text:
Are Buddhists against abortion?
While other religions seem to have a definition position on abortion I've never come across the Buddhist view on this. From a naive perspective I would imagine that Buddhists would be prolife rather then prochoice - the abstain from killing precept seems to be the relevant one. But I would imagine it would also depend on when Buddhist believe that life begins or becomes sentient.
Is there any pointers to the ethics of abortion in the scriptures (pali canon, mahayana etc..) or perhaps guidance/opinions from more contemporary teachers. I feel that the real position could be quite nuanced.
Many thanks for any/all thoughts

A better question would be "Does abortion causes bad Karma?".

This is one of those questions that is complicated by that in the United States the conversation around abortion looks and feels very different than it does from other countries in the world. It is also made complex by the interaction of the ideology and the "situation on the ground," where things are usually quite complicated.
To quote Karma Lekshe Tsomo's excellent article Prolife, Prochoice: Buddhism and Reproductive Ethics:

In Buddhism, a primary guiding principle for ethical decision-making is the relief of suffering. It is clear that both abortion and restrictive abortion laws can cause great suffering for both mother and fetus. […]
In the end, most Buddhists recognize the incongruity that exists between ethical theory and actual practice and, while they do not condone the taking of life, do advocate understanding and compassion toward all living beings, a lovingkindness that is nonjudgmental and respects the right and freedom of human beings to make their own choices.

So to start with, we need separate "pro-life" (in the sense of being opposed to abortion) and "pro-choice" (in the sense of believing the state should restrict it). There are certainly Buddhists who are both pro-choice and anti-choice regardless of whether they are also "pro-life."
It is widely recognized in a variety of sources that, in the traditional Buddhist sources, the ensoulment occurs at conception. Bhikkhu Bodhi mentions in the book In the Buddha's Words that consciousness (or perhaps more precisely viññāṇa) begins "from the moment of conception," though I don't know where precisely in the texts this is defined to be the case.
We see that this translates to a "pro-life" and sometimes "anti-choice" attitude in the Theravada countries. Sri Lanka allows abortion to preserve the life of the woman but not for any other reason. Myanmar is similar. Thailand is slightly more permissive–especially since it allows for health of the mother under some circumstances and includes mental health–while still generally banning it.
In Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics we see analysis that indicates that:

It is clear, at the very least, that the great majority of Buddhists agree that abortion is killing a human being, and is an evil that should be avoided, other things being equal. A crucial issue, though, is how evil it is and what 'other things' can come to outweigh this evil, so that abortion comes to be seen as a 'necessary evil' in certain circumstances?

It is important to note that in some cases these laws were only written after contact with European societies (details in links, Peter Harvey indicates as well that, pre-colonial times, Burma/Myanmar "abortion was not liable for punishment"). It is also the case that, even where it is banned, the laws do not appear equivalent to murder.  There's also a great deal of individual variation outside of the state laws, especially in Thailand, where 95% of the population is Buddhist but there's some popular support for more lenient abortion laws.
As far as I can tell, Tibetan Buddhism is similarly strongly opposed to the practice, but there's still some nuance around treating it, with the Dalai Lama saying in an interview with the NYT (from the above BBC article examining Buddhist views on abortion):

Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances.
If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.

In Japan (and Korea per Harvey) it is much, much less restricted and the Japanese Buddhists are much more accepting of it. This was examined in the book Liquid Life: Abortion and Buddhism and Japan.  It is notable that both US Buddhists and Japanese Buddhists tend to be much less opposed to abortion than other Buddhist groups.
This issue is explored further in Michael G. Barnhart's Buddhism and the Morality of Abortion, which notes that:

However, as Keown points out, (92) the cases dealt with involve women seeking abortions for questionable, perhaps self-serving, reasons including "concealing extramarital affairs, preventing inheritances, and domestic rivalry between co-wives."  In short, if these are the paradigm examples of abortion, then the case is heavily biased against the practice.

In conclusion: We can say that, in general, Buddhism is opposed to abortion and believes that it incurs a significant karmic burden, especially Theravadan and Tibetan practice. Individuals and subgroups, meanwhile, especially in Japan and the United States, fall all along the spectrum with respect to:

The degree of problem.
What factors help to balance and to what extent they balance.
What precisely the state should do about it.

Regardless, the person who has had an abortion should be treated with compassion–not moral judgement–and it should be understood that the decision is pretty much universally a difficult one with a lot of complications and nuances.

This answer is very comprehensive and has very high academic value. The last part is especially wonderful "Regardless, the person who has had an abortion should be treated with compassion–not moral judgement–and it should be understood that the decision is pretty much universally a difficult one with a lot of complications and nuances."and I think being Buddhist we all should understand the complications involved and other answers over here suggest that we all do understand it.

This answer is most misleading and has less to do with what the Buddha taught, but simply reflects ethical compromises, which reflect the incapacity of the particular commenters to stick rather with the Dhamma as to tend to the worldlings view, for the sake of gaining. There is a clear message: not taking live. All aside are pushes of kilesas/defilements.
The decision form a point of the Dhamma is a pretty simple one that does neither cost much time to think and burdens, nor will either hurt one self or others at the end. Abstaining form taking life, telling others to take life or approve it

How is it misleading? The answer not only exposed what the texts teach, but also exposed how buddhists in different cultures and countries seem to perceive the subject. And it seems the question really did encompassed how buddhists deal with this issue, additionally to what has been taught in the texts. This answer, then, seem to have tackled all the points raised in the question.

Just wanted to say that this is one of the best answers I've ever seen.

I would not know about the Buddhist community as a whole, but Dalai Lama once  said that it is generally bad to kill even the fetus. He did give some room for context and circumstances though, for example if the mother is in danger.
As an answer, and from other sources I have seen, I would say that this is a pretty divisive subject, easier understood when we think of a Buddhist as a person that understands the difference between theory and practice.
It depends on the situation, really.

Abortion is considered a violation of the first precept, which applies to both lay people and monastics. Encouraging abortion is also one of the most serious offenses a monk can make, resulting (usually) in permanent expulsion. So yes.

I've heard that one contemporary teacher suggests that a couple can give up a baby for adoption directly after birth. He highlighted that nowadays there is a growing number of couples trying and failing to conceive a baby so it is rather sad that other couples next door abort new lives. In some countries it is possible to choose new parents before the child birth so the biological mother can be sure that her baby goes to good home. But overall the teacher admits that such decisions are very difficult and it takes lots of courage and maturity to choose this option.

Well meant practical thoughts to give alternatives and make it visible that there is and can never be a reason for killing. Sadhu!

if it can be done in a loving way, as some cultures do, it is wonderful. If the society is one of shame, control or abuse of women this is not accessible. An open society of respect creates this loving alternative. Pro-choice gives this option more than a non-nuanced Pro-life argument.

Buddhists believe that life begins at conception(as told in the pali suttas) and therefore it technically is the breaking of the 1st precept/training rule for the non harming of beings.
I believe it is also illegal in buddhist countries like  Sri Lanka.  That being said however there is a right mindset in dealing with those who choose abortion.  I like what Ajahn Brahm has to say about it,  compassion,  not judgment.
http://www.diydharma.org/buddhist-response-euthanasia-abortion-ajahn-brahm
This may also be helpful :
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books7/Ajahn_Brahm_When_Does_Human_Life_Begin.pdf

As i see it, the Dhamma teaches that for conception to take place there need to be three conditions (this is in the pali sutta);

a father
mother who is in season
a gandhabba

As i understand it, there needs to be adequate sperm, ovulation and a being must have such kamma-vipaka [loosely; destiny] that he is fit to be born into that particular family or circumstances in general.
Therefore if conception can be established to have occurred then there is a being destined to be a child of the two and abortion at that point would constitute a taking of life.

Most westerners say that a foetus of few weeks carries no significant consciousness. The pain of abortion is insignificant. However enlightened beings know that there is intelligence everywhere. From small virus , bacteria to ants to dogs to monkeys to elephants to human beings there is intelligence everywhere. If we kill an ant , may be ,it doesn’t hurt but if we destroy an ant colony there is a definite stress which we can observe.  Moreover,had there been any state of being which was free of suffering, Buddha would have called that as Self. But there are none. Therefore it is wrong to conclude that all abortions are painless for mother and the child.
We need to be sensitive towards mass abortions at least.Mass abortions like in USA are very unhealthy. It creates an environment which is not conducive for Nibbana. I think Buddha would have opposed the culture of abortions...

