hinayana (the Inferior Course),
  the new movement's pejorative term for those conservatives who did not accept the new doctrines as truly Buddhist.
  Because the conservatives answered the Mahayana propaganda largely with silence,
  they did not adopt any name for themselves as compared with Mahayana.
  Consequently, modern scholars have given them the name their adversaries gave them, Hinayana,
although without implying any deprecation.
Modern Theravadins do not like being called Hinayanists--who would?--but
  there is no other current term that designates the whole set of schools that arose between the first and the
  fourth centuries after the Parinirvana and continued after the rise of Mahayana.
  The term Nikaya Buddhism, for instance, accurately applies to these schools before the rise of Mahayana,
  but not after, as Mahayana formed a subgroup within each of them.
  Continued usage of the name Hinayana may expunge all derogatory connotations of the term.
  Quaker, Mormon, and even Christian similarly started out as labels sarcastically attached by outsiders.

I feel it's probably true that only some portion of the people throwing around the term Hinayana actually intend it to cause damage, the rest use it because what other term could you use? You can't just use "Theravada" for everything non-Mahayana and non-Vajrayana.
I find myself coming around to the view expressed at the end, of viewing the term without the derogatory baggage.
Because people often translate Hinayana as "inferior" vehicle, and of course that was the original intent, but I believe it literally means "smaller", which doesn't have to be an insult. The Buddha's concern in the Pali Canon does seem to be individuals, personal action and personal liberation from suffering, not the grand salvation of the universe, extraterrestrial Buddha fields, cosmic Buddhas, etc.
It is indeed a smaller vehicle by comparison.

Hiina literally means inferior. It is what the Buddha used to describe the extreme of sensual indulgence.

So is this the definition used on this site? Or will the other answers be taken into account as well?

It's a misunderstanding that Theravada Buddhism only supports attaining enlightenment by becoming an Arahath. Here in Sri Lanka we have several Theravada monks who are cultivating Paramithas to become Buddhas/Pacceka Buddhas in the future. They are well respected. Theravada Buddhism supports all 3 Bodhis. So the word is still inappropriate, even if one does not mean it as an insult.

If we realize the truth of impermanence, dukkha, not-self, and interdependence then where does this idea of personal enlightenment come from? Even a stream winner knows there is no person/self after first stage of enlightenment and goes beyond doubt, self-view, and any attachment to rites and ritual.
The Tibetan translation of 'Hinayana' is THEG-SMAD, which means inferior vehicle. The World Fellowship of Buddhists in Colombo, Sri Lanka, gathered in 1950, where representatives from 27 countries in Asia, Europe and North America (including Hawaii) met. Nearly every school of Buddhism in the Mahayana, Theravada, and Vajrayana traditions was represented. In this meeting, it was unanimously decided that the term "Hinayana" should be dropped and replaced with Theravada. Most schools further accepted that calling other school as lesser or inferior is unbecoming of Buddhadharma. It is not wise speech.
The term 'Hinayana' and three yanas (story of goat cart, deer cart and bullock cart) first appear in Sanskrit 'Lotus Sutra'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHinayana/Archive_2
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hinayana

My understanding is the same as yours. "Hinayana" is a not-very-complimentary term that is applied to Theravada Buddhism, to point out that its goal is only to enlighten the practitioner, whereas the Mahayana bodhisattva vows to work for the enlightenment of all sentient beings.
Why is it used if it's a pejorative term, you ask? The answer is sad: because not all Buddhists are above using pejorative terms.


text:
How can I assess the quality of a local Buddhist group?
I'm located in the West, and, in my local area, there are several Buddhist groups. I would like to join one of them to be more formal in my commitment to learn about Buddhism. My question is, how do I assess the quality of a local Buddhist group in terms of how close they are to the original teachings of the Buddha? How can I assess if a local Buddhist group, or school, has or hasn't deviated from the original spirit of Buddhism?

There are so many good answers to this question; so I have chosen the one that resonated the most with me, but the right answer will be different for each person. Thanks for all your answers!

Just in case you are more of a beginner:
I would think that all of the sects that make up Buddhism consider their own teachings to be original and genuine, regardless of what others think. So if you don't yet have a working understanding of the various sects within Buddhism, that would be a great place to start to see if there is one that you are drawn to.
You didn't mention if these are lay groups or temple groups, but either way, trust your gut if something doesn't seem right such as someone being too interested in receiving a donation or membership fee from you too early on.
And even if everyone is super kind and wonderful, your own growing understanding of the Buddha's teachings may prompt you to change groups/sects in the future; so maybe don't get too attached. Good luck. :)

I like your advice of trusting your gut feeling and I also think that nothing can replace cultivating your own understanding of the Buddha's teaching so you can gauge it against what you are being taught.

The Buddha said, "Be lamps unto yourselves."

Good choice of answer :)

This is a tough and important question with no easy answers. If there were some guaranteed system for definitively determining whether some group or teacher is going to lead people to liberation that would make life a lot easier!
One thing to look for in a group is, do the longtime members seem kind? Don't get distracted by whether they seem smart or businesslike or polished or well organized; none of those things necessarily matter. In America we want everything to be slick and new and polished but that attitude won't get you far with the dharma. But do look for senior students who are kind and generous.
Another trap to watch out for is, don't judge a sangha based on their adherence to contemporary liberal political correctness. While I personally think it's good to do things like recycle and drive a Prius and eat vegetarian and so on, the historical Buddha Shakyamuni did not do any of those things so it's not a valid basis for judgement of a sangha or set of teachings. In fact, I would say that anyone who is nasty and judgmental about such things is not very far along in dharma practice, because they are putting abstract principles ahead of actual kindness. And a sangha primarily composed of such people may have a poor quality of instruction overall.
Remember kindness, that's the short version of my answer.

The Dalai Lama famously said, "My religion is kindness."

When meeting other practitioners or teachers, always ask yourself - do I want to become like them? Do I want to look and behave like them in 5 years' time?
If they represent qualities you would like to master, stay with them. If you think you can trust them and learn something useful from them, stay with them until you feel you can't learn anything else. If they seem too stiff or wild to you, keep searching.

Take your time. Usually you can stay with a Buddhist group for a long time without any commitment: Go to the meditation and teaching sessions, see what kind of people there are and what they are doing, even for months and years, until you come to a conclusion.
(That is what I did. I stayed with one group for about four months, then with another one for three years, until finally taking refuge. It can be a slow process, and that is no problem.)

Study the Tipitaka, the Commentaries and see if what they teach is consistent with the books. Usually if someone is criticizing Abhidhamma in order to accommodate his/her views, it's a good indication that they have deviated from the original spirit of Buddhism. Regarding the Commentaries, a teacher might say "This is what the commentary says regarding this incident, but this is my personal view". That is reasonable. But if he degrades venerable Buddhagosa or other authors of the commentaries, that's a good indication to look for a new teacher.

Do you suggest that a beginner should read lots of complicated and thick books and then somehow understand them to be able to assess the quality of a group?

Well, you can start with the sutta pitaka and read one sutta at a time. The more you read, the better equipped you'd be to identify the true teachings.

I guess there is no easy answer and a personal commitment to growing your own understanding of the teachings plus a regular involvement with the group in question would help oneself to make a better judgement of whether it is the appropriate group for one's needs or not; what works for one person might not work for another.

Another suggestion is to read the dhammapada.

Yea, read as much as you can.

Right, a teacher cannot tell you what to learn, they can only offer something. All responsibility for one's own learning falls to oneself.

how do I assess the quality of a local Buddhist group

See if they adhere to the principles of teaching the Dhamma:

(1) One should teach the Dharma to others,
    thinking, “I will talk on the progressive teaching.”
(2) One should teach the Dharma to others,
    thinking, “I will teach understanding the context.”
(3) One should teach the Dharma to others,
    thinking, “I will teach the Dharma out of compassion.”
(4) One should teach the Dharma to others,
    thinking, “I will teach the Dharma not for the sake of material gain.”
(5) One should teach the Dharma to others,
    thinking, “I will teach the Dharma without hurting myself or others.”

Source: (Dhamma,desaka) Udāyī Sutta
Also for you to progress the teacher in the community should be good. Qualities of a good teacher is:

(1) He is a listener sotā.
(2) He is able to make others listen sāvetā.
(3) He is a learner uggahetā.
(4) He is a memorizer [has a good memory] dhāretā.
(5) He is a knower [has a good understanding] viññātā.
(6) He is an instructor [able to makes others understand] viññāpetā.
(7) He is skilled regarding what is beneficial and what is not kusala sahitâhitassa.
(8) He is not quarrelsome no kalaha,kārako.

Source: Piya Tan's summary of Dūta Sutta

how close they are to the original teachings of the Buddha?

See if the teaching fits the essence of what the Buddha has taught.

The Buddha teaches the ridding of lustful desires.
The ridding of lustful desires towards the 5 aggregates.
Seeing the disadvantage (ādīnava) of the 5 aggregates, namely, suffering arises from lustfully
    desiring any of the 5 aggregates.
Seeing the advantage (ānisaṁsa) of letting go of the 5 aggregates, namely, being free of suffering.
The unwholesome (akusala) brings suffering here and hereafter.
The wholesome (kusala) brings happiness here and hereafter.

