text:
Is Buddhism the fastest growing religion in the West
This is a companion question to this one.
I've heard it said that Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in the West. Is that true? Does anyone have any statistics to support or refute this? It seems that this wouldn't be right in absolute terms but might be true in percentage growth for some countries.
I appreciate that many people find the term 'The West' unsatisfactory. However for this could we use the definition from here:

cultures that are directly derived from and influenced by European
  cultures

so this include be Europe, North American plus Australia and New Zealand.

AFAIK at least in Germany the fastest growing religion is Islam. It is quite interesting to compare the two, though, since they appeal to widely differing segments of society. The main reason for Islam growing so fast are ongoing muslim immigration, higher procreation of these immigrants and only thirdly conversion. I guess if the question was about religions attracting more or less conversions, the outcome might be a different one

Is Buddhism the fastest growing religion in the west?
Well according to Asian Tribune, an internet daily newspaper, in a story Buddhism fastest growing religion in West from April 7, 2008.

Buddhism is being recognized as the fastest growing religion in Western societies both in terms of new converts and more so in terms of friends of Buddhism, who seek to study and practice various aspects of Buddhism.

It should be noted this article did not contain demographic numbers. It was a report on a public lecture given at All Ceylon Buddhist Congress Hall Colombo and "was delivered under the auspices of the Buddhist and Pali University, All-Ceylon Buddhist Congress and the Buddhist Times Trust".
Demographic numbers, were however available at Pew Research-Religious & Public Life Project dated December 18, 2012 The Global Religious Landscape – Buddhists give an overall look at Buddhist demographics.
This project noted that while 7% of the world's total population is Buddhist, 99% of these Buddhists live in the Asia-Pacific region. All other areas including North America, Latin America, and Europe have 1% or less of their populations identifying as Buddhist.
If only 1% of Western populations are Buddhist, what is the remaining makeup? (At this point I had to narrow the question to the US as I was unable to find comprehensive info for the west in general.)But for the US, for example, according to Pew Research Center, U.S. doesn't rank high in religious diversity Americans are:
Christians - 78%
Unaffiliated - 16%
Jews - 2%
Buddhist - 1%
Muslims - <1%
Hindus - <1%
Folk Religion <1%
Other Religion <1%
But these figures are far from static. According to the most comprehensive Pew Research document I found, U.S.Religious Landscape Survey, a full 28% percent of Americans have changed their religious affiliation since childhood. (This does not include changing from one type of Protestantism to another; it would be 44% if that was included.) So what are they converting to? Lots of things including Buddhism.

• In sharp contrast to Islam and Hinduism, Buddhism in the U.S. is primarily made up
  of native-born adherents, whites and converts. Only one-in-three American Buddhists
  describe their race as Asian, while nearly three-in-four Buddhists say they are converts to
  Buddhism.

72% of American Buddhists are converts as compared to 27% originally born Buddhists.
An interesting fact is that the report states that only 50% of those raised as Buddhists in the US, still consider themselves Buddhist. So Buddhism in the US has simultaneously one of the highest rates of conversion from other religions to it and one of the lowest rates of retention of those born into it. (Lots of folks looking for something new I guess!)
But these American Buddhists tend to be satisfied with their personal lives. In a survey question (from the Pew Landscape report) asking "All in all, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in your personal
life?" 90% of Buddhist respondents stated satisfied; the highest percentage of any religious group. Only 8% reported "dissatisfied"; the lowest of any religious group.
But I'll wind it up with the observation from the Pew Landscape report that all religious groups in the US are continually gaining and losing members at all times. With the US Buddhist population being 72% converts, the half of the originally born Buddhists who leave Buddhism still leave it in a net gain category (based on "Childhood Versus Current Affiliation of U.S. Adults" on page 24 of U.S.Religious Landscape Survey).
Buddist gains are .3%. That sounds small until you look at all mainstream groups which are in the negative. In fact, the only groups that have a higher percentage gain are "unaffiliated" which is not a religion and "other faiths" which is the very small group of religions so small they are not broken out separately. So in that sense, you could perhaps say Buddhism is the fastest growing religion in the US. :)

That's a fantastic answer. Thank you very much. The only reason I'm not leaping right in to give you the answer is that I'm curious to see if anyone has stats on other countries too - particularly UK where I am. So I'm going to leave it without an awarded answer for a few more days. Thanks

My answer will focus on Europe mainly.
According to the published studies, the fastest growing religion in Europe is Islam.
In the table below one can notice that between 1990 and 2010 the number of Muslim increased by 48.9% and it is estimated that the increase will continue. (see the whole article here).