Those who follow the Sublime Buddha, his Dhamma, abstain from killing, taking life of living beings, telling others to kill and to approve the killing of living beings.
Since abortion is just another word for killing, yes, Buddha-Follower do not approve such, give signs for others to do or get even active involved, not even to an extant how it could be made or advices who performs such kills.
Don't forget that living already in times where human life-span is already down to maybe 10-15 years in middle and killing of humans has been grown to a daily routine.
And given that to be killed by ones selected relatives is thousand times higher than to become victim of other "unnatural deaths", it's good to reflect often the goodness of ones own parents toward one, for hardly anyone whould sacrifices that burdens, even prefer simply to kill one off.
And at least: know Monks who approve, even encourage and tell often even puplic in favor for kills being actually no more part of the Buddhas disciples. There aren't less, thought just on Australians kill-encouragements... yet where does the "Dhamma" you use for the most come from? Bloody one, or? Such is done for trade and making fools a favor. Payed by killers and not something given in faith.
And how does the Sublime Buddha perform an Abortion? He dispels, yet not born in Dhamma disciples, if conducting for harm of many. For it's sure that there is no way in this life to ever gain birth in the Dhamma and simply couse harm for it's womb.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]

"I am only mentioning the Theravada belief here"
As Buddhism teaches birth happens far before physical birth.It happens when the Semen finds the egg and start the process of growing.so not only abortion,Taking a pill is a violation of the first (not killing and never supporting killing).
Buddhism is against any sort of killing
Murder
Hiring for murder
Assisting murder
Praising murder
killing unborn
suicide
telling others to kill
approving the act of killing
Female rights for abortion is a medical and a social issue and it has nothing to do with  Karma!
"Please note that there is no instruction on anything described as bad Karma
to be done in a acceptable way.Buddhism is a straight religion it does not take back what it says and it does not open back doors to people to get away with things.What you choose to do is yours to decide but you will have to take it with you from life to life."

Sadhu! Maybe Upasaka likes to add, that telling others to kill and approving the act of killing is the same downfall kamma (body, speech, mind).

I see lots of web pages which say that "Buddhists believe that life begins when the egg is fertilised". What canonical doctrine is that based on?


text:
What is the difference between a Bodhisatta and a Bodhisattva?
Lots of Buddhist words have two different spellings (kamma/karma) because one is the Pali version and the other is the Sanskrit version; but the meaning is the same. My understanding of Bodhisatta and Bodhisattva though, is that they have different meanings. Can anyone elaborate?

Bodhisatta is Pali, Bodhisattva is Sanskrit, they have the same basic meaning.
Wikipedia:

In Buddhism, a bodhisattva (Sanskrit: बोधिसत्त्व bodhisattva; Pali:
  बोधिसत्त bodhisatta) is an enlightenment (bodhi) being (sattva).
  Traditionally, a bodhisattva is anyone who, motivated by great
  compassion, has generated bodhicitta, which is a spontaneous wish to
  attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. According
  to Tibetan Buddhism, a Bodhisattva is one of the four sublime states a
  human can achieve in life (the others being an Arhat, Buddha, or
  Pratyekabuddha).

In Theravāda Buddhism, the term "bodhisatta" (Pāli language) was used by the Buddha in the Pāli canon to refer to himself both in his previous lives and as a young man in his current life, prior to his enlightenment, in the period during which he was working towards his own liberation. In later Theravāda literature, the term "bodhisatta" is used fairly frequently in the sense of someone on the path to liberation.
Mahāyāna Buddhism is based principally upon the path of a bodhisattva. Mahāyāna Buddhism encourages everyone to become bodhisattvas and to take the bodhisattva vows. With these vows, one makes the promise to work for the complete enlightenment of all sentient beings.
The vows are an expression of bodhichitta, the desire to realize enlightenment for the sake of others. The exact wording of the Bodhisattva vows varies from school to school. The most basic form is:
May I attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.
Mahāyāna schools like Zen, Nichiren, Tendai, and others use vows translated as:

Beings are numberless, I vow to save them
Desires are inexhaustible, I vow to end them
Dharma gates are boundless, I vow to enter them
Buddha's way is unsurpassable, I vow to become it.

Bodhisatta is a Pali term, usually used in Theravada ("orthodox" Buddhism), while Bodhisattva is Sanskrit term, more often used in Mahayana (either "degenerated" Buddhism, or Buddhism "upholding the true spirit of the teaching above its letter", depending on your perspective ;)
Although both terms are local versions of the same basic word (that means "awakened being"), the two branches use the word in very different sense.
In Theravada, bodhisatta is primarily used in Jatakas (didactic tales targeted at lay audience of the times) to refer to a person on his way to Buddhahood, depicted at different stages of his spiritual growth. This person is usually understood to be the same individual that eventually became Gautama Buddha.
In Mahayana, bodhisattva is an advanced practitioner who renounced entering Nirvana indefinitely, helping the rest of sentient beings achieve Enlightenment.

Nope! They are exactly the same. There's also 'Maha-Bodhisatta'. That term is specifically used for a being who has gotten the confirmation from a fully enlightened Buddha that he is also going to become a fully enlightened Buddha in the future. ex: Mathree Bodhisatva who is in Tāvatiṃsa heaven at present will become the Maithree Buddha in the future. He will be the 5th and the final Buddha to appear before the world ends.

I'm not a Pali scholar, so can't quote line and verse, but I understand that a Mahayana Bodhisattva can take rebirth as several people, each representing a different characteristic of the predecessor.  The Theravada Bodhisatta is the simple continuation of the principle being destined for eventual enlightenment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can lay people be involved in the weapons business?
There is a short sentence in the suttas where the Buddha said lay people should not involve themselves in the weapons business, but it seems this is not as serious as the five precepts.
The question is, how much is considered weapons business? For example, is getting involving in the armor business considered weapon business? What about selling weapons designs, technologies, intellectual property, etc., but not selling weapons themselves?
What if someone is only skilled in weapons/war and cannot make a living off of other professions?

The first precept against killing is also extended to not allowing or enabling others to kill.  The Right Livelihood component of the Noble Eightfold Path says not to work in a job that violates the precepts.  I think that's a pretty clear answer.  No work in the weapons business or the killing business.

I would argue against your extrapolation of the first precept, unless we are from different traditions, as I know the Mahayana does add more to this first precept.
In the Pali there is nothing in the first precept that has to do with anyone ELSE performing an action, you are not responsible for the actions of others.
Now to the OP as far as your profession, do your best in life to perform skillful deeds that are beneficial to yourself and others, both in work and in general. If you continue to practice you may find yourself having a desire to learn how to make a living in some other way.

continued: Whatever situation you find yourself in life you can work to make things better. As far as the intricacies of what exactly counts as "business in weapons", you will most likely get a wide variety of answers.. but trust your own intuition and you'll have your own answer.

First of all, the passage you mention (AN 5.177):

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.177.than.html

The tika provides a bit of clarity on this:

satthavaṇijjā ti āvudhabhaṇḍaṃ katvā vā kāretvā vā kataṃ vā paṭilabhitvā tassa vikkayo.
"Business in weapons" means, having made instruments used as weapons, or having had them made, or having obtained them already made, the selling of those [instruments].

So, again it appears to be limited to the activities of a merchant. On the other hand, the entire sutta only describes the activities of a merchant (vanijja), so it doesn't actually make allowance for other ways of making money off of weapons manufacture and/or war. It is my guess that this is to be used as a guide on which to judge the morality of more indirect forms of martial employment (similar to manufacturing poison, etc.).
I don't think one should simply draw the line at commerce and say that any other war-based employment is okay. Instead we should ask what is wrong with selling weapons and apply the same principle to other similar activities.
One interesting exemption seems to be related to transportation and care of weapons. The commentary to Dhp 124 tells a story of a woman who cleaned and prepared weapons for her husband to catch and kill animals. She was a sotapanna and the Buddha said she was blameless:

The monks began to discuss the matter, saying, “So Kukkuṭamitta has a wife, and when she was a mere girl she obtained the Fruit of Conversion; yet she married this hunter and by him had seven sons. Furthermore, during all this time, whenever her husband said to her, ‘Bring me my bow, bring me my arrows, bring me my hunting-knife, bring me my net,’ she obeyed him and gave him what he asked for. And her husband, taking what she had given him, went and took life. Is it possible that those who have obtained the Fruit of Conversion take life?” Just then the Teacher approached and asked, “Monks, what is it that you are sitting here now talking about?” When they told him, he said, “Monks, of course those that have obtained the Fruit of Conversion do not take life. Kukkuṭamitta’s wife did what she did because she was actuated by the thought, ‘I will obey the commands of my husband.’ It never occurred to her to think, ‘He will take what I give him and go hence and take life.’ If a man’s hand be free from wounds, even though he take poison into his hand, yet the poison will not harm him. Precisely so, a man who harbors no thoughts of wrong and who commits no evil, may take down bows and other similar objects and present them to another, and yet be guiltless of sin.” So saying, he joined the connection, and preaching the Law, pronounced the following Stanza,
124. If in his hand there be no wound,
  A man may carry poison in his hand.
  Poison cannot harm him who is free from wounds.
  No evil befalls him who does no evil.

I think it's easy to see how this is different from actually helping to create weapons, but it does show that, as always, the mind is most important.