Source: Piya Tan's Summary of (Pacchā,bhūma,gāmikā) Deva,daha Sutta
The teachings should encompass cultivating and promoting which is the true purpose of teaching the Dhamma:

(1) the 3 good truths (saddhamma);
(2) the 12 links of dependent arising (paṭicca,samuppāda); and
(3) the “revulsion” (nibbidā) formula.

Source: Piya Tan's summary of (Nibbidā) Dhamma,kathika Sutta
Also see if the teachings promote Dhamma and Vinaya as in (Dhamma,vinaya) Gotamī Sutta. It should promote good of oneself and good of others (which is discussed in detail in (Aṭṭhaka) Alaṁ Sutta).
If the teaching is for gain, honour and praise then this is not in tune with the true teachings. [Bhindi Sutta]

Lovely, comprehensive answer!

Many of the most famous Buddhist teachers in many different traditions have been famously combative when it was necessary to teach something to a student. Better to evaluate a teacher on the results than on the method. If you knew how the method was supposed to work, then aren't you the teacher? I think that to evaluate a teacher you really should focus more attention on the characters of the students. It doesn't matter how many checklist items the teacher has, if the students don't seem to be turning out too well, then there's probably something wrong.

...for example, one teacher (admittedly not buddhist) whose books are still very popular, his students engaged in acts of bioterrorism in the USA when he was at the height of his popularity. If you were to read the books, there's nothing in them that seems wrong; but if you evaluate him by the character of his students, then you get a very different story.

Great information. Perhaps you can add this as well to your answer.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why does the Buddha appear androgynous in some depictions?
In quite a few depictions of the Buddha in artwork, he appears androgynous.
Does this represent something significant in terms of a Buddhist message or ideal, or is this just an artistic style?

It might be helpful if you could identify which specific features of these depictions appear feminine or androgynous to you.

@ senshin, The faces portrayed above look feminine to me while the bodies look masculine. But as qweilun pointed out below, impressions arise in the mind of the viewer. In any case, I don't dislike them but was curious if there was any meaning to this depiction. Thank you for helping me improve this post. :)

In the sutras, there are lists of the 32 marks of a Buddha. I suppose if one were to follow them literally, you could end up with a feminine face. "#32 His eyelashes are beautiful and long, like those of a bull, with each hair distinct."

Yup, that Buddha has huge eyelashes.

It's an artistic style. The impression of androgyny is arising in the mind of the viewer (not necessarily every viewer), and part of its cause is our arbitrary cultural standard of how men and women should look.

A young lady named Kisa Gotami, seeing prince Siddhartha in the street, uttered:
“Nibbuta nuna sa mata - Nibbuta nuna so pita
Nib buta nuna sa nari - Yassa’ yam idiso pati.”
It means:
“Peaceful is the mother who has such a son.
Peacefull is the father who has such a son.
Peaceful is the wife who has such a husband.”
So you can imagine how the artwork should look like.
India's first prime minister Shri Jawaharlal Nehru once wrote in his writings, that, while he was in prison, he hung a photograph of the Buddha, and he stated that this particular Samadhi Buddha statue(in Anuradhapura) photograph brought him much happiness and solace when he was in the cell.
You can also study the 32 major and 80 minor physical characteristics of the buddha to get an idea.

This is a feminine depiction even in Asian culture. I asked some Thai colleagues why some Buddha images look very feminine and I loved the answer. They said Buddhism negates duality. So the Buddha cannot look only male or only female. They must incorporate both. They are both. Isn’t that a wonderful explanation? It is also consistent with Buddhist philosophy.

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:
Is it possible to "over-train" in samatha meditation?
Every morning I set aside one hour for meditation -- primarily just counting breaths, but occasionally abdominal noting. My overall aim is to achieve some kind of basic tranquility so I can then decide if I should move onto something else. That is, I'm doing "samatha meditation" as preparation for "vipassana meditation". (Although I have asked about that apparent dichotomy in another question.)
However, although I reserve a whole hour, at the moment I'm only doing 20 minutes (built up slowly over some weeks from 10 minutes). My current plan is to keep to that gradual build, but sometimes I wonder if I should just "go for broke" and sit for an hour at a time.
One reason I don't is the same reason I wouldn't start out by running for an hour. Instead, I'd start with a shorter period, and build it up. But I don't know if my concern is valid for meditation. There are clear physiological reasons for not building up physical exercise too quickly. Muscles and tendons need time to build strength and flexibility, so even if I felt like running for an hour, I wouldn't. I'd force myself to increase only slowly.
But does the same thing apply for "mental" exercise -- i.e. for Buddhist samatha meditation of the kind I describe? Should I "hold back" even though I'm keen to do more? Is it possible in any way to "injure" oneself by over-training when it comes to meditation.
Note, I'm specifically interested in the mental/spiritual aspects. Im pretty sure it's possible to physically overdo it by, for example, trying to sit in full lotus too long in the early stages (or, in my case, ever).

First, physically, you're probably always going to cause some pain by sitting in a strict posture unless you've been doing it since you were young. So if a person had just started meditation and did so with a great deal of zeal, I could see them causing some pain and stress in the body by doing too much at once. They might even cause some permanent damage if, in their zeal to do it right, they won't sit in anything other than full lotus, even when they're causing pain.
The bigger issue though is that, mentally, there's the danger of getting burned out. Thanissaro mentioned in one of his talks he had friends who would go out into retreat alone for long periods and the problem they would run into is making no progress. Weeks and weeks of no progress in their meditation. It must be tough to become a monk, have one goal, do nothing but practice toward that goal and end up making no progress.
I think it's universal: your practice will have ups and downs. There are times where the mind becomes more and more focused, it lets go of all discursive thought, the precepts become easier to follow, and then there are times when it seems you're sliding backwards.
All in all, the real danger, if there is any, of overtraining is this mental burn out, because when you sink a huge amount of time and energy into something, you want to see short-term progress.
As to whether it would be better to do less sitting than more, I'm not sure. Are you the kind of person who takes on new projects easily and then gives up easily when you encounter difficulty? I suppose the more short-term oriented a person is, the more I'd recommend they just take things slow and steady so that they don't run into a patch of doldrums, get frustrated and give it all up entirely.

Thanks for the answer +1 and reminding that practice has ups and downs. Sometimes that is easy to forget.

I aim to sit for an hour in the early morning and an hour in the evening.  I find samatha meditation more difficult and sometimes I break the sit before the hour is completed.  When I do noting, I experience impatience less and therefore I am more likely to complete the whole hour.  If impatience does arise, it can simply be noted as impatience, impatience, impatience, until it passes away.  Often I begin with samatha for say 10 minutes and then when I feel that my concentration is strong, I shift to vipassana.  I sit in the classical meditation position with my legs folded under.  I find that I can hold myself totally still for an hour or more in this position, though in the colder months my knees get abit achy by the end of the sit.  I can't sit in any lotus variation for very long.  I found that I began to get better results once I was able to sit for longer periods of say 40 minutes to 1 hour.

I would recommend a relaxation exercise before beginning any meditation e.g. you focus your attention first on the feet and gradually work up the body consciously relaxing each part in turn.

If you are willing to read, I think you will enjoy Alan Wallace's "The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of the Focused Mind". This book is only about satama, about the levels of focus, the benefits, the hindrances and some pitfalls.

My current plan is to keep to that gradual build. (...) But does the same thing apply for "mental" exercise -- i.e. for Buddhist samatha meditation of the kind I describe?

For sure. If you go to 1 hour right away you will probably just get yourself tired. And also, I think it is much better to meditate for 20 minutes every day than one hour once a week.

Should I "hold back" even though I'm keen to do more?

I think if you are willing to do more, go ahead. But like physical exercises, you should improve the quality of the practice (i.e. focus and stillness), instead of just increasing the duration.

Is it possible in any way to "injure" oneself by over-training when it comes to meditation.

Yes, but only if you have some severe mental illness, or if you do a long recluse retreat.
These are just some quick answers. But I strongly recommend you to read Wallace's book, because it is much more extensive, detailed and instructive.


text:
In meditation, should one pursue tranquility first, prior to looking for insight?
On the one hand this question has been asked to death on the internet (and yuttadhammo's videos even try to handle it). On the other hand, I personally still don't feel I have a clear answer (and I don't think that's because I'm an idiot.)
From my overall reading, the commonest answer seems to be that while the primary aim in meditation is insight, it is not only useful, but advisable (and maybe even essential) that one first achieves some degree of tranquility or quiescence before moving on to insight. Specifically, it is advised that one attain at least access concentration, if not full-blown first jhana, before moving to insight work.
However, there appears to be an important exception to that rule, coming from (at least) the Mahasi tradition, wherein the idea of "bare insight" arises.
From the existence of those apparently different positions, I am confused in two ways.
First: if the bare insight thing is valid -- i.e. if it is possible to go straight to Vipassana without going via Samatha -- then why wouldn't everyone just do that? Insight is The Point, after all, (isn't it?) so why waste time with what seems to be mere training wheels?
Second: OK, suppose access concentration or first jhana is necessary, but is also sufficient a level of samadhi as preparation for vipassana. Then, again, why would anyone then continue on to "samatha" jhanas 2 through 4? My understanding is that while those jhanas may be cool and blissful, not only are they not The Point, they carry the danger of attachment. So why bother with them?
To pre-empt any "it doesn't matter" style answers, I really think it does. There are several apparently good teachers out there whose approach is, to paraphrase, "No, don't note yet. We're not doing that until we've got a bit of focus", while there are others who get you noting from day one. So overall it may not matter, but it matters to beginners (like me) as part of deciding on a teacher (and on how to meditate while I look for a teacher).