One may argue that those numbers reflect the ongoing immigration, but those immigrants will mostly stay in Europe, settle down and have families so there is no point in excluding them in the statistics.
Now let's take a closer look at England and Wales. (see the lengthy charts here). In 2001 Muslims made up 3% of population and in 2011 - 5%. Interestingly, 47% of Muslims were born inside the UK and Islam was the most ethnically diverse religion (68% - Asian/Asian British, 8% - white).
When we look at the age breakdown, one can immediately notice that in the age group <25 Islam is the leading religion and only in the ageing group (>50) Christianity is still the biggest one.
As for the Buddhism, one can see that the 'other religions' including Buddhism did not change the overall percentage much between 2001 and 2011.
One can also make a comparison between the UK-born and non UK-born citizens. Well, 60% of Buddhist are non UK-born (Muslims - 53%, Christians - 11%) which suggests that Buddhism seems to be a bit more popular among immigrants rather than among UK-born citizens.
All in all, the data above suggests that it is Islam that takes the lead in the West.

Albert Einstein apparently called Buddhism the religion of the future and the reason it is so popular in the west is because it gives you the choice to either believe in God or not to. Also you do not have to believe in anything you don't want to and have to focus on doing good work by following the 8 Fold Path. So the religion is more like a philosophy and a way of life and young people think that is very cool. Also Buddhism was never spread by violence like the Crusades and is very tolerant of all other religions. Plus many Hollywood movie stars are Buddhist and the Dalai Lama is the most popular religious figure on the world scene. Today in the west there are more Buddhists than Muslims and Hindus and it is the 3rd largest religion after Christianity and Judaism. Also many scholars believe that a lot of the NT is based on Buddhism and that Jesus studied Buddhism during what is referdd to as his "lost years" between the age of 12 and 30. Hence Buddhism is very compatible with Christians. Also many White people feel that their ancestors were actually closer to Buddhism than to Christianity and this feeling was also shared by Hitler of all people.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

@User5273
Could you please clarify your sources?
Any report I've ever seen lists Buddhism in 3rd and Judaism in 4th
With some reports actually showing more Hindu's than Buddhists, so some of the reports I've seen have listed Hindu 3rd and Buddhism 4'th.
Also it should be noted I am including Shinto religion and some Folk religions in the Buddhist statistic, since in many countries they go together. I can't remember my source, one was PEW research center, although they have very low number projections, which, I personally don't think are 100% correct. It is very hard to calculate something like


text:
Which book by Nagarjuna provides an introduction to his teachings?
I've noticed there are a lot of YouTube video lectures on Nagarjuna. It seems he was a very prolific writer on Mahāyāna Buddhist philosophy. Which of his works would be appropriate to get an introduction to his expositions on śūnyatā, the two truths, or relativity?

I'm not sure that "Nagarjuna" and "for beginners" belong in the same sentence so I'm watching this one with interest. I have heard good things about David Kalupahana's translation of the Mulamadhyamakakarika but haven't read it yet.

@THelper Well, I'm asking for feedback from experts on Nagarjuna for their advise, which will be subjective in nature.  I'll see what I can do to tweak the question.  Thanks for the feedback.

Putting this on hold to get a little bit more detail on it, as it stands this is a bit of a difficult question from a Q&A perspective since it encourages just lists or very broad opinion. Better would be to narrow what you think would make it "for beginners."

Wisdom published a translation of Mula-etc. recently that I thought was pretty good: http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/n%C4%81g%C4%81rjuna%E2%80%99s-middle-way

Reformatted question to focus on which texts to start on for learning Nagaruna's philosophical expositions on Mayahana Buddhism.

If anyone has any ideas on how to help improve my question.  Please feel free to edit it.  I think it would be helpful to get answers that will help people with Nagarjuna's texts.  That is my primary objective to get feedback from experienced teachers or readers on Nagarjuna's writings.

@Hrafn. Could I register a disagreement with this being put on hold. I don't think it is too broad and as a principle i support reference requests (though i know it's controversial). I think the question was fine how it stood - I think it wasn't receiving attention because it's just hard to answer. I think tighten up the question has actually made it harder to answer. I was actually going to put an answer into it in it's original form. I don't think the requested edits are helping. IMHO as aways. Cheers

@CrabBucket See http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/ It's very difficult, in my mind, to say "give me a good recommended starting place" where what makes a good starting place is so incredibly subjective and it isn't clear why you are looking for that starting place or where your points of confusion are. This is a common challenge in SE sites: "recommend something to me" is always difficult for the format and highly, highly subjective.

I think the latest version is better; it just asks which of Nagarjuna's works provide an introduction to his teachings.