As to your final question, this is never a very good defence; it's like a butcher saying he has to kill because he has no other way to make money. While that might mitigate the evil, it doesn't make it categorically different from any other act of murder.
There is another story in the Jataka (JatA 31) that exemplifies the Buddhist view on this sort of situation. When Magha was reborn as Sakka, king of the angels of the thirty-three, three of his wives were also born in heaven due to their meritorious deeds. His fourth wife was born as a crane, and Sakka admonished her to keep the five precepts, as follows:

But Highborn, having performed no act of merit, was reborn as a crane
  in a grotto in the forest.
"There's no sign of Highborn," said Sakka to himself; "I wonder where
  she has been reborn." And as he considered the matter, he discovered
  her whereabouts. So he paid her a visit, and bringing her back with
  him to heaven shewed her the delightful city of the Devas, the Hall of
  Goodness, Thoughtful's Creeper-Grove, and the Tank called Joy. "These
  three," said Sakka, "have been reborn as my handmaidens by reason of
  the good works they did; but you, having done no good work, have been
  reborn in the brute creation. Henceforth keep the Commandments." And
  having exhorted her thus, and confirmed her in the Five Commandments,
  he took her back and let her go free. And thenceforth she did keep the
  Commandments.
A short time afterwards, being curious to know whether she really was
  able to keep the Commandments, Sakka went and lay down before her in
  the shape of a fish. Thinking the fish was dead, the crane seized it
  by the head. The fish wagged its tail. "Why, I do believe it's alive,"
  said the crane, and let the fish go. "Very good, very good," said
  Sakka; "you will be able to keep the Commandments." And so saying he
  went away.
Dying as a crane, Highborn was reborn into the family of a potter in
  Benares. Wondering where she had got to, and at last discovering her
  whereabouts, Sakka, disguised as an old man, filled a cart with
  cucumbers of solid gold and sat in the middle of the village, crying,
  "Buy my cucumbers! buy my cucumbers!" Folk came to him and asked for
  them. "I only part with them to such as keep the Commandments," said
  he, "do you keep them?" "We don't know what you mean by your
  'Commandments'; sell us the cucumbers." "No; I don't want money for my
  cucumbers. I give them away,--but only to those that keep the
  Commandments." "Who is this wag?" said the folk as they turned away.
  Hearing of this, Highborn thought to herself that the cucumbers must
  have been brought for her, and accordingly went and asked for some.
  "Do you keep the Commandments, madam?" said he. "Yes, I do," was the
  reply. "It was for you alone that I brought these here," said he, and
  leaving cucumbers, cart and all at her door he departed.
Continuing all her life long to keep the Commandments, Highborn after
  her death was reborn the daughter of the Asura king Vepacittiya, and
  for her goodness was rewarded with the gift of great beauty. When she
  grew up, her father mustered the Asuras together to give his daughter
  her pick of them for a husband. And Sakka, who had searched and found
  out her whereabouts, donned the shape of an Asura, and came down,
  saying to himself, "If Highborn chooses a husband really after her own
  heart, I shall be he."
Highborn was arrayed and brought forth to the place of assembly, where
  she was bidden to select a husband after her own heart. Looking round
  and observing Sakka, she was moved by her love for him in a bygone
  existence to choose him for her husband. Sakka carried her off to the
  city of the devas and made her the chief of twenty-five millions of
  dancing-girls. And when his term of life ended, he passed away to fare
  according to his deserts.

A true follower of the Buddha would not kill to save their own life.

Banthe, so is right livelihood in the kind of work you do or in kind of industry you work for? or both? For instance: A financial advisor for a brewer, liquor producer or a tobacco company, how would you see it?

Under the teachings of Thich Nhat Hanh, the first precept reads

Aware of the suffering caused by the destruction of life, I vow to cultivate compassion and learn ways to protect the lives of all sentient beings.  I am determined not to kill, not to let others kill, and not to condone any act of killing in the world, in my thinking, and in my way of life.

The Right Livelihood component of the Noble Eightfold Path says not to work in a job that violates the precepts. I think that's a pretty clear answer. No work in the weapons business or the killing business.

I can state several Suttas and Jatakas which are nonpacifist (Taccha Sukara Jataka, Dipi Jataka).
Buddha clearly also states that farming leads to the death and killing of millions of sentient beings (see Lakkhana Miga Jataka where deer are killed to protect crops), yet I always see them not mentioning the real contradiction.
So the human situation is quite different than a crane's in Kulavaka Jataka.  Human societies are more complex.  Humans are "the precious birth".  Here humans are allowed to develop ANY skill under close watch of the government.
A Buddhist can be a soldier, butcher, farmer as long as he is a representitive of the government.  You will not be held karmically liable since you are a mere instrument as long as you do your job honestly and well.  If you have corrupt rulers, you have a duty to speak up.
The Vanijja Sutta is not for the average lay person. The Vyagpajja Sutta is addressed directly to lay people and it states lay people should learn to shoot, hmmm, how can I learn to shoot if there's no one to sell me weapons? So Vanijja Sutta is strangely addressed to a monk NOT lay people - this is meant as advice for rulers.  You obviously want governements to keep a close eye on these industries.  Evidence of this is found in Jatakas such as Varuni Dusaka Jataka where the tavern is under close watch of the governor.
Simply stated, the Buddhist rulers (ideal ruler is Buddhist King Pasenadi who went to war, had slaughterhouses, farming, etc.) are authorized to do whatever it takes for a good functioning government this includes farming, providing blameless fish and meat for the entire population, hiring and training soldiers, funding weapons, being watchful of taverns and bars, etc. rulers will be judged in their skillfulness that these tasks were accomplished and how much human skill they developed.  For slaughterhouses, Buddha states several times they should close slaughterhouses on new and full moon days (Mahaummaga Jataka, Mahasutosoma Jataka, Vinaya story of Suppeya who could not find meat since the slaughterhouse of King Passenadi (a good Buddhist King) was closed for the Uposaths.
So this is the set up for lay Buddhists.
Monks and nuns can't hurt a fly though.  They are our merit producers and we too later can become monks and nuns.  So this is how Buddhists lay people and monastics work together.

These questions require deep thought about the wider implications. At first blush armor seems like a good thing, but while it is a defense against weapons it can also make a soldier/weapon stronger and therefore an even more efficient killer.
Of course someone can use a hammer to kill, and I seriously doubt the maker of the hammer is responsible.

Let's take some of the natural forms as an example:

A tree is not a weapon.
Metals are not.
A horse feeds on grass, loves to run and stay within the herd.
The black powder burns when in contact with heat and fire.
The dolphin swims.

A sense arises, an attachment forms, the desire thus forms, the intention / purpose (thought) merges.

A tree can then be chopped down and the wood is attached to the barrel
  of a rifle.
The metals can be refined and mixed and processed and become the case
  the holds the gun power in a bullet.
The horse is "trained" / forced to take the soldier to the front, who
  stabs the enemy.
The black powder can be either used as entertainment - firework - or
  become the force the drives a bullet in weapons.
The dolphin is attached bombs and is trained to swim towards the
  bottom of a ship and then the bomb It carries is triggered to explode
  (because It has been conditioned to do so, so that It will receive
  food as reward).

So, this is what knowledge between the one we are so used to and the one mentioned in Buddhism:
Knowledge means, as we are so conditioned / taught since birth, to "create" and "invent". By - observing nature and beings.

The knowledge, on the other hand, mentioned in Buddhism, means
  otherwise:
The knowledge we gain by "un-shelling" ourselves and then being able
  to see things and beings around the way they are.
Then: through practice and patience, we foster our compassion over
  time, with which we benefit beings and things without the "self" and
  by doing so, the compassion, received by the one who benefits from
  you, can be further shared and spread.  A cycle that wheels through
  compassion, hopefully, indefinitely onward.

Back to someone who is skilled in weapons/war etc:
There is a saying:
"The very instant when one decides to drop the butcher knife, is the instant he can become to be a Buddha"
So it is not that his skills are "bad". It is the "sense" (intention) and creates the cause (weapons and war).

How about applying his "war" skill in learning chess or becoming a
  farmer, who knows exactly when famine comes and how to prepare before
  one occurs, so that beings would have enough to eat. And he is so
  skilled in planning (formation / tactics) that he would be able to
  foresee weather and move herds to an area where there is enough water
  and grass to feed on?

Weapons:

How about applying his skills - being safe, being able to know exactly
  the "tools" he has in his hand how they function and how they might
  fail in certain situation - to let's say simple house tools, the
  equipments that can alleviate the hard work of some animals (such as
  cow farming, etc), etc etc?

As we could see here, all these skills can take another form that benefits others and other beings.
But would one make as much? But as far as cultivating compassion goes, one can "earn" so much that the compassion he invests in other beings and others with his skills would never depreciate - it keeps on and on. It benefits not just himself.
And going back to how much "involved" would he be counted as "not involved":
If this is some thing to think of, I think he knows the answer already. But it is good he does so, because he shows that his does have compassion and he is just standing in a crossroad.
I hope he makes the choice that could turn his marvelous skills into something that benefits beings and others and alleviate their sufferings.

The Boddhisattva vows, which were both a monastic and lay code had a prohibition on keeping weapons:

"10. On Storing Deadly Weapons A disciple of the Buddha should not
  store weapons such as knives, clubs, bows, arrows, spears, axes or any
  other weapons, nor may he keep nets, traps or any such devices used in
  destroying life. (53)
As a disciple of the Buddha, he must not even avenge the death of his
  parents -- let alone kill sentient beings! (54) He should not store
  any weapons or devices that can be used to kill sentient beings. If he
  deliberately does so, he commits a secondary offense."

ref: http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/bns/bnstext.htm
Other specific Buddhist leaders at time to time have been coopted by their governments to say things in favor of the war of the moment which would sometimes be fought by lay Buddhists. Despite this, it's hard to not say that Buddhism has a huge pacifist streak.

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


text:
What is known about the years of oral tradition of the Pali Canon?
With the Buddha teaching for 45 years before he passed into parinibbana, what is known about the methods and practices used to keep his teachings alive until they were written down? Do we know how many people were involved in this effort? How was such an extensive collection of teachings categorized?