I will try to answer from my point of view as a Vajrayana practitioner.
I've been taught that one needs to have a relatively stable mind in order to practice insight meditation. But this doesn't mean that one has to spend years in Samatha meditation before trying Vipassana.
In Mahayana and Vajrayana tradition too much tranquility and so-called 'inert peace' is considered as an obstacle on the way since it is not a full enlightenment and it can easily prevent a practitioner from pursuing next stages of realisation. To avoid that, practitioners can take a Bodhisattva Vow to remind them that they want to pursue happiness not only for themselves but mainly for all the sentient beings.
One Vajrayana Lama was asked whether we need to calm down and bring our energy down in order to practise insight meditation. He replied that we don't have to calm down at all, we just have to transform this energy into something useful. I found it very liberating, since, personally, I found it somewhat boring to sit in peace for hours. When I got introduced to insight meditations which involved visualising Buddha forms and receiving lights from them, I liked them straight away. Then I met some more experienced practitioners and indeed, they weren't particularly calm, rather lively, very joyful and stable at the same time.
I would say that choosing the right practice and teacher is very individual. If you already think that attachment to blissful state might be an obstacle for you, maybe it is a sign that you are ready for insight meditation. It seems that you know enough theory so it is high time to put it into practice. Try not to overthink, just give it a try and when meeting a teacher or other practitioners, just ask yourself - do I want to become like them? Do I want to behave like them in 5 years time? If your answer is an honest one, soon you should find the right teacher.

In accordance with my understanding of the Buddha's teachings I offer the following:

First: if the bare insight thing is valid -- i.e. if it is possible to
  go straight to Vipassana without going via Samatha -- then why
  wouldn't everyone just do that? Insight is The Point, after all,
  (isn't it?) so why waste time with what seems to be mere training
  wheels?

This sutta seems to make an analogy similar to training wheels, while at the same time apparently saying that jhāna is required for enlightenment:
"I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana... the second jhana... the third... the fourth... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness. I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception...
"Suppose that an archer or archer's apprentice were to practice on a straw man or mound of clay, so that after a while he would become able to shoot long distances, to fire accurate shots in rapid succession, and to pierce great masses. In the same way, there is the case where a monk... enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' [1]

Second: OK, suppose access concentration or first jhana is necessary,
  but is also sufficient a level of samadhi as preparation for
  vipassana. Then, again, why would anyone then continue on to "samatha"
  jhanas 2 through 4? My understanding is that while those jhanas may be
  cool and blissful, not only are they not The Point, they carry the
  danger of attachment. So why bother with them?

According to the Pasadika Sutta, Budhhist monks are 'attached' or 'addicted' to the jhānas, which "...conduce to utter unworldliness, to passionlessness, to cessation, to peace, to insight, to enlightenment, to Nibbana."
The text continues:
"If then it happens, Cunda, that Wanderers teaching other doctrines should declare : The Sakyan recluses live addicted and devoted to these four modes of pleasure, to them ye should answer Yea, Rightly would they be speaking of you, nor would they be misrepresenting you by what is not fact, by what does not exist." [2] {note: translation/grammar mistakes were left untouched}
Other Suttas in which there are apparently good reasons to think that jhāna is important are as follows:

"...jhāna monks [i.e., monks who practice jhāna] are...amazing people, hard to find in the world, i.e., those who dwell touching the deathless element with the body."[3] {note: this seems to imply that jhāna is connected to the 'deathless element'.}
In the Cula-hatthipadopama Sutta, the four jhānas are called 'footprint[s] of the Tathagata' [4] {note: the jhānas are said to be evidence that indicates a Buddha might be around; however, in the text, the Buddha cautions the questioner about drawing a definite conclusion until the reality itself, that is, the Buddha, is seen. It seems reasonable to identify this with The Dhamma or Unbinding itself.}
At AN 4.123, jhāna is described as leading either to rebirth in heavenly realms or to Nibbāna. [5]
Jhāna is often referred to as 'a pleasant abiding here and now.' E.g., here: [6] {note: this sutta also makes the point that although jhāna is a pleasant abiding, it should not be mistaken with 'purity'}
The Buddha's last act before he died was to enter all of the attainments and he passed away directly after arising from the fourth jhāna. [7]
Jhāna is called the 'highest gratification of feelings...[which is] freedom from affliction'; when one enters jhāna, "On such an occasion he does not choose for his own affliction, or for another's affliction, or for the affliction of both." It is further stated that for one who does not fully understand the gratification of feelings, fully understanding feelings or instructing others so that they would come to fully understand feelings is impossible. [MN 13, Bodhi, In the Buddha's Words (full citation later; also look here for an alternate translation]. {note: The full understanding of feelings is threefold: (1) the gratification; (2) the danger; (3) the escape. Implicitly, even the pleasant feelings of jhāna are dangerous and an escape from them should be sought. The escape is to remove desire for feelings, including, implicitly, the desire for fine-material feelings; i.e., jhāna.

According to my understanding, the goal of the meditation is to see the ultimate reality of the world and understand the world as it is. So both of the techniques are required to understand the reality and they are inter related. Although the purpose and the results of Samatha(tranquility) and Vipassana(insight) meditation are different, we need both to reach our final goal. I think as a beginner we can start with any technique based on the status of our mind as at the beginning of the meditation.
For example there are some days, that our mind is so peaceful, calm, and focused. So we can directly start the "Vipassana" meditation. In the other hand if the mind is restless and unsettled, we can start the meditation with "Samatha" and continue it to "Vipassana". I think this is the answer for your question one:
To answer the second question I would like to quote the below passage from one of the article from Ven Ajan Chandako.

Jhána empowers mindfulness. Both samatha and vipassaná are based on developing continuous mindfulness in the present moment, but mindfulness alone doesn't have the ability to enlightment. Even dogs and cats have some mindfulness, an awareness of their surroundings, but it is not focused and directed in a way which will free their minds. Jhána gives the mind strength, so that when we contemplate something our understanding has the ability to deeply penetrate to its essential nature. Practicing vipassaná on it's own, the mind tends to merely skim around on the surface of reality without penetrating. Or it's like trying to shave or put on make-up in an airplane toilet while the plane is bouncing with turbulence.

Further more

There's no jhana for one with no discernment, no discernment for one with no jhana. But one with both jhana & discernment: he's on the verge of Unbinding. Dhp 372

Finally I highly encorage you to read this article which gives a very good explanation about Samatha, Vipassana and Jhána.
I hope this helps.
You could find some nice explanations from below links :
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books3/Ajahn_Chandako_Samatha_and_Vipassana_in_Harmony.htm
http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/vipassana-meditation/d/doc1330.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDDY4gOexVA

Actually the Suttas teach that there are two routes of practice which lead to enlightenment, one of which is based on the practice of the Jhanas, and the other of which is based on the development of insight practices. The most explicit example of this is the following Sutta:
AN 4.169

“Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of persons found existing in the
  world. What four? (1) “Here, some person attains nibbāna through
  exertion in this very life. (2) Another person attains nibbāna
  through  exertion  with  the  breakup  of  the  body. 855   (3)  Still
  another  person  attains  nibbāna without exertion in this very life.
  (4) And still another person attains nibbāna without exertion with the
  breakup of the body. 856
(1)  “And  how,  bhikkhus,  does  a  person  attain  nibbāna  through
  exertion  in  this  very  life?  Here,  a bhikkhu  dwells
  contemplating  the  unattractiveness  of  the  body,  perceiving  the
  repulsiveness  of  food, perceiving non-delight in the entire world,
  contemplating impermanence in all conditioned phenomena; and he has
  the perception of death [156] well established internally. He dwells
  depending upon these five trainee powers: the power of faith, the
  power of moral shame, the power of moral dread, the power of energy,
  and the power of wisdom. These five faculties arise in him
  prominently: the faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness,
  concentration, and wisdom. Because these five faculties are prominent,
  he attains nibbāna through exertion in this very life. This is how a
  person attains nibbāna through exertion in this very life.
...
(3)  “And  how  does  a  person  attain  nibbāna  without  exertion
  in  this  very  life?  Here,  secluded  from sensual pleasures,
  secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the
  first jhāna … the fourth jhāna. He dwells depending upon these five
  trainee powers: the powers of faith … and wisdom. These five faculties
  arise in him prominently: the faculties of faith … and wisdom. Because
  these five faculties are prominent, he attains nibbāna without
  exertion in this very life. This is how a person attains nibbāna
  without exertion in this very life.

(This sutta isn't available online as far as I know. You'll have to look it up in the Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Anguttara Nikaya. The omitted parts just repeat the same thing but mention the example of someone who only attains Nibbana at the breakup of the body but whose practice is the same.)
Obviously you still need both Samatha and Vipassana, but the actual order in which they are developed and the practice you use to do so doesn't matter. For example, in the famous Yuganaddha Sutta the Ven. Ananda said:

Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever — monk or nun — declares the
  attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of
  one or another of four paths. Which four?
"There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by
  tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the
  path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he
  follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are
  abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.
"Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity
  preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight,
  the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he
  follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are
  abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.
"Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in
  tandem with insight. As he develops tranquillity in tandem with
  insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues
  it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters
  are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed."

(Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.170.than.html )
So Samatha can be developed first and Vipassana second, Vipassana first and Samatha second, or they can be developed simultaneously.

You know, I preferred one particular answer given above by rabbit:
...part quoted here:

I've been taught that one needs to have a relatively stable mind in order to practice insight meditation. But this doesn't mean that one has to spend years in Samatha meditation before trying Vipassana.

No indeed, I think one will benefit from learning to distinguish between samatha mind and vipassana aims; but imagining that one is mastered before another is attempted is contrary to what I have been taught (if it's ok, I'll explain my affiliation: I practice Hokke school as Nichiren Daishonin named it; I chant Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo as primary practice, mostly in solitude, sometimes in fellowship with other members in the SGI movement. And btw, I hope that the relative accessibility and widespread presence of opportunities to do this (Nichiren Buddhist) practice with experienced seniors is not snobbishly rejected by readers as, idk, a 'diluted' form of Buddhist learning?).

In Mahayana and Vajrayana tradition too much tranquility and so-called 'inert peace' is considered as an obstacle on the way since it is not a full enlightenment and it can easily prevent a practitioner from pursuing next stages of realisation.
To avoid that, practitioners can take a Bodhisattva Vow to remind them that they  want to pursue happiness not only for themselves but mainly for all the sentient beings.

This term inert peace is a good one, that I have not encountered before. It is fairly descriptive of a difficult-to-describe condition. I have heard it named a "Buddha-Bubble." ...So this "pursuing [of] happiness not only for themselves" — definitely implies happiness within a dynamic of struggle— it means willingly facing or even seeking obstacles with one's own active volition as the means to growth in understanding, in life-state, in ability to manifest powerful practices of meditative discipline aimed at overcoming powerful deterrents (which do obviously vary ffrom one practitioner to another). To establish a tranquility of purpose sufficient to attempt this, a Vow is truly necessary. Yes, and the mind is endless and so for some the vow may be inconspicuous, residing not in conscious intellect but rather as something felt, something unworded. Yet it must exist.
I think that this is truly a crucial point in Mahayana Buddhism.
Anyone becomes weary at times. In my experience, this is why samatha remains relevant for the duration of one's life, no matter what. A quality of samatha state achieved through meditation, with the understanding that succeeding "again" with finding compassion for one's self can be nourished by it ...maybe is inseparable from renewing one's capacity for compassion directed towards others? (It happens that I am in such a 'place' right now).
With respect and metta.

First: if the bare insight thing is valid -- i.e. if it is possible to
  go straight to Vipassana without going via Samatha -- then why
  wouldn't everyone just do that? Insight is The Point, after all,
  (isn't it?) so why waste time with what seems to be mere training
  wheels?

At the heart of it, "tranquility" just means the skill of perseverance that you need to do the vipassana investigation. If your mind is agitated, you'll get distracted and won't keep up the work.
IMO, at least, the Mahasi approach develops tranquility implicitly, because if you keep noting, you're developing that capacity to practice stably and persistently.

Second: OK, suppose access concentration or first jhana is necessary,
  but is also sufficient a level of samadhi as preparation for
  vipassana. Then, again, why would anyone then continue on to "samatha"
  jhanas 2 through 4? My understanding is that while those jhanas may be
  cool and blissful, not only are they not The Point, they carry the
  danger of attachment. So why bother with them?

The jhana factors are suffusive qualities that emerge naturally when practice is stable: a suffusive attention/focus emerges, then a suffusive rapture dominates, then a suffusive calm dominates, and then a suffusive equanimity.
If you practice with persistence, these qualities will appear, no matter what. The 'choice' is in the degree that you want to immerse yourself in each of those qualities.
Some teachers (controversially) see tranquility and insight as two facets of the same development (example: Sayadaw U Pandita's 'vipassana jhanas', "In this Very Life", http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pesala/Pandita/).
In this view, the "jhanas" are those stages in the development of insight that are restful, pleasant, and sustainable, like islands of calm in the progress of insight.
A practitioner can choose to abide there, and deepen that abiding as a separate skill - that's samatha practice. But other parts of the path aren't stable in that way; only investigation - vipassana - gets the practitioner across the rough channel to the next island!
To beat the metaphor further, resting on those islands is a good way to prepare to cross the next rough sea, as long as you don't get hooked on the sunlight and great beaches :)

From my own understanding of the Maha-Assupura Sutta, after abandoning the five hindrances the practitioner enters Jhana. After having obtained Jhana the practitioner works on insight.
On abandoning the five hindrances:

Abandoning covetousness with regard to the world, he dwells with an awareness devoid of covetousness. He cleanses his mind of covetousness. Abandoning ill will and anger, he dwells with an awareness devoid of ill will, sympathetic with the welfare of all living beings. He cleanses his mind of ill will and anger. Abandoning sloth and drowsiness, he dwells with an awareness devoid of sloth and drowsiness, mindful, alert, percipient of light. He cleanses his mind of sloth and drowsiness. Abandoning restlessness and anxiety, he dwells undisturbed, his mind inwardly stilled. He cleanses his mind of restlessness and anxiety. Abandoning uncertainty, he dwells having crossed over uncertainty, with no perplexity with regard to skillful mental qualities. He cleanses his mind of uncertainty....
...Seeing that they [the five hindrances] have been abandoned within him, he becomes glad. Glad, he becomes enraptured. Enraptured, his body grows tranquil. His body tranquil, he is sensitive to pleasure. Feeling pleasure, his mind becomes concentrated...

On entering Jhana:

...quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation....

On insight:

...With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. He discerns, as it has come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are mental fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations....

Here is a quote on the four ways to arahantship. The quote is from the book "In The Buddha's Words" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 268-269:

Four Ways to Arahantship
Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Venerable Ananda was dwelling at Kosambi in Ghosita's monastery. There the Venerable Ananda addressed the monks thus:
  "Friends!"
"Yes, friend," the monks replied. Thereupon the Venerable Ananda said:
  "Friends, whatever monks or nuns declare before me that they have attained the final knowledge of arahantship, all these do so in one of four ways. What four?
"Here, friends, a monk develops insight preceded by serenity. While he thus develops insight preceded by serenity, the path arises in him. He now pursues, develops, and cultivates that path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated.
"Or again, friends, a monk develops serenity preceded by insight.
  While he thus develops serenity preceded by insight, the path arises in him. He now pursues, develops, and cultivates that path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated.
"Or again, friends, a monk develops serenity and insight joined in pairs.
  path arises in him. He now pursues, develops, and cultivates that path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated.
"Or again, friends, a monk's mind is seized by agitation about the teaching.11 But there comes a time when his mind becomes internally steadied, composed, unified, and concentrated; then the path arises in him. He now pursues, develops, and cultivates that path, and while he is doing so the fetters are abandoned and the underlying tendencies eliminated.
"Friends, whatever monks or nuns declare before me that they have attained the final knowledge of arahantship, all these do so in one of these four ways."
(AN 4:170; II156-57)

I really think I have an insight to share here from a physical/science perspective.
I have a degree in behavioral psychology and have engaged in behavioral studies for decades. I offer this not as an ego thing because I am genuinely not that bright, but there are some interesting scientific additions or views towards meditation for the lay practitioner.
The human mind is a sensory interpreter that is constantly receiving information. When it's not receiving its' normal stimuli then it might change modes (to sleep) or it might fill in the loss of input with it's own randomly generated spontaneous manifestations as we have found in numerous sensory deprivation studies. It is accustomed to receiving information.
In meditative practice the idea of a still mind allows one to insert a sort of "control signal" as the sensory input for the mind. To that end we make it something very familiar and comforting that makes us secure yet not question it with surprise stimuli. Like, for instance, a well known mantra of a constant or reverberating tone. Or a singing bowl tone. This puts our mind at ease with its' mandatory input but as a sort of background noise (same concept btw) and leaving our minds free to explore other things more intently.
Many academic and other institutions have found this type of meditation useful for students and professionals alike. So for the layman it may be helpful to see meditation from a practical side as well. And that side advocates a steady rhythmic or tonal stimuli to assist with the still mind effect and then letting the mind wander or be guided.


text:
What distinguishes Japanese Shingon Buddhism from other types?
How is Japanese Shingon Buddhism different from other forms of Buddhism such as Zen?

Shingon is a tantric Buddhism, which makes it rather dissimilar to Zen and a close relative of Tibetan Vajrayana. Unlike Theravada and Mahayana, both of which rely on discipline, study, and meditation for achieving Enlightenment, tantric systems work by putting a student inside a carefully crafted mandala, and having him or her interact with its energies.
Before the student can be introduced to his mandala, he needs to establish a deep relationship with the teacher. Once teacher has learned student's natural inclinations and energy profile, he picks a suitable tantra, tweaks it to match the student, and introduces the student to various deities and energies. As mandala begins to emerge, student works with it by participating in empowerment ceremonies, performing various rituals, and doing visualizations.
If teacher sees student making good progress, he will upgrade him/her to a higher tantra, and the whole process repeats until the student attains complete vision of Truth.


text:
What does enlightenment actually entail in Shugendo?
We already have some questions about enlightenment, but this is going to be a bit more... esoteric. What I would like to know is what enlightenment entails in Shugendo, which is a particularly syncretic variety of Japanese Buddhism.
What with Shugendo being strongly syncretized with the native animistic practices of Japan (i.e. Shinto), it appears that the notion of enlightenment has somehow become intertwined with the idea of kami (spirits/deities). Specifically, it appears (from some basic reading) that a practitioner of Shugendo (a shugenja) attains enlightenment when he "becomes one" with the kami in some sense. This is quite unlike many other varieties of Buddhism - after all, in most cases, there are no kami to begin with!
In any case, this is all very vague, so I was hoping somebody could clear this up for me - what, exactly, does enlightenment entail in Shugendo?