This paper by Steven Collins may shed some light:  http://books.google.co.th/books?id=tg2-QU2J10YC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=collins+idea+of+a+pali+canon&source=bl&ots=raHpCMVI5t&sig=-xwJ52tqfixGwb5kKimLBGyR8Wc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2nirU5TSCYWGkQXEgYGgDQ&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=collins%20idea%20of%20a%20pali%20canon&f=false

I don't know if you are aware but It was Sri Lankan monks (my countries monks) who took Buddhism from oral traditions to books for the first time.As for the question how many,Every monk in the world did it to that day.And it was categorized by a gathering of monks after the "parinibbana" (death) of lord Buddha. Hon. Ananda thero (the monk who took care of lord Buddha) had all in his mind which he recited.The rest who were gathered approved all of it and they went on to categorize it.  For furthering your knowledge in Buddhism please refer this link
http://mahamevnawa.lk/inenglish/dhamma-talks/

Traditionally the original source of the teachings is Ananda. Ananda was the Buddha's cousin and primary attendant during a lot of his life up to the Buddha's death. Being
so close to the Buddha, he heard at first hand the Buddha's teaching and was able to commit them to memory. Shortly after the Buddha's death the First Council was convened and Ananda was prevailed upon to recite all the Buddha's teachings he could recall. Fortunately for us he could recall a lot.
This is why many of the Pali Canon sutras begin with 'Thus have I heard'. It is Ananda speaking and recalling the Buddha's teachings from his own experience.
Example from the Mangala Sutta

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Exalted One was dwelling at
  Anathapindika's monastery, in Jeta's Grove, near Savatthi. Now when
  the night was far spent, a certain deity whose surpassing splendor
  illuminated the entire Jeta Grove, came to the presence of the Exalted
  One and, drawing near, respectfully saluted him and stood at one side.

This is a pretty broad question, so this is an attempt at a broad, but not very deep answer. Hopefully someone else will lend a hand with sources and/or corrections.
I believe the oral tradition (of memorizing and repeating long texts) was solidly established in ancient India before the Buddha's time, as a way of becoming authoritative in a field of knowledge. You can still see this in other extant Indian religions.
As for the number of people, several hundred monks were present at the Buddha's death, and from the very beginning of his ministry the Buddha told his best students to go off in different directions and teach. So we can assume there were thousands upon thousands of monks participating in the oral tradition throughout ancient India.
But anyway, the Pali Canon itself was written down in Sri Lanka. I wish I could remember where I read this. Other canonical texts, such as the Chinese texts have a lot in common with the Pali Canon.
The teachings are categorized into three baskets: Training rules (Vinaya Pitaka), Doctrine (Sutta Pitaka), and Metaphysics (Abhidhamma Pitaka), with the Doctrine basket being further categorized by length. You can see this categorization scheme at:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html
The Sutta Pitaka is the most relevant section to laypersons looking to inform their practice.

High-fidelity oral transmission of texts was indeed well-established in India by the time of the Buddha - this is how the Vedas were originally transmitted (and how they still are transmitted, though they are also written down nowadays).

The way the Pali Canon was transmitted by oral tradition, is consistent with the way the Vedas was transmitted for thousands of years. The composition is in a poetic form, using mnemonic formulae for memorization and recitation. The recitation would have also served a ritualistic or ceremonial purpose. Even the tradition says that in the First Buddhist Council, Ananda and Upali recited the suttas and the vinaya. Even if they did not recite in Pali, they would have recited in a Prakrit dialect that's very similar to Pali.
Please see "Pali Oral Literature" by L.S. Cousins. I quote below:

Early Buddhist literature is an oral literature. Such a literature is
  not without its own characteristic features. A widespread use of
  mnemonic formulae is one of the most typical of these. I would refer
  to the considerable body of research on the nature of oral epic
  poetry. In such poetry the formulae are used both as an aid to actual
  performance and to maintain the continuity and form of the epic
  tradition.
Both these features are certainly present in the sutta literature. In
  the first place many suttas are clearly designed for chanting. We
  should assume that, then as now, their chanting would produce a great
  deal of religious emotion - the pamojja and piti-somanassa of the
  texts. The difference of course would be that the language of the
  suttas would still be directly comprehensible to the hearers. In these
  circumstances suttas would be chanted by individual monks both for
  edification and for enjoyment. We may compare the recitations
  attributed to Ananda and Upali in accounts of the First Council. In
  practice they would have to be tailored to the needs of the particular
  situation ~ shortened or lengthened as required. An experienced
  chanter would be able to string together many different traditional
  episodes and teachings so as to form a coherent, profound and moving
  composition.

According to Bhikkhu Bodhi (from here):

Scholars regard this language (Pali) as a hybrid showing features of several
  Prakrit dialects used around the third century BCE, subjected to a
  partial process of Sanskritization. While the language is not
  identical to what Buddha himself would have spoken, it belongs to the
  same broad language family as those he might have used and originates
  from the same conceptual matrix. This language thus reflects the
  thought-world that the Buddha inherited from the wider Indian culture
  into which he was born, so that its words capture the subtle nuances
  of that thought-world.

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


text:
How important are incense and candles to a meditation practice?
What is the function of incense and candles to a meditation practice? Are they used in all types of meditation or only some types?

Incense and candles are not essential to a meditation practice. They can aid in concentration, but they can also become an emotional crutch if we become attached to them. I did the ritual of lighting candles and incense during my practice for a few weeks, and quickly got tired of it.
If you are practicing vipassana (a.k.a insight meditation) as opposed to samatha (a.k.a tranquility meditation) then it's really not necessary to create that kind of environment. In fact in vipassana we want to become free from external dependencies, so creating a certain type of environment might actually be counterproductive to the practice.
I'm one of Venerable Yuttadhammo's students, and he teaches vipassana in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. Check out his videos and/or book if you haven't already.
Unfortunately I can't comment on samatha practices, as I haven't been taught in that area.

I agree. At the beginning of my practice I had an altar and all that, just because I thought that was what you were supposed to do. Once I realized it had little to do with the actual Buddhist practice it all gradually went away.
These days I don't even have a buddha statue, there is no need. That being said however for some people these rites and rituals may be grounding and important to the practice. It can be a way of building habitual practice so if it works for someone that's fine, if not, that's fine as well.

@Jayantha , that's a good point. As a beginner it is hard to know if you're adding extra things because you think you're supposed to. Or possibly skipping important things because you don't yet understand or appreciate them. That's what makes a site like this so helpful. :-)

Incense
Incense sticks, especially sandalwood ones are good cleansers. They cleanse the entire room or the surrounding area, preparing the area for a peaceful meditation or prayer. Not only for prayer, burning incense in rooms used by patients or emotionally affected places also helps in cleaning the energy in those areas.
Candles or Lamps
While incense is used for cleansing, candles, lamps and other lights energize the surrounding area. Lit lamps are considered a symbol of enlightenment in many traditions.
Both of these when used in a meditation hall provides the perfect environment for a peaceful and fruitful meditation.
Hope this answer helps you. :)

It depends on what you're goal is with meditation. There are different meditations and people meditate with different motivations and goals. With some goals incense is useful. With others it can be a hindrance. As meditation is experiential you can actively map or watch your own state of consciousness to see what the incense is doing. Is it helping or hindering?
There needs to be a distinction made between those who are meditating to be calm and relaxed, to feel better and those who are trying to move into states beyond all mental fluctuations. They are different enterprises.
I've been taught that meditation is fundamentally about involution of consciousness (turning consciousness inwards). As you go deeper you move away from the part of the mind that is related to the five senses. You enter deeper states of inner silence. Sensory input makes your mind react this inner silence is affected by fluctuations of your mind.
Incense affects your sense of smell which is a very basal sense. It goes deep into your brain. This results in deeply rooted reactions in the mind. Incense thus produces mental fluctuations which limits your ability to enter no mind states. Note that some people meditate in darkness with no sounds or smells to help the process of involution. The senses are starved of stimulus. So if your goal is to move beyond mind into complete silence then incense may hinder you as it stimulates the smell sense resulting in mental fluctuations at a deep level in mind.
Alternatively some incense has a calming effect on the mind and many people use it to achieve a sense of calmness and relaxation. So if you are meditating for calmness and relaxation then it could help you. Clearly Buddhism uses incense for many practices and rituals. But do Buddhist practitioners who are attempting to reach states of no mind use incense?

I don't think it is important to create such rituals in meditation practice. I haven't encountered any description of such in my readings of Suttas.

For meditation NO need any candles or incense things. just Focus your mind for one thing & meditate. but you should in a calm Quite place to do meditation


text:
What is the difference between Vijñāna, Manas and Citta?
Together they refer to one's mental processes as a whole. Separately, what are they and how are they different?

if you read the abhidharma, it i think becomes clear that there are many ways of talking about / dividing up the same thing. the dharmas (also the root term for any reality) / dhatus, e.g. what's really important is the realisation etc. that it is all empty of persons / svabhava.