This question is partly intended to test the boundaries of what counts as "Buddhism" for the purposes of this site. If you think that Shugendo is too far distanced from Buddhism to be a valid topic on this site, please make a post about it on [meta].

Well it is the same exact Enlightenment as in other schools, just expressed differently.
Kami are the spirits or energies of the universe. These are things of the same nature as devas and maras of Pali Canon and deities of Vajrayana and Shingon. In Greek paganism they were called daemons. Jung called them complexes. In our times we could call them memes.
Because in Theravada and more so in Yogacara the world is made out of phenomena of mind, external entities having their own existence are not posited. Still, what animalistic schools would call "mastery of spirits" is practiced in phenomenological schools as "mastery of phenomena".
When seen at universal scale, kami are made out of Musubi, the creative power permeating the universe, which refers to the same principle that is invoked by the concepts of Mahavairocana of Shingon, Tao of Taoism, Buddha Nature of Mahayana, Shunyata of Madhyamaka, Three Marks of Existence of Theravada, Dang energy of Nyingma and so on.
As the goal of Shingon is the realization of one's nature as identical with Mahavairocana, and the goal of Taoism is unity with Tao -- the goal of Shugendo is becoming one with kami.
This should not be understood primitively, as expanding one's "I" to the size of the universe (an interpretation sharply criticized by Gotama), but rather, as deconstructing "I" completely and practically, while attaining effective insight into one's own nature being an interplay of formations.
The naive experience of non-duality ("I am the universe"), which is sometimes mistakenly equated with bodhi, is what Buddha called “the state of Brahma”. It is just one of the experiences that practitioner has along the way, and may both happen before bodhi and be intentionally generated after bodhi. In addition to the state of Brahma, Buddha enumerates the following liberation-related states (AN 4.190):

The state of a deva — ability to intentionally generate rapture, pleasure, bliss, and equanimity in one’s body-mind at one of the four jhana levels.
The state of Brahma – development of loving-kindness (really, the four immeasurables) culminating in the experience of unity with the world.
The state of imperturbability — ability to maintain one of the four formless absorptions.
The state of an arya ("noble" / "civilized") — the state of having first-hand experience and direct realization of the validity of the four noble truths, the principle of this/that conditionality, and the three marks of existence. More broadly, the state of arya entails deep understanding of practical implications (benefits, drawbacks and limitations) of any conceptual construct, as well as the virtual nature (aka "shunyata") of all modes of phenomenal existence.


text:
Where is the Buddha quoted as saying do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself?
If I remember rightly the Buddha is quoted as saying something along the lines of:

Do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself

In what text(s) of the Buddhist cannon is this quoted?

I've searched the Internet, and found a website claiming that the quotation in question is a bad translation of a fragment from Kalama Sutta which in original goes:

“Now, Kalamas, 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 skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.

Buddha says that common sense and logical thinking is not enough to determine the truth. Only through his/her own experience or the experience of the wise ones one can be sure what to follow.

And another variation that also mentions "... merely on the authority of your teachers": http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/do-not-believe-in-anything-simply-because-you-have-heard-it/

Probably, Buddha didn't censure logic there, in a sense we understand logic today. Logical thinking is actually inseparable from reflecting and judging on own experience. On place where it's translated as 'by logical conjecture' text says takka-hetu which is doubt[ful]+reason. Well, logic is not doubtful reason. Doubtful reason would be to reason breaking logic.

@catpnosis - I'd agree about the value of logic. But even Aristotle points out that a logical conclusion about Reality is not a known fact. To say that reason is always doubtful is not a criticism of reason but just a cautionary note on the limit on its powers. The Tower of Babel and all that...

The quote comes from Kalama Sutra (AN 3.65) and is often taken out of context, hence misunderstood.
People of Kalama found themselves bombarded by tens of spiritual teachers, each claiming authority and expertise in spiritual matters. These teachers' doctrines were rather different from each other, but each was presented as The truth. Each teacher seemed quite certain of himself and was able to articulate the teaching logically.
When Buddha on one of his tours around the country arrived at Kalama and presented his teaching, the citizens honestly told him, that what he posits as The truth, to them looks like yet another teaching. "Is there any way" they asked, "that we can figure out which of these teachings is real?"
And that's when Buddha gave his famous answer, the point of which:
It is by its results that a teaching should be evaluated.

A teaching can be elaborate and logical, with precise definitions. According to some people's preconceptions, these are the marks of a true teaching.
A teaching  could be profound, deep and mysterious. Some people assume, if chasm is deep and they can't see the bottom, there must be something in there.
A teaching could match student's view of the world, e.g. the scientific worldview, or a spiritual worldview, or both. Many people interpret Kalama Sutra this way, that they should not believe a teaching unless it matches "common sense". They don't seem to realize that what they assume as common sense is in fact the very tangle of preconceptions that holds them in Samsara.
A teaching could go against student's preconceptions and introduce a completely new theory of everything. Some students are very excited about such esoteric teachings and their eyes glaze over teachers that, in their opinion, profanate Dharma by assuming it speaks about our everyday lives.
A teacher can look confident and speak well, or be soft-spoken and funny, like Dalai Lama. Many people find it hard to relate to a teacher who mismatches their archetype of Sage or Wise Old Man.

According to Buddha, all these are secondary factors, that can't be used as identifying markers of Sat-Dharma (True/Eternal Law/Tradition). Instead, it is by the effects it brings out, both in student's psyche as well as in the world, that a teaching should be measured.
Sat-Dharma is famously good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end.
Good in the beginning means, even the outermost layer of Dharma, the one seen by non-Buddhists, has good influence on people. Even the laypeople who don't really practice, but are merely guided by basic Dharma principles, benefit from it. They find that Dharma not only happens to match their highest secular moral and wisdom, but that while secular moral is often too flexible, the compass of Dharma never wavers. When followed at large, True Dharma must lead to reduced suffering and increased harmony in daily lives of common people.
Good in the middle means, when someone practices a slightly superficial version of Dharma, without fully understanding it yet, it greatly reduces amount of suffering one generates inside and around. Student learns to watch his mind and recognize its state, learns to stay mindful of the body and notice arising emotions, learns to not let harmful thoughts and emotions control him, learns to let go of attachments and preconceptions. This leads to increased quality of life, as the student can now stay cool through various life challenges.
Good in the end means, one eventually arrives at Liberating Realization, whereby one is no longer dominated by arbitrary formations, but can instead juggle formations freely.
While some kind of "Good in the end" is obviously the goal of all alternative teachings, it is "Good in the middle" and "Good in the beginning" that is a characteristic mark of True Dharma.
So when Gotama said, "do not believe anything I say until you can prove it by yourself" (or however you want to put it), this is what he meant. He did not mean we should reject a teaching unless it matches our preconceptions. He meant we should evaluate a teaching by its effect on our lives. The proof is in the pudding.

This link has a good translation of Kalama Sutta ( http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/kalama1.htm)

Bhikkhu Bodhi gives a commentary along similar "Let's remember the context, people!" lines: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_09.html

A text of the Buddhist Canon this quote is said to come from is the Kalama Sutta; which is often misquoted and misrepresented. The Kalama Sutta basically recommends judging a path by its results, namely, does this method of practice lead to more wholesome states?
It isn't a "charter for free enquiry" as some claim, or an invitation to indulge personal views.

Greeting DL. While you are new to this forum, I sense you have posted on many Buddhist forums. This forum aims to be of a higher quality than the run-of-the-mill papanca Buddhist forum. I amended you answer so it includes links and so your answer actually answers the original question (rather than addresses some answers given). Buddhism SE is not a "debate forum", such as DW, New Buddhist & Free Sangha are. With metta. DD.

Thanks for the edit -- references aren't required but I think they can improve the quality of an answer. I'm not sure what's in this answer, though, that isn't already in the two previous answers which reference the Kalama sutta.

Hmm. Assessing what is quality and what is papanca is very subjective. And it's arrogant to edit another person's post without permission, and be so dismissive of other forums.

@DairyLama Despite the inherent subjectivity of all these assessments, we do encourage thoughtful answers, constructive comments, and non-vandalizing edits.

My teaching is not to believe rather to practice.
Buddhism is about reason, realisation and awakening. It has to be applicable and put to daily life living.


text:
Was Buddha one man?
On Wikipedia Buddha redirects to Gautama Buddha, but there is also a List of the twenty-eight Buddhas
Was Buddha a single human man? Or is Buddha a concept or maybe a spirit often reborn?

Quite simply impossible to know. There are limits to what our methods of history can figure out.

Buddha is like gone , but cannot be determined

"Buddha" is a title, not a name. It means "awake" or "enlightened". Usually, when one mentions "the Buddha", one is referring to Gautama Sidharta, who lived about 2600 years ago and founded what is now called Buddhism.
Some traditions, however, say that he was just one in a long line of Buddhas, who come into the world whenever the dharma is forgotten by the people.

Yes, Buddha was a one human. There were previous humans who attained the same knowledge and understanding before.
Gautama was the recent Buddha's name. He was born between c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE ( roughly) and lived for 80 years.
History of Buddhas has a brief summary of the event when Gautama Buddha talked about previous Buddhas.

Venerable Særiputta asks the Buddha when it was that he first resolved to work for attainment of the Buddhahood and what pæramis (virtues towards perfection) he had fulfilled to achieve his goal of Perfect Enlightenment

Then Buddha described:

How as Sumedha the hermit, being inspired by Deepankara Buddha, he makes the resolution for the attainment of Buddhahood and how the Buddha Deepankara gives the hermit Sumedha his blessing prophesying that Sumedha would become a Buddha by the name of Gotama after a lapse of four asankya and a hundred thousand kappas (world cycles).

I didn't realize each Buddha has his own tree of enlightenment. Gautama: fig, 11", supple, single phoenix tail feather

@Wideshanks Yes, This book (http://dhammadownload.com/File-Library/MinGunSayadawGyi/MinGunSayadawGyi-TGC-V1P2.pdf) gives a detailed study about the 'Paramis' that Buddha acquire during his previous lives to achieve the perfection.

This could be answered either or both ways, yes and/or no.

No -- Religious heroes are established in aggrandizement proportionate to their distance in time and forfeit from recorded, accurate history. Those featuring extraordinary and outrageous, supernatural characters display the most obvious departures from reliable records, and at best they are embellishments on numerous legendary and partly-historical human beings.
The Buddha, so called, is precisely of this character, enshrouded in legend, having for hundreds of years been described orally before accreted and proposed biographic and tutelary details were integrated to this shifting picture. Much more was not known about any human being behind the title than was known, and politics and social trends, fashions, and fads all contributed to the assemblage which comes down to us as an inspirational and stellar success story.
Yes -- Gautama Buddha, also known as Sakyamuni and Siddhartha, was one individual human being described as having special birth signs, foretold as the World Monarch or the World Teacher, enshrouded in protection away from instances of sickness, old age, death, and the holy life so as to give him no incentive to abandon his princely and worldly station.
Instead he is said to have, as a young adult, discovered these phenomena, abandoned his wife and family, taken up austerities with the spiritual authorities of India in his time period, sufficiently mastered them so as to gain insight into their limitations, and perfected the Middle Way. His 8-Fold Path or Marga is said capable of yielding the worthy result of Nirvana, the extinguishment of craving and the anguish it is said to cause.
While others may have been provided titular resonance insofar as they also are supposed to have 'awakened' (and are thus called 'buddhas'), only one individual is known particularly for this feat of wakeful discovery or for his transcendance of death in Parinirvana thereafter.

It had been my intention to provide two distinctly different answers so that it would not be possible to state "This could be answered either or both ways, yes and/or no.", which is obvious and incidental. I gather that there may be rules of interest operating here in this Stack Exchange whereby my two answers were combined, but i did not want it to go without my objection (it was intentional on my part because of the nature of the question and the character of the individual inquired about). I am satisfied to leave this comment here as this disclosure.

Buddha is title which used to identify the wisest man in the whole world (including heavens and brahma worlds). Buddha is coming to the world when the dhamma has completely disappeared from the world. Normally one aeons has one Buddha, but this differs sometime. And Buddha's teaching he has told about the nearest past and future Buddhas. So the list of 28 has come from that teaching. They are the previous Buddhas born to the world.
There are aeons where no buddha is born. Anyway Gauthama Buddha was born around 2500 years ago. And before that (previous aeon) the name of the Buddha born to the world was Kassapa and the next Buddha to be born is Maithree. Like wise this cycle continues.
Buddha is not a reborn. Because Gauthama buddha has explained how he met Kassapa buddha in previous life (in last aeon). His name at that time was Sumedha. And at that time Sumedha was not expecting to understand the Dhamma, what he focused / aimed was to be a Budda. So Sumedha has done the things he need to be a buddha (which is called Paramitha) in the last aeon to this aeon period. And could attain the position called Buddha as Gautama Buddha. Same like that Maithree bodhisattva is now in the path to be the next buddha. And It's believe that Maithree bodhisattva currently is in heaven. And he will be born in the human world, when the correct time has come.


text:
Is drinking coffee or tea against the fifth precept?
The fifth precept most directly guides us to abstain from alcohol. Coffee is a stimulant and probably so is tea. Drinking either beverage affects our mental calm and makes us behave in ways that we would not do so without having drunk it. In this sense, drinking coffee and tea is not that different from drinking alcohol. Does drinking coffee or tea is considered against the fifth precept?
In Asia, many people, including monks, drink tea. Does this indicate that drinking tea is at least not against the fifth precept?

The literal meaing there is avoiding fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

Surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi
I undertake the precept to avoid [that big long word]

Big long word happily rendered as "beer-cider-carelessness-intoxication-condition" by Kare.
This is talking specifically about fermented things like beer, wine, etc. Neither coffee nor tea are fermented, nor do they cause heedlessness. I've heard of monks drinking tea. (I've heard of monks smoking too, which I think isn't forbidden by this rule, although perhaps by others)
It's all well and good to look past the behavior prohibited by the precepts to see what further kinds of attachments you have that can be abandoned, but not, I think, at the cost of going back to change the meaning of the precept.
But I do occasionally see attempts at redefining the precepts to be stricter than they are. Take Sulak Sivaraksa's reinterpretation of the five precepts:

Sulak reinterprets the five classic Buddhist precepts for the modern day.

Individuals may not be killing outright, but they must examine how their actions might support wars, racial conflict, or the breeding of animals for human consumption.
Considering the second precept of abstaining from stealing, Sulak questions the moral implications of capitalism.
Stopping exploitation of women is a natural extension of the third precept of abstaining from sexual misconduct.
And vowing to abstain from false speech would naturally bring into question how mass media and education promote a biased view of the world.
Finally, the fifth precept to avoid intoxicants deals with international peace and justice because, “the Third World farmers grow heroin, coca, coffee, and tobacco because the economic system makes it impossible for them to support themselves growing rice and vegetables.

All good points and things worth thinking about, but these are going beyond the five precepts. The precepts are intended to take you to a point where you can examine all of your behavior to see what is skillful, what leads to affliction, etc.
But the precepts shouldn't be redefined to also include these new things. This would only lead to divisiveness between people as one person preaches getting rid of coffee and others disagree. Remember the Buddha refused to make vegetarianism mandatory for the sangha, even though the killing involved in eating meat can easily be seen to pertain to the first precept.
In the case of coffee, I could see a person getting riled up by it and possibly being less able to control their mind, being quicker to anger, etc. If this is the case, then it should certainly be examined, and perhaps that behavior should be abandoned, but this is not covered by the fifth precept.

When I drink coffee, I am more talkative than usual. In this sense, the simulation caused by coffee can be considered heedless, although coffee is not fermented drink.

This is a very small factual note that doesn't inform the material meaning of your post, but it is worth noting that there are many kinds of tea that are fermented - but they are fermented as a part of an aging and storage process, not as a means of forming an alcohol. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermented_tea

The five precepts are an entry-level practice that is designed to help practitioner master basic discipline of self-reflection and self-control.
Abstaining from killing, stealing etc. implies basic ability to watch one's mind for harmful thoughts and emotions, and to prevent them from getting acted out.
In light of the above, the no-killing rule should not be understood literally, as an absolute law, but as a guideline for training the mind. It is not acceptable to hurt or harm any creature (big or small) out of antipathy. This is what the no-killing rule is mostly about, countering the first poison, usually translated Anger or Hate but really meaning Aversion/Antipathy/Negativity.
Similarly, the no-stealing rule is mainly about countering another of Three Poisons, that of Obsessive Attraction or Desire.
Likewise, the no-intoxication rule is meant to counter the habitual mind-state of Ignorance (obscurity, confusion). Many people prefer to get drunk or stoned as a way to anesthetize themselves. They don't seem to see the connection between the dimmed mind and the causes of suffering. The no-intoxication rule is meant to guide people out of their comfortable haze and towards lucidity of enlightenment. In this vein, watching TV or playing videogames, is too a form of intoxication and should be minimized.
Drinking tea or coffee does not produce haze and therefore is not subject to the fifth precept. That said, being addicted to e.g. coffee is not much different from any other addiction in that produces a state of obsessive desire.

Very good explanation of how things are linked up. This is what is really needed when learning.

A more literal interpretation is, for example, from Bhikkhu Bodhi

"The fifth precept reads: Suramerayamajjapamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami, "I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness."

Coffee & tea, not being fermented or distilled intoxicants wouldn't break the 5th precept I wouldn't think. Of course limiting caffeine and sugar and lots of other stuff will help keep your mind calm and makes sense for good health and meditation.

I think that the Heedlessness idea is on track. The Buddha didn't warn against cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine, but they can clearly be included in the 5th Precept these days. I think the issue would be how do coffee and tea affect you? You might abstain to see. You might have them for a reason. I don't hold absolutely with the "addiction" line because we are all addicted to sunlight, air, water and food. More or less of any of them might help or harm. Coffee and tea are no more inherently harmful than any of these. The fact that 90% of the worlds people use caffeine on a daily basis should tell us something. (What should it tell us?)
Black tea is fermented, by the way. Green tea is not.