'Citta' (the C is pronounced as ch in cheetah) is a generic word for mind, including thoughts as well as emotional state. When the Chinese translated Buddhist texts they often used 'shin', the heart-mind, to indicate citta.
'Manas' (both As are pronounced as in Adam) is the "inner eye" that can see thoughts, memories, and one's state of mind (citta).
'Vijnana' (jna is pronounced as jnya - i.e. with soft n) is experience of reality that arises from mind's ability to recognize and interpret new stimuli by relating and comparing them with memories of past experiences.

This is what i've gathered from reading about this in the Plum Village (Thich Nhat Hanh) tradition and from my own experience. Please feel free to update and improve, i am not sure about everything
The eight conciousnesses
There are eight consciousnesses (not counting Vijnana which is split into six parts):

Vijnana

Eye Consciousnesses
Ear C.
Nose C.
Tongue C.
Body C.
Mind C.

Manas
Citta (Store C.)

Vijnana
The "top level" of conciousness - we are most conscious of the experiences happening in this part of the mind
The first five c.
The first five consciousnesses have access to "reality in itself" with no discrimination/dualism (me and you, subject and object, etc). They are in "direct contact" with reality. They are not distorted by our thinking and our past experiences.
The sixth c.
The sixth conciousness "mind" is the part of our mind with ideas and it has access to (at least parts of) all the seven other conciousnesses. When the sixth conciousness collaborates with the first five the connection with "reality in itself" is interrupted
The sixth is itself suspended for example while sleeping without dreaming. When dreaming the sixth is active and gets all it's information from the eigth conciousness (Citta)
Manas
Strongly connected with the sixth conciousness (mind c.), it grasps at experiences
Thich Nhat Hanh writes:

In the seventh consciousness there are four basic afflictions: self-delusion, self-love, self-view, and self-conceit. The basic illusion inherent in all four afflictions is the illusion about self: this body is mine, is me; this feeling is me; these emotions are me; this consciousness is me and I am independent from everything else

Citta
Unconcious, contains all experiences we've had, all is stored here
Visual overview
I drew the picture below for our Sangha group where we brought up manas and am happy to share it here. The image contains an example where a seed in the store (Citta) has been watered (maybe by something we have seen or heard together with our perceptions) and that seed has manifested in the mind consciousness

References:

Dharma Talk: The Habit of Happiness
Dharma Talk: Consciousness and Quantum Physics
Wikipedia: Manas-vijnana
Image file: The Eight Consciousnesses - by sunyata - Can be reused under the CC BY-SA license

may be worth noting that the manas is sometimes called the klista-manovijnana. i always confuse the two (mano / manas)

Manas is past mind, citta is future mind, and vijnana is present mind. Sometimes it's also said that manas is fore-running, citta far-going, and vijnana is birth-relinking activity of mind.
Also, manas is supporting (subsequent) and thinking/contemplating aspect of mind, citta is accumulating and diversity aspect of mind (it's increase with defilements or cease without them), and vijnana is cognizing aspect.
In Yogacara citta is equated with alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness), manas with klista-manas (defiled mind), and vijnana with pravritti-vijnana (functioning mind).

ever seen a buddhist prayer wheel? that's the citta,the little ball at the end of the string. the object itself is the metaphor.
when you still the mind using concentration, and at the same time observe the mind using mindfulness, then you will observe the spinning citta. as you focus on the citta more, you will bring it to rest.
it has no mass, and so it has no inertia. it can spin up to mhz in a fraction of a second, the moment thought arises and is let through by the observer. in this way the spin of the citta can be controlled.

'You' doesn't still the mind/citta & 'you' doesn't observe the citta. 'Manas' stills the mind & 'consciousness (vijñāna)' observes the citta. Regardless, I enjoyed your excellent answer. Kind regards & welcome.

While there have been many attempts to show that these are either the same or different, in my view that is missing the point somewhat. The terms are, generally speaking, synonyms, and their usage overlaps to some degree, but they tend to be used in different contexts:
Viṇṇāṇa is part of the khandhas and āyatanas, and hence pertains to the first noble truth: it is suffering.
Mano is typically used in an active sense of will or volition, closely related to kamma, and hence pertains to the second noble truth, the cause of suffering
.
Citta is to be developed and thus pertains to the fourth noble truth.
The cessation of all these is, of course, the third noble truth.
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/citta-mano-vinnana-definitions-and-distinctions/4254/2

There is a great lack of agreement among scholars in translating. This study tries to seek some clarity between the three terms:
Triune Mind in Buddhism: A Textual Exploration by Suwanda H J Sugunasiri

This answer would be great if you could summarize the essential arguments made in the paper. Link-only answers are not preferred on SE.

I'm just waiting for that summary to vote-up. This is a critical question that needs answers with references.

I tried to read the article, and this is super boring article ever, no worth summarizing. Mix of math-like terms like R-Mind, J-Mind, E-Mind, M-Complex with popular analogies like telephone call, CEO, Swift Run, etc.

Citta: The mirror of mind that lacks any qualities of it's own, but provides the canvas for the phenomena of samsara and nirvana (synonymous with the all-ground consciousness in Yogachara, though here being referred to in it's mundane aspect, as it appears to ordinary beings).  It is also considered to be the domain where karmic tendencies rest dormant, but with the possibility of manifesting when exposed to an external stimuli that generates grasping and conceptualization (which is the function of manas).
Caitta: The qualities of the mind.  The waves on the ocean, the coloring of a gem with a colored cloth beneath it, etc.  The basic dispositional sense that the mind is imbued with.  For more info see the 51 mental factors.
Vijnana: the basic sense of self-orientation and "I-making" that infuses the experience of reality for unenlightened beings.  It is differentiated into six forms given the six classes of phenomena (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell, and ideation).  It is the projection of an illusory "I" in reference to these phenomena.  The basis of this reference is the citta, which itself has no self-qualities (though it can become anything).  This is what the Buddha propounds anatman.
Manas: Conceptual thinking.  Can be afflictive or non-afflictive.  Vijnana (a basic self-orientation toward reality), is a necessary precondition for the functioning of conventional manas. This is the part of the mind that believes in the solid, unchanging, self-nature of phenomena and conceptualizes about their various inter-relations.  Whether there is still conceptualization within enlightenment (with the transcendence of vijnana) is argued about, but the most sensible description is that conceptualization occurs, but those concepts are not experienced as solid and unchanging, but are seen as the play of interdependent phenomena, none of which possess their own self-nature.
With metta.

whilst non of the above answers are perfect i can't see why this answer, which does enrich the Q&A, is downvoted, +1. "Whether there is still conceptualization within enlightenment (with the transcendence of vijnana) is argued about", imo, it's THERE-IS, for enlightenment is free from all hindrances, thus one can go back and forward freely, be caught or be free. There is a term for the Buddhas, 遊戲(playing)神通(?)自在(free).


text:
Can a military career be ethical?
There are military generals as lay people and stream enterers in the suttas. And there is no clear prohibition to a military career. There are some suttas that criticize the karma of soldiers on the battlefield.
My question is, since being a military general is acceptable livelihood, what should he do? Could he planning for war, making war, or just sit there and do nothing since both of those actions could lead to indirect killing?
If he does nothing, that can lead to catastrophic results and even more people maybe get killed. Is that right livelihood if other people rely on him and he has the responsibility to use military force to protect people?

possible duplicate of Can lay people be involved in the weapons business?

Not a duplication. The Buddha forbids weapon business but not military career. That older question if for trader, who buy/sell and make profit. This question is for military career, who is not based on money profit

Excellent point. There is a lot here and maybe for other questions about the military and ethics. UN Peacekeepers, security after civil wars by third party forces vs radical pacificism as can be read into Buddhism. Fascinating

Can you really give an example of a military general who continued his career after becoming a stream-enterer?

It's a bit different from the other question; here they are asking what a military officer should do, rather than if the career itself is unethical.

Isn't that Siha was military general and a stream enterer?

There is this section on being a warrior regarding right livelihood.
Right Livelihood : samma ajivo
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ajivo/
Considering becoming a soldier? You may want to reconsider...
Then Yodhajiva the headman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?"
"Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that."
A second time... A third time Yodhajiva the headman said: "Lord, I have heard that it has been passed down by the ancient teaching lineage of warriors that 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' What does the Blessed One have to say about that?"
"Apparently, headman, I haven't been able to get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.' So I will simply answer you. When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb."
When this was said, Yodhajiva the headman sobbed & burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.'"
"I'm not crying, lord, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of warriors who said: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.'
— SN 42.3

Just as an addendum to add more depth to my post. This is the go to article I've seen people post on similar questions in the past: http://www.beyondthenet.net/thedway/soldier.htm

I think any career relationship with the military even if it doesn't carry a mindset of "strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle" still is wrong livelihood because although it is not cultivating the poison of hatred or greed, it is cultivation the poison of delusion/ignorance through close karmic relationship (career/job)... There goes my secure IT job with the military ;-(


text:
Vajrayana Buddhism relies on a teacher-pupil relationship. What in tradition or the literature explains how to find the appropriate teacher?

Vajrayana Buddhism is esoteric, in the sense that the transmission of certain teachings only occurs directly from teacher to student during an initiation or empowerment and cannot be simply learned from a book. Many techniques are also commonly said to be secret, but some Vajrayana teachers have responded that secrecy itself is not important and only a side-effect of the reality that the techniques have no validity outside the teacher-student lineage.
  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana#Esoteric_transmission)

But in my travels through the Buddhist landscape, I find that teachers are human: some good, some mediocre.  How do I find the right teacher?  Are there tests that the student can apply to the teacher?