Tea or coffee drinking is not an issue. This is well explained in "THE FIVE PRECEPTS" which is a very good read on the 5 precepts.

The fifth precept reads: Surā-meraya-majja-pamāda-ṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi, “I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented and distilled intoxicants which are the basis for heedlessness.” The word meraya means fermented liquors, sura liquors which have been distilled to increase their strength and flavor. The world majja, meaning an intoxicant, can be related to the rest of the passage either as qualified by sura,meraya or as additional to them. In the former case the whole phrase means fermented and distilled liquors which are intoxicants, in the latter it means fermented and distilled liquors and other intoxicants. If this second reading is adopted the precept would explicitly include intoxicating drugs used non-medicinally, such as the opiates, hemp, and psychedelics. But even on the first reading the precept implicitly proscribes these drugs by way of its guiding purpose, which is to prevent heedlessness caused by the taking of intoxicating substances.

The wording of this source is indeed very clear, concise and pleasant to read. Thank you.

Why do you think that psychedelics cause heedlessness?

@Euphorbium perhaps a larger concern is that non-medical drugs alter one's experience, which goes against the entire point of practicing Buddhism.


text:
What is the meaning of "dhammā" in the context of the four satipaṭṭhāna?
I've been struggling with this one for quite a while now. The fourth foundation of mindfulness is called 'dhammānupassana' - vision in regards to the dhammas. The old translation I was given when I started meditating was "mind objects", which I'm pretty sure is not at all correct in this context, since it doesn't get at the distinction between the fourth set and the first three.
The phrase "mind object" is a translation of "dhammarammana". According to Nina Van Gorkom,

Dhammarammana comprises all objects which are not included in the first five classes. These can be experienced only through the mind-door.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/nina-abhidhamma/nina-abhi-16.htm

So, "mind object" is a specific subset of reality in a specific context. The first five indriya and the first three elements that comprise rupakkhandha are not a part of this subset, and yet they appear in the section on dhammanupassana.
The commentary says relating the the fourth satipatthana,

and now in order to speak of even the laying hold of the aggregates of perception and formations, he said "And, how, o bhikkhus," and so forth."

So the emphasis is supposed to be on these two aggregates (even though the five aggregates themselves are under this heading).
In Thai, the meaning is given as "that which holds (dhareti) the meditator from falling into evil", which is a definition of the truths (dhammas) taught by the Buddha. That seems appropriate, but it is still curious that there are only a limited number of subsets of the Buddha's teaching in the satipaṭṭhāna sutta, certainly not all of the Buddha's teaching.
Does anyone have a proper explanation as to why the fourth set is called "dhammas"?

Once you have contemplated in and of itself your body, felling(s) and mental state(s) and reached mindfulness; then, you have to contemplate, as evident, the mental qualities of the Dhamma such as Sanditthiko (testable by practice and known by direct experience,) Akaliko( immediate results,) Opaneyiko (capable of being entered upon, acquired.) Such is..., such is..., such is..., I presume.

I think the following perspective on all four satipatthanas will help in understanding the  meaning of the fourth one. The four satipatthanas are supposed to counter the four vipallasas (perversions) which are: permanence, happiness, self, and beauty. So, mindfulness of the body counters the beauty perversion; mindfulness of feelings (and the fact that all vedanas are included in dukkha) counters the happiness perversion; mindfulness of mind (which is anicca) counters the permanence perversion; and, finally, mindfulness of the dhammas counters the self (atta) perversion. Thus, one reviews dhammas to realize anatta. To view four perversions would be inappropriate attention (ayoniso-manasikara), but the four satipatthanas, would be training in appropriate attention (yoniso-manasikara).
So, overall, I think the meaning of dhamma in this context is exactly what they are: analytical properties of experience, ultimate phenomena, and everything else that apply to dhammas (mind objects, matikas, dhamma lists, etc).

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that teaching in this context.

I guess "realities" works well, since it suggests ultimate impersonal phenomena. By seeing realities in regards to realities, one overcomes perversion of self.

Does anyone have a proper explanation as to why the fourth set is called "dhammas"?

Because the 4th category is not about dhamma (mental qualities or phenomena), it's
☸Dhamma-[teaching that leads directly to nirvana].
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/proof-dharma-is-buddhas-teaching-not.html
The standard Theravada interpretation of the cryptic formula in 4sp satipatthana, is that one focuses on one of the frames to the exclusion of the other 3. But that's not the real purpose. The real meaning, is that one  should see "body as body [as it actually is]".
http://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-real-meaning-of-cryptic-formula-in.html
For ☸Dhamma, the meaning of seeing ☸Dhamma as ☸Dhamma as it actually is, is very similar in meaning to the meaning of ☸Dhamma-anu-dhamma☸
{the practice of} dhamma/Dhamma that accords with {the Buddha's} ☸Dhamma.
http://lucid24.org/tped/d/dhamma/index.html
EA, the MN 10  (satipatthana sutta) parallel in Chinese Agama, supports my interpretation
Or at the very least, has an idea much closer to mine, than to Theravada.
It looks like they're interpretation is that you take any dhamma [thing, quality, phenomena], and put it through a thorough ☸Dhamma investigation, after attaining 4 jhanas via 7sb.
(chinese and english translation of passage here):
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-is-dhamma-category-in-4sp.html
my response to one of the comments below:
in DN 22 though, the 4 noble truths and noble eightfold path description under Dhammaanupassana are just cut and paste jobs from other fundamental suttas defining what those factors are. Unlike the EA parallel where Dhamma anupassana is described where you're activing USING a Dhamma-teaching framework to analyze the phenomena. DN 22 maybe implies that, but the Theravada model is so massive and convoluted you can't tell for sure. In EA, for sure that's what they're doing. The problem is if you take DN 22 as viewing dhamma-phenomena viewed through Dhamma-teaching framework, then how do you approach the other 3 satipatthana where that wouldn't work? It doesn't say kaya-Dhamma-anupassi, vedana-dhamma-anupassa, etc...

it's ☸Dhamma-[teaching that leads directly to nirvana]. that's right, also directly explained. Note one of the two similar suttas missing the passage, explaining it in detail, Upasak Frank. Keeping in mind the 4 Noble Truth.

This translation is based on the Thai edition of the sutta, which is identical with its version of DN 22. Other editions of the Canon omit the long section explaining the four noble truths, which is here contained in double braces, like this: {{ }}., comment MN10

Uncommon Wisdom: Life and Teachings  of  Ajaan Paññāvaddho
"Wisdom
The path of wisdom practice—investigating inward from the coarsest objects to the most refined—is exemplified in the Four Foundations of Mindfulness or the Four Satipaṭṭhāna: body, feeling, citta and dhammā. Here we have a path leading progressively from the external to the internal. The body, being external, is the most obvious. Going inward, feeling is represented by the more subtle feeling-body.
More subtle still is citta or states of mind. Lastly, there is dhammā, which is the content of the mind—the subtlest phenomena of all. Each of these four is a domain of personal experience, and each is a mode of establishing mindfulness...
... Various factors make up the processes of the mind. There are feelings and memories; then the two major factors that make up thought, which are sankhāras and dhammas. By sankhāras, we mean the mental formations that create thoughts and ideas. When sankhāras group together, they form states of mind, which are combinations of many different factors, like anxiety, anger, conceit, compassion, concentration and so on. In the case of establishing mindfulness in the domain of mental states, we see the arising and ceasing of the factors that comprise those states, and the relationship between those states and our experience of body and feeling.
The fourth domain of satipaṭṭhāna, dhammā, refers to the content of the mind. The dhammas are the basic elements that make up mental formations and states of mind, and those elementary factors cannot be reduced any further. They are qualities and faculties that arise in the mind. For instance, pure hatred and pure greed are dhammas. They simply arise on their own, and they cannot be dissected any further....
...When mindfulness is well established in the internal body, the relationship between feelings and the states of mind that define and interpret them becomes apparent. In other words, the way we interpret the feelings that define how we experience the body is determined by our mental state. From that understanding, we realize that the mind is the true basis of feeling. As our contemplation moves deeper into mental states, our attachment to the domain of feeling—an essential aspect of our personal identity—starts to fade into the back-ground. Feelings now appear external, and the primary focus turns inward to our mental states.
With the establishment of mindfulness firmly based in the domain of mental states, the subtle phenomena that make up the content of the mind are more readily perceived. These mental phenomena are far more refined than the states of mind they bring into being, and therefore more “internal” in relation to mental processes. In the final analysis, attachment to these subtle phenomena must be overcome in order to attain the mind’s liberation..."
From my perspective this is a very neat explanation.  I include the following as supplementary for those not so familiar with their teachings.
From the tornado of self.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ldqXnI6mRo
“The Citta as referenced in the forest tradition as the structure to which mind finds support. Citta is nibhana in the state of the complete removal of sankhāras.  When the citta is ruled by the fundamental ignorance of avijjã and tainted by kilesas, it pushes the khandhas to do unwholesome actions of body, speech and mind. When Dhamma is in control, wholesome actions occur.”
From Uncommon wisdom.
“By the same reasoning, the Noble Eightfold Path is not a path that one travels along as one would a road or a walkway. Rather, the Path is set up as a mode of transcendence. When we have done the work to set the Path up correctly, it acts like a channel for transcendent states of mind to arise—Sotāpanna, Sakadāgāmī, Anāgāmī and Arahant. Because of that, all the path factors arise simultaneously. It is a difficult feat to accomplish because we must get all of those factors just right at the same moment. Having done the work, when the right conditions arise, they will all come together and bring forth the path moment.
In order to accomplish this, we must gradually develop all of the conditions which are necessary for that moment to take place. It involves not only formal meditation practice but all of our activities throughout the day. Effort and wisdom must be present at all times in order to turn every situation into Dhamma.”