"The Words of My Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche has a chapter (Ch. 6) on how to choose, test and follow a "spiritual friend" (teacher):

pure, never having contravened any of the commitments or prohibitions (Pratimoksha, Bodhisattva's Vow, Secret Vows of Secret Mantrayana)
unstained by negative emotions
learned, not lacking in knowledge of sutras, tantras and shastras
heart suffused with compassion, loves each being like his only child
well-versed in vast array of rituals and ceremonies
not merely verbal but by putting the meaning of teaching into practice has actualized in himself the achievements of riddance and realization
generous, completely free of attachments
language should be pleasant
teaches each according to person's needs
acts in accordance with what he teaches

Teachers to avoid:

Like a millstone made of wool (high lamas by birth but have not studied and practiced seriously enough for the above qualities to arise)
Like the frog that lived in a well (with very limited exposure to true depth and breadth of Practice, having never seen a genuine spiritual master)
Mad guides (loose in discipline, strong in emotions, overemphasizing the esoteric and transcendental)
Blind guides (don't know what they are talking about)

"Treasury of Precious Qualities" by Jigme Lingpa has several pages (in Ch.5) on fully qualified masters vs. false teachers:
(repeats most of the above and adds the following)

Good teacher must have few activities, exclusively preoccupied with Dharma
His presence has transforming effect, inspiring all who meet him to seek for liberation
Must have an unconfined view, having realized the equality of nirvana and samsara
Having direct experience of the above, he is the source of his own freedom
Has been ripened by empowerments that came down to him in an uninterrupted lineage.

Could you quote some of this, if it's not too much trouble?

@KevinJohnsrude, added

Here is one more link to some good commentary on finding a good teacher from one of my favorite teaches, Alex Berzin: "Relating to a Spiritual Teacher: Building a Healthy Relationship",  http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/x/nav/group.html_1305527811.html

The "Jewel Ornament of Liberation" by Gampopa describes different levels of teachers and their qualifications. Some rely on the 31st chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra (also known independently as the "Sutra of the Ten Bhumis") which describes a set of criteria on which to judge someone as a Mahayana teacher.
edit: it occurs to me that you may have been wondering about specifics, not just where you can find it talked about.
Some basics would be: have they taken the Bodhisattva Vow? Do they have demonstrable knowledge of the Mahayana path? Are they patient while teaching? Do they make sure people understand? Do they seem to get discouraged or disappointed with students? Can they speak to you at your level of understanding?
And of course standard things like ethical behavior.

What is the Bodhisattva Vow?

The Bodhisattva Vow is a life-transcending vow to attain full-Buddhahood to benefit all sentient beings. If you took the vow in this life, that vow would continue into future lives as well. The mindstream would be "stained" by it creating tendencies towards the dharma and repeating the vow in those future lives (in theory).

(Disclaimer: This is not a Vajrayāna approach so feel free to discard it but I'd say the advice is useful nonetheless.)
To find a skillful teacher, one could approach the matter prudently by trying to get the most points checked from the following list:

Doesn't accept any money, especially for teaching.1
Has the qualities mentioned in AN 4.73 & AN 4.192.
Doesn't show traces of greed, hatred or delusion in their behavior.
Meditates frequently and for lengthy periods.
Eats once a day before noon.2
Is content with very little.3
Is bent on solitude & seclusion.4

Note that these points are just good guidelines and should be taken as a supplement to one's own discernment.
For further references, you might want to read some early discourses concerning this:

DN 12: Teachers that are worthy & unworthy of criticism.
MN 8: The whole discourse is worth reading but I linked to the specific section about instruction called "Quenching".
MN 47: This discourse addresses the issue head-on.
AN 5.100: Teachers being covered up by their pupils.
AN 5.159: Five qualities a teacher should set up.
Dhp 158-159: Two verses about teachers.

Footnotes:

AN 5.159 has five qualities a teacher should set up. The fourth one is that he will not speak for the purpose of material reward.
MN 65 is a good reference about the Buddha's thoughts concerning this issue.
AN 4.27 is a good reminder about contentment with the bare minimum but I wouldn't advocate it as a necessary guideline.
AN 8.53 has the qualities that make-up the Buddha's teaching and one of them is solitude\seclusion.

I would have voted you the answer but your answer needed more text and fewer references.

When it is possible, I prefer to let the texts speak for themselves. Additionally, the question mentions "What in tradition or the literature explains how to find the appropriate teacher?", so the answer seems quite to the point apart from not being Vajrayāna as already mentioned in the disclaimer. Thank you for the comment anyway.

I disagree with the comment "Don't accept money, especially for a teaching."
I am not sure where that particular comment comes from, but as both a Tibetan practitioner and an ordained monk, I have  Never seen it written that one should not accept a teacher who is paid for his/her teachings. In fact, and supporting teachers, who traveled from afar, individuals, benefactors, and Dharma centers all make donations to the teacher.
Most likely, the implication is that students should be wary of teachers who appear to be"money – hungry."
Finally, if you find yourself in a group where money and making money seem to be more important than teachings and/or Dharma, it is probably not a good place to be.

Did you see the "Disclaimer: This is not a Vajrayāna approach" at the top of that message? It references the Udayi Sutta which says, "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'"


text:
What does Buddhism literature and tradition say about transgender folks?
This may seem like a question that is far too modern for an ancient tradition, but when I traveled in Thailand I learned that katoeys (male-to-female) are a legal gender in Thailand.  What does Buddhism say about the folks who experience discomfort or distress because there is a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity?
As it becomes less dangerous for transgender folks to change, I am finding out that several of my friends are transgender and I would like to know what Buddhism offers them.

Answers to this question should be careful to avoid being anachronistic - modern conceptions of transgender identity (even in places where it's better-established, like Thailand [kathoeys] or India [hijras]) are much younger than Buddhism, and as such, the texts could only possibly have referred to other (albeit possibly related) conceptions of fluid or indeterminate gender.

This link may be helpful. Transgendered People And Buddhism by Shravasti Dhammika:

The Tipitaka mentions several different types of transgendered states and individuals – the man-like woman (vepurisika), sexual indistinctness (sambhinna), one having the characteristics of both genders (ubhatovyanjanaka), etc (Vin.III,129). The interesting thing is that such states and individuals are taken for granted in the scriptures with little or no moral judgments being attached to them.

There is also the International Transgender Buddhist Sangha
Here is a quote from the International Transgender Buddhist Sangha
 blog:

"The Vinaya Pitaka, the ancient Buddhist texts that define the rules for Buddhist monks and nuns, record two incidences of sex change that a monk and a nun had gone through. A group of monks and nuns bring the two incidences to the Buddha’s notice. The Buddha accepts their changed status. He allows the former male disciple who became a female to live with female disciples, and the former female disciple to live with males.
These episodes indicate the Buddha’s open-mindedness toward transsexual persons. He accepted their bodily changes even though some in his society attributed such changes to the influence of bad Karmas. [...]  There is every reason to believe that the Buddha accepted all kinds of people irrespective of any differences they had undergone.

Facebook group of the International Transgender Buddhist Sangha

It would be helpful to give a small description of what is in the links you share. Looking at your answer it is hard to tell what is your general input to the discussion. Thank you.

understandable, although I had assumed the name of the link matching the question was obvious enough to not have to extrapolate.
perhaps quoting a paragraph from the link might work.

Links only answers are discouraged on all SE sites. This is because the answer becomes worthless if the links go dead. It's best to summarize the relevant main points of each linked site in your own words and provide the link merely as background.

I updated the original to include a quote from the  International Transgender Buddhist Sangha blog link. Will read the sdhammika blog article too and pull out a quote or two from it.

Submitted another response edit to include a quote from the Shravasti Dhammika blog article that refers to various terms from the tipataka and makes reference to the source, though I didn't check the sources yet. The article also has a theory about rebirth causing "transgenderism" but no sources and really it's just speculation. It ends with a supportive message supposing that a genuine application of the dhamma would mean supporting trans people socially.

The Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara can be seen as having an indeterminate gender. Quoting from this website

One interpretation of this development contends that the bodhisattva
  is neither male or female but has transcended sexual distinctions
  [...] the flowing drapery and soft contours of the body seen in
  statues and paintings have been intentionally combined with a visible
  moustache to emphasize the absence of sexual identity.

So the issue of gender can take on a more flexible interpretation with some more Mahayana aspects of Buddhism

The Theravada tradition doesn't condemn such people. The essence of Theravadin morality is expressed in the Ambalatthika-Rahulovada Sutta like so:

"What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"
"For reflection, sir."
"In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental
  actions are to be done with repeated reflection.
"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it:
  'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful
  bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on
  reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily
  action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily
  action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on
  reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be
  a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.
"While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This
  bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action,
  with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you
  know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of
  others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you
  know that it is not... you may continue with it.
"Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily
  action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to
  both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences,
  painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to
  the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having
  confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on
  reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a
  skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night
  in skillful mental qualities.
"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it:
  'This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful
  verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on
  reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal
  action with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal
  action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on
  reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be
  a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then any verbal action of that sort is fit for you to do.
"While you are doing a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This
  verbal action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal action,
  with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you
  know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of
  others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you
  know that it is not... you may continue with it.
"Having done a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal
  action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful verbal action, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to
  both; it was an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences,
  painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to
  the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having
  confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on
  reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a
  skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night
  in skillful mental qualities.
"Whenever you want to do a mental action, you should reflect on it:
  'This mental action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction,
  to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful
  mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on
  reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful mental
  action with painful consequences, painful results, then any mental
  action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on
  reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be
  a skillful mental action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results,
  then any mental action of that sort is fit for you to do.
"While you are doing a mental action, you should reflect on it: 'This
  mental action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the
  affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful mental action,
  with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you
  know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of
  others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you
  know that it is not... you may continue with it.
"Having done a mental action, you should reflect on it: 'This mental
  action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful mental action, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to
  both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences,
  painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted
  with it. Feeling distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it, you should
  exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that
  it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful mental action with
  pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally
  refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html

If something does not cause harm to one's self or to others, then from a Theravadin perspective it is morally acceptable. In my opinion the teachings of the Buddha offer many sexual minorities (such as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people) the clear moral teachings that affirms that they are not to be condemned.
Sexuality in general is technically classified as being unwholesome or unskillful, but the Theravada school makes a distinction between acts that are unwholesome (anything based on attachment at all, so this also includes enjoying entertainment, food, etc...) and acts that are evil. Sexuality that is within the third precept (not using sex in ways that breaks up relationships or sexual taking advantage of people etc...) is understood as being acceptable for a layperson. Although this Sutta talks about abandoning all unwholesome states of mind, it was aimed at the Ven. Rahula who was a novice monk at the time. For laypeople one only must abandon evil actions.

The institutions are all over the place. There are rules that say hermaphrodites (or probably more generally, anyone who doesn't fall into a tidy male/female gender) isn't allowed to ordain.
Then a few hundred years later you get Mahayanaists who specifically say hermaphrodites (& I supposed anyone who doesn't fall into a tidy category) are allowed to become Bodhisattva's, too. Except in Chinese Buddhism, they were still expected to give up any interest in sex.
In one of the Mahayana sutras a celestial Buddha or Bodhisattva transforms Ananda into a woman to make a point about appearances being superficial & differences being artificial. I can't find the source, if I find it I'll come back and add the ref.
And finally, in the old and new traditions, a good Buddhist woman would hope to be reborn as a man, or I suppose a man would fear doing wrong lest he be reborn as a women. This was obvious sexism, but amazing meant people were sexist, but somehow comfortable with the idea of cross-life transsexualism. It sounds progressive, but it is a odd situation where a sexist line of reasoning leads to a progressive conclusion.

In Vimalakirti sutra the goddess transforms Shariputra's to a female body.

Peter Harvey, a Buddhist scholar who focuses fairly heavily on morality in Buddhism, writes at length on "culture war" issues like this, homosexuality, abortion, etc. in the context of the Pali canon. His Introduction to Buddhist Ethics explored issues related to transgendered people, in the chapter "Homosexuality and other forms of 'queerness'.  It's worth a look.  The full text can be found here - http://www.e-reading.me/bookreader.php/142060/An_Introduction_to_Buddhist_Ethics.pdf/ and it's a good read in general.
Here is an extract:

SEX-CHANGE
Early Buddhist texts refer to the sex of a person as something that can
change within one life, as well as between lives. In the Vinaya, there is reference to a monk in whom the sexual characteristics of a woman
appeared, and a nun in whom the sexual characteristics of a man
appeared. In both cases, the Buddha appears to accept this and simply
say that the ex-monk nun should follow the rules of the nuns, and the ex-nun monk should follow the rules of the monks. In commentarial literature, the sex of a person is seen as determined at conception, but as subject
to possible change. Causes of sex-change are seen as karmic in
nature. The Dhammapada commentary tells of a man instantly turning into
a woman when he is sexually attracted to a monk; after marrying and
giving birth, she then turns back to a man when she asks the monk’s forgiveness, and goes on to become an Arahat. Sex-change, then, is not seen as limiting spiritual potential.

The word "transgender" appears once, on page 432 of the document (i.e. page 454 of the PDF file).

True, but in the chapter I mentioned Harvey treats the subject of "sex change" and gives quite a few relevant examples from sources ranging from the Vinaya, Sutta Pitaka, and commentaries.  Some of those examples do seem right on point for this question.

The stories of the "suddenly another sex" monastics do seem like a tiny part of the answer to this question, though we should definitely take them in context as being impossible to compare directly with modern trans people. Fundamentally the stories seem magical/mythological, and thus not very relevant. Maybe though the real story is "trans man (man with a vagina) found among monks" with the conclusion "that is in fact a woman, put her with nuns". If true, this story implies the answer is: At the time they forced trans people back to their birth-assigned genders.

Simple answer mind has not gender. Mind might reach enlightenment in any manifestation. Body is just temporary manifestation of mind.

This is interesting, but doesn't give us much insight into how transgender people should approach buddhism and/or how they will be treated by buddhists. It could both imply that buddhism is fine with trans people, because gender is not absolute, and that buddhism is dismissive of trans people, because trans people themselves are too absolute about their own gender.

Buddhism is firmly in support of LGBT (and transgender specifically), because shedding of boxed reified identities is shedding of conflict and suffering.

Literature and Tradition are very different. Vastly different. Binary opposites even? In judaism we have the written torah and we have the oral torah. Anything written can be classified as literature. Oral traditions exist as much as literature. But how can you find it? You cant! But you can heart it. Is this not the same of PureDhamma?


text:
How does Shambhala differ from traditional Vajrayana Buddhism as it is practiced in Asia?
How is Shambhala Buddhism as founded by Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche and continued by folks like Pema Chodron different from traditional Tantric Buddhism such as that practiced by the Dalai Lama?  Does Shambhala rely on the same texts as Tibetan Buddhism?

In the editor's preface of my copy of Trungpa's 'Shambhala - The Sacred Path of the Warrior' it is claimed (and I do well agree with that), that the Shambhala teaching is "a major departure" from Trungpa's earlier, popular but quite orthodox Tibetan Buddhist books. This is further elaborated, saying that the outlook is rather secular than religious and in the broadest possible way universally-human.
This fits quite well with my personal impression of the teaching, that it tries to avoid anything too specifically buddhist, too 'sectarian', too foreign (for westerners), too 'exotic', but rather attempts to - if I may say so - lead westerners (that unmistakably are the audience talked to) back to a common human source of dignity rather than providing yet another foreign source of 'spirituality' to draw from.
This also means, that it does not rely on any scriptural source, rather - in a rather unimportant and personal way - it relies on the tradition of the Shambhala kingdom.

could you share some specifics?

I can give you just examples. There are hardly any foreign terms in the book. The practice of meditation is introduced from a totally doctrineless angle, working with posture and breath. It claims to be about being human (and not enlightenment or suchlikes) etc. etc. - but why don't you just read the book?

I have.  I know the book but not the tradition from which it springs.

Original Shambhala as founded by Chogyam Trungpa was not supposed to be Buddhism at all, it was supposed to be a secular teaching loosely based on Buddhist principles intended to heal society from its insanities, toward Enlightened society.

"Shambhalian practices focus on using mindfulness/awareness meditation as a means of connecting with one's basic sanity and using that insight as inspiration for one's encounter with the world." (Wikipedia)

"Shambhala Buddhism" is an unfortunate (IMHO) attempt of Trungpa's son to bring Shambhala back into familiar territory.

Personally (and I belong to a Shambhala sangha and have 20+ years as a Zen Buddhist practitioner), it's good to see Shambhala returning to it's roots. The "old" Shambhala incorporated too much of Trungpa's crazy wisdom, a scheme that finally killed him through alcohol poisoning. I'm always shocked when people from other Shambhala centers across the country visit our place and admit that they have very little meditation discipline. Instead, Shambhala focuses on training courses, most of which cost money.
It's much more helpful if people get their meditation discipline down FIRST, then try different things. The Buddha knew what he was talking about. Sitting meditation, and mindfulness practice when we leave the cushion, are the heart of this practice, and they work! Thankfully, those disciplines are offered at Shambhala, and the Sunday sits are very Zen like with 20 minutes of sitting meditation, 10 minutes of walking meditation, and this goes on from 9Am to around 11AM. After that a "teacher" gives a talk of sorts (not a dharma talk). I usually skip this, and go help w/ food preparation for the free community Sunday lunch at noon. Or go for a walk.

Thanks for your answer- I have been thinking of attending a local Shambhala center but have been a little wary of getting caught up in that.  I practice sitting meditation as I understand the teaching from the Satipatthana sutta and also mindfulness / loving kindness during the day and it does indeed work.  I will probably visit the Shambhala center at some point, but my expectations are not high.  I just look at it as the opportunity to meet some like-minded people.