I'd go with "the contents of mind", as opposed to the overall condition of mind (the point of the third "foundation", as is evident from the elaboration: attraction, aversion, doubt, agitation, sloth etc.).
You seem to assume that the first three foundations are all ultimately objects of mind, but I don't think that's a perspective taken here.
The matrika seems to be a simple progression from coarse phenomena to more refined ones. First, there is the body with its sensations (vedana), then there is the mind, with its contents (dhamma).
The word dhamma literally means "that which is held". In phenomenological context, it means "that which is held by the mind". So in case of satipatthana, dhamma means "objects of mind", or "contents of mind".

I just don't think that the sets of teachings listed under dhammas are in any way a list of mind-objects; they certainly don't seem to fit with any such lists elsewhere - mind objects is a valid translation of dhamma (dhammaramana) in certain instances, just not this one, IMO.

@zvolkov Please look at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html#mental it's not just some 'contents of mind' it is precisely dhamma lists of the teaching. 'Content[s] of mind' could be 3rd satipatthana, where is impermanence of citta is the goal. But 4th satipatthana is very different thing, and much more complicated and profound.

Contrary to the assumption in question., it seems plainly obvious the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta is not the Buddha's teaching. For example, how could the five hindrances be an object of the 4th satipatthana when the five hindrances must be dispensed with prior to the 1st satipatthana? Or how can the realisation or experience of the four noble truths pass away for an Awakened One?
Ajahn Buddhadasa suggested the Satipatthana Sutta is merely a list of disconnected dhammas. Ajahn Sujato has labelled the Satipatthana Sutta the 'Piltdown (Hoax) Sutta'. Surely, a Buddhist of reasonable discernment can see the Satipatthana Sutta is taught contrary to how the Buddha taught Dhamma, namely, it is taught in the wrong sequence pertaining to cause & effect.
If the Anapanasati Sutta is used as a guide, the meaning of dhammānupassana is clear. "Dhamma" refers to the Supramundane Realisation & Fruit declared by the Buddha.


text:
Is it useful (and polite) to ask a potential meditation teacher about their attainments?
In another question, it was discussed whether it's possible to recognize if someone is an arahat. I'm interested in something slightly less formidable, namely the "attainments" that may lead to enlightenment.
Specifically, if I want to choose a Buddhist meditation teacher, with an expectation that I will, under their guidance, attain some or all of the jhana absorptions, and also the various stages of insight, is it appropriate to ask them how much of them they themselves have achieved?
One reason I think this could be useful is that I am very well aware that there is a difference between knowing about those attainments -- and maybe even knowing great detail about how they are achieved -- versus actually having achieved them. I, myself, have read around the topic a lot, and could pass for a teacher to someone who knows nothing. But other than possibly access concentration, I am an unattained noob.
Is it worth asking others, so I can avoid a blind leading the blind situation? (Of course, there's the additional problem of knowing if someone who claims they have attained something is telling the truth. But at least by asking I could identify honest unattained noobs)
On the other hand, I recall a story of a very early teacher who in fact was highly effective and led many people to enlightenment without himself first being enlightened. (The story ends well in that finally he got there, but it may be a counter to the argument that to help someone to attainment X one must onesself have attainment X).

Worrying about whether something is polite or not is a hindrance. I am sure some practitioners would find it offensive but if they are offended that probably tells you all you need to know.
If you have yet to obtain the Jhanas then there are probably others who are still more advanced than you who have not yet obtained them either. The way I see it, anyone who is beyond you can be a good teacher and anyone who you are beyond can be a good student.
According to the Thana Sutta:

It's through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a long period...
It's through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period...
It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and then only after a long period...
It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period...

You can't really know simply by asking.

It's like asking what's your ATM security key. You might share it with a family member because they are your family and you trust them. Just like that, an Ariya Puggala might discuss his attainment with the Buddha or with Arya Sangha. But they wouldn't discuss it with ordinary lay people. You could observe the teacher's behavior for a while and see if he becomes angry or afraid. If he does, then at most he could be a Sakadagami. But even if he doesn't show his anger, he could still be getting irritated inside. So it's difficult to tell if one has attained a certain stage of enlightenment. But it's easier to tell whether one is not an Arahath. One of the methods I use is to see if my level of understanding, appreciation and confidence of the Triple Gem improves after listening to a sermon from a teacher. Sometimes you might listen to a teacher who might have memorised a lot from Tipitaka and the Commentaries, but when interpreting the meanings, he might make you doubtful of the Triple Gem. Sometimes you see certain teachers even going to the extent of insulting the authors of commentaries and questioning the authenticity of Abhidhamma to prove their point. That's a clear indication that you should look for a new teacher.
With meditation, you can practice it and observe your mind to see if your defilements are subsiding and being eliminated. If they do, the technique works and the teacher is good.
Yes, an unenlightened teacher with a sharp knowledge can still make someone else enlightened by giving a good sermon. But it's still won't be as good as having instructions from an enlightened person. Even with an enlightened teacher, you may not be able to be successful. Even the chief disciple most venerable Sariputta thera couldn't help a certain meditation student. Only after taking him to the Buddha, was he able to attain enlightenment. Only the Buddha can give you the instructions that will suit your personality 100%.
So I'd stop focusing too much on finding the teacher's attainment and observe myself to see if the practice works.

this would probably be better as a comment, or should be expanded to provide a substantial answer.

Expanded it, Bhante!

If it's a monk they are forbidden from discussing attainments with lay persons due to some monks at the time of the Buddha using their attainments and powers unskillfully with lay persons.
Otherwise it's still not something you ask the person directly, although it appears to happen quite often as I've seen it on many Dhamma talk videos and in person at retreats. Usually the person says flat out no or redirects the question in some way or another.
It may also be useful to observe your desire to have a teacher that matches your criteria and the judgments, expectations, and issues that arise from that.

Because we're on Beta, I'm going to comment on an aspect of this answer. I consider the first two paragraphs to be fine (and useful). I consider the last paragraph to be inappropriate for a few reasons. First, it makes the (commonly made on the internet) error of answering a question that wasn't asked, thereby risking hijacking the thread. Second, it deals with a personal aspect (my "desire") on which the responder -- given that they know very little about me -- is not qualified to comment. Third, and finally, for space reasons I'll put into a second comment.

Third, and final, it is potentially rhetorical. Saying "It may also be useful to observe your desire..." in this context would be taken by most English-speakers as a critique of my desire. Similar in form to a mother saying to a naughty child, "Do you really think that was an appropriate way to behave?".  The answer's overall quality would be significantly improved by simply removing that third paragraph.

@Tommy, maybe the third paragraph can be improved, but I think it is appropriate to "drift" a little. In this case, he led to an issue prior to the topic's question. Using an analogy, someone would ask "What is the food that satiates most? I would like to eat fewer times per day." then someone answers "Red meat is the answer, but perhaps it isn't healthy to stay too many hours without ingesting food." I think it is relevant. And finally, it would be better to discuss about this in meta.

@Eric, yes to discussing on meta -- see here. And I agree "drift" can be OK. But I feel this particular form is problematic (for reasons I detail in that linked meta post.)

I can finally comment now :). I understand the concerns for "drift". I will try to explain where the impetus for the 3rd paragraph came form :
"Is it worth asking others, so I can avoid a blind leading the blind situation? (Of course, there's the additional problem of knowing if someone who claims they have attained something is telling the truth. But at least by asking I could identify honest unattained noobs)"
I felt this paragraph was posing a question a bit further beyond the initial title question and so did not feel that the 3rd paragraph was something totally alien from the topic.

Theruwan Saranai. Could you please let me know where in the Vinaya or Sutras is it forbidden for a monk to discuss his/her attainments with a lay person? Say if the lay person is a student of the Bhikkhu. Thank you.

The Buddha while he was a Bodhisattva did directly ask his teachers
"So I went to him and said, 'To what extent do you declare that you have entered & dwell in this Dhamma?' When this was said, he declared the dimension of..." (Ariyapariyesana Sutta MN 26)
It is important to understand what is it that the teacher is proficient in teaching, his/her personal experience and experience as a teacher, method(s) of practice etc. Meditation teachers also have to be honest and open with their experience (attainments are mere labels) do they teach with direct experience or mere faith in a certain teaching, or because they like to teach, or because its a tradition of his Bhikkhu lineage, etc. Somewhat similar to how you would go about selecting a teacher for another subject.
The Canki Sutta MN 95 gives a method of discovering via observation the worthiness of a potential teacher. However it will take time.
"There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy..."

Here's very neat zen answer by Venerable Chong An Sunim to question about attainment. It might give you some new perspective. https://youtu.be/hOZKvRMBdAM?t=23m45s

Please, ca you provide more context or quotes from the link you mention, in case the url becomes defunct?