Shambhala is one expression of buddhism with the Kalachakra at it's roots.  It addresses hineyana and mahayana teachings as most things are taught in buddhism - symbolically.  It pulls from Kagyu and Dzogchen traditions, where the Dalai Lama is from the Gelug tradition.  Trungpa Rinpoche worked closely with Suzuki Roshi and was in spiritual agreement with Gerald Red Elk, the Lakota Sioux shaman.  His son, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, is teacher to Taoist lineage holder Eva Wong.  This speaks to the universality of true and direct spiritual 'attainment'.  The teachings themselves are historic - read The Epic of Gesar - yet are considered new and "terma" because the direct experience of a master must be taught to an entirely new culture.  No monks or nuns in "the west."  Look at Tibetan iconography and it won't make much sense, but those raised in such a culture see it filled with meaning.  Westerners just automatically think "cult."  In Eastern culture, especially Japanese (my Ikebana teacher shared this, as well as stories from Eva Wong's empowered qigong teachers), one NEVER questions a teacher.  In the West, we question everything!
In a nutshell:
Shambhala is an expression of buddhism;
Theravada is an expression of buddhism;
Galupa is an expression of buddhism;
Zen is an expression of buddhism;
Chan is an expression of buddhism;
etc.
And - buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy and a meditative path of direct experience, not study.
Hope that helps a super complicated question!

Does this answer the question, i.e., "How does Shambhala differ"?


text:
So many Buddhist schools!
Why does Buddhism have so many variations, like Zen, Nembutsu, True world, Nichiren Buddhism, etc.? Why is Buddhist philosophy not uniform?

Buddhism, taught in a multitude of cultures, over more than 2.5 millenia, has evolved to fit each culture. Also, as people have different perspectives, one uniform teaching may not fit all. However, is the underlying philosophy not the same?

@user274 Duplicated :So many Buddhist schools!

Buddhism changes as it goes into different cultures and adapts and is influenced by local and preexisting culture. It changed when it went from Indian into China and again into Japan and again into Tibet. I believe it is changing still as it goes into the West. For instance my group the Triratna Community is an explicit attempt to bring Buddhism to the West in an ecumenical way.
To follow on from that, the Trirantna's founder Sangharakshita identified the act of going for refuge (to the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha) as the central act of all Buddhist schools and the principle that can (and does for us) underpin any Buddhist movement. So our interpretation is that all schools have the same principle so are not as divergent as one might think at first glance. Of course I'm not banging the drum for that specifically here and people are obviously more than welcome to agree or disagree on that interpretation.
Buddhism also does change within a culture by reacting to the Buddhist school before it. The most notable example I guess is the growth of Mahayana as a reaction against the perceived ossification of the Hinayana (though this term is derogatory) schools. Parallels can easily be seen in other religions such as the Protestant Reformation, the Cathars, Lollards etc...
Also I might quibble with the premise of the question itself. I'm not convinced that Buddhism does have a particular high amount of branches as compared to other religion. It's just that we are not used to the religion. Also if we don't identify culturally with any particular branch we see them all. I think that Christianity has a lot of sub divisions - Protestant, Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Methodist, Church of England etc.. Also having listened to Peter Adamson's excellent podcast of the history of philosophy, I find the branches of Islam bewildering.
This is probably a bit TR;DR. Sorry

+1 for the different branches of Christianity!

It's also noteworthy that the Buddha declined to appoint a person to be the head of Buddhism; such as the Pope for Roman Catholicism. Without a single person in control there is more room for variation and interpretation.

I'd say -1 (although not really :-) ) for the branches of Christianity. My background is Christian, and it's certainly a very branched tree. But compared with Buddhism, it strikes me as being a veritable single stalk. I find the variety in Buddhism bewildering. To be honest, I find it hard to accept that Zen (say) and Burmese Theravadan to be remotely the same thing. Of course, this could simply be precisely because I was brought up Christian, and familiarity is making it seem simple.

The answers above give good cover to a complex phenomena.  In the West, monastic Buddhism, either Zen, Tibetan or Theravada, seems to be showing a certain Christian flavour.  Lay groups seem to be showing a post "sixties" flavour of new age, psychological, neo pagan or yoga influence, no doubt after reading the Calama discourse, so called charter of free enquiry.
Practitioners will always benefit if the four noble truths are dominant in these respective offerings; dependent origination; fourfold setting up of mindfulness; a simple acquaintance with a version of the life of the Buddha; evolution of the Sangha and Vinaya, particularly the Ovada Patimokkha and Parinibbana admonitions.  In this sense, all schools are pretty much the same, leading to the same goals.

Your comments on what is "the same" across schools might make a good separate question so that people will be able to find that information more easily. I'll post the question separately.

To answer directly on the question why buddhist philosophy is not uniform: it was not the Buddha's intention, to teach a complete and uniform system of philosophy, quite on the contrary, the historical Buddha refused to answer questions, which he did not think conducive to liberation. I will provide two scriptural passages which underline this:
In the Cūḷa-Māluṅkya-Sutta, (MN I.63), ven. Māluṅkyāputta complains to the Buddha, that his preaching leaves out some of the deepest and most important questions, such as whether the world is eternal or confined in time, whether the tathāgata lives on after death and so on. The Buddha in turn asks him, whether he has ever claimed that he was going to answer these questions or whether Māluṅkyāputta had agreed to follow the Buddha on the condition that he would answer these. Both of them are answered in the negative. With a simile the Buddha then goes on to explain, that knowledge of these things are not conducive to the Buddha's goal, the end of suffering.
In SN V.437f the Buddha asks while in a forest, grabbing a hand full of leaves, whether the leaves in his hand are more numerous or those still up in the trees. Receiving the obvious answer, he states, that similarly what he has taught is much less than what he has chosen not to teach. That, which he has taught is just what is conducive to the aforementioned goal.
Thus the early monks were not furnished with a complete system of philosophy and moreover the Buddha, since he was not discussing philosophy in the first place, but preaching, adapted his sermons to the varying listeners. So not only the system was not complete, it also seemed to contain contradictory statements, such as ignorance as the root of suffering in one place (for example in pratītyasamutpāda) and in another thirst (like the noble truths) and suchlike.
I'm not saying that there are more differences in philosophy in Buddhism than in any other religion, but this is precisely why they are there in Buddhism. The early followers were engaged to reconcile seeming contradictions and to furnish the teaching with a sound philosophical base, such as ontology, epistemology, metaphysics. The intellectual climate in India in that time being very liberal, there were lots of different answers, that were accepted and rejected, discussed and disseminated.
Moreover, some scholars (for example Bronkhorst) insinuate, that maybe not only had the teaching to be safe in an inner-Indian competition, but that also the presence of Greek philosophy in the outskirts of India (Iran, Bactria) very much encouraged a philosophical development of the teaching. This is suggested by the fact, that the Sarvastivadin branch of Buddhism, which was situated mostly in the northwestern regions, shows the "most philosophical" development, trying to fathom the philosophical implications of such teachings as anātman.
Note, that this refers to early buddhist schools of philosophy, but accounts also in a certain way for the appearance of Mahayana Buddhism.

Historical Buddha turned the Wheel of Dharma three times. In each turnings he gave different teachings. During the first turn, he taught about the Four Noble Truths, during the second one - emptiness and the last one - ultimate Buddha Nature (some schools may categorize it slightly differently).
Overall, Buddha left a vast amount of teachings with one wish - that they will help people to reach lasting happiness. The variety of teachings (and nowadays schools) reflect the abilities of us, learners. Buddha was teaching simple farmers, philosophers and kings and he knew that all of them need different approach. Buddhist teachings can be compared to a pharmacy - there is a lot of medicines, but a pharmacist will dispense to you only the ones which are suited for your illness. Taking other medicines might be unnecessary or even harmful. At the end we want all the customers to be healthy regardless of the means they used.

This is a very good question -- I find myself pulled in two different directions in answering.
First, my reaction is "well why would we expect it to be otherwise?". All religions branch, so of course Buddhism does too. Branching is a function of the humans who interpret and pass on the teachings through the generations.
But then I think, well why doesn't science branch? Where religions seem to diverge, scientific understanding converges (with occasional bumps here and there). To the extent that Buddhism is essentially a science of reality, the expectation that it not branch is a reasonable one.
My conclusion is that Buddhism, like all other similar systems of thought/practice, branches to the extent that we overlay the underlying "science of reality" with distorting human constructs and artefacts. But to the extent we can remove those -- c.f. Aldous Huxley's "Perennial Philosophy" -- we will see convergence. Here is a superb talk proposing a view that we are nearing the end of a paradigm (a la Thomas Kuhn) in which that underlying science has indeed been overlaid with cruft. I'd even offer that the very existence of buddhism.SE is an example of that ending! :-)

Science does branch. In the Middle Ages there was only one degree course taught at university. Now there's Law, Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, etc.

That's a different meaning of branching. Science -- well, "natural" or "physical" science -- is gradually converging on answers that are agreed upon by everyone who knows the field. Perhaps I should have said science doesn't "diverge" instead of "branch", but that was my meaning. Religion, by contrast, tends to do the opposite. You begin with everyone agreeing on stuff, and then gradually disagreement sets in and spreads.

The lack of uniformity within Buddhism or Buddhist traditions should not be surprising at all, when you consider the dharma teaching on impermanence.   A tradition requires the practitioners to share with each other over many generations to survive.   As environments change those changes affect how practitioners pass along their traditions from one generation to the next.  After reading exerts from “In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon” by Bhikku Bodhi, it is easy to see how the various Buddhist traditions developed in reaction to individuals’ interpretations of his words based on their current circumstances.