The word "introduction" may be out of place, but anyway his most important work would be the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. A translation, along with an extensive commentary, is available in The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Jay Garfield (here is a previously published commentary of chapters 1, 2 and 24). Bear in mind that this is a very, very difficult text to understand, even with the (indubitably necessary) help of commentators. Toward that end, let me point out Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka: A Philosophical Introduction by Jan Westerhoff, which provides a synoptic overview of the arguments in Nāgārjuna's corpus concerning different philosophical problems with the aim of presenting an account of the whole of his philosophy (here is a helpful review of the book).

agreed pretty much. you can read the stanfrord article by wetsrehoff for contemporary PHILOSOPHICAL understanding http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nagarjuna/
which is interesting but MAY not answer ur question ;)  seems like it depends on which tradition you want to practice in: tibentan, zen... i don't know what other traditions are v active where i am - the UK

Here are some URLs for some good info on Nagarjuna and his teachings. Some great sites below, too. Dr. Berzin (Fulbright Scholar, etc.) was a translator for HH the Dalai Lama for a while and the late Ven. Tsenshab Serkong Rinpoche, a teacher of HH the Dalai Lama.
I. "Biography of Nagarjuna", [http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/approaching_buddhism/teachers/lineage_masters/biography_nagarjuna.html]
II. "Course on Nagarjuna's Letter to a Friend", [http://www.berzinarchives.com/media/audio/en/podcast-hi/letter/] This was Nagarjuna's letter to a local King, which essentially lays out the graduated path to enlightenment. So, here is the foundation, the middle, and the end, so to speak, of Sutra-based teachings.
Hope that helps.

+1 for Letter to a Friend http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level6_study_major_texts/suhrllekha_letter_friend_nagarjuna/letter_friend.html

Bodhicitta Vivarana "A Commentary on the Awakening Mind" is both complete and accessible.
Sanskrit title: Bodhicittavivarana
Tibetan title: byang chub sems kyi 'grel pa
Homage to glorious Vajrasattva!
It has been stated:
Devoid of all real entities;
Utterly discarding all objects and subjects,
Such as aggregates, elements and sense-fields;
Due to sameness of selflessness of all phenomena,
One’s mind is primordially unborn;
It is in the nature of emptiness.

Just as the blessed Buddhas and the great bodhisattvas have generated the mind of
great awakening, I too shall, from now until I arrive at the heart of awakening,
generate the awakening mind in order that I may save those who are not saved, free
those who are not free, relieve those who are not relieved, and help thoroughly
transcend sorrow those who have not thoroughly transcended sorrow.

Those bodhisattvas who practice by means of the secret mantra, after having
generated awakening mind in terms of its conventional aspect in the form of an
aspiration, must [then] produce the ultimate awakening mind through the force of
meditative practice. I shall therefore explain its nature.

Bodhichitta Vivarana
It is a great text to study and reflect upon.  If possible, try and spend time in nature when studying it because it really helps to get fresh air into your system and really get into a more "organic" setting

Well, a great beginner level text attributed to Nagarjuna is Letter to a Friend. It's short and a really great read. But I wouldn't really say it offers insight to Nagarjuna's philosophy. It's more like a basic practical buddhism introduction.
However, like others have said, the MMK is his piece de resistance you could say. This is a rigorous and thorough investigation into the nature of reality by way of dialect with his opponents or naysayers you could call them. It's not easy by any means, so here's what I recommend you read before diving into the MMK.
There is a series of books called "The Foundation of Buddhist Thought". Volume 5 is dedicated to emptiness. This series is targeted towards a western audience and it's probably as simple as you're going to get for this topic:
http://www.amazon.com/Emptiness-Foundation-Buddhist-Thought-Volume/dp/086171511X

The guys over at Partially Examined Life have done a podcast on Nagarjuna. The format of the podcast is that they recommend a basic reading to accompany the show. The reading for this one was this by Dr Peter Della Santina so this might be a good way into Nagarjuna and his work on emptiness. Bear in mind though that the guys over at PEL read Kant for fun so basic for them might not be all that basic. I think though someone with a working knowledge of Buddhism should be OK.
As a side note - the podcast is very worthwhile if only to listen to their struggle as these clever guys twist around the mind bending stuff from Nagarjuna. Sadly the show has recently gone behind a paywall but if you read the PDF it might be worth while to spend a small amount of money getting the audio. You can preview for nothing to see if it suits.

Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamakakarika is in response to the misguided interpretations of certain groups that attached teachings not originally expounded by the Gotama Buddha.  Prof. Kalupahana's work in this area, in fact, his life's work was to bring to the fore that original teaching of the Buddha without the unnecessary metaphysics.  So, it depends upon what the individual mind is disposed towards.  If one's dispositions are inclined towards grasping metaphysics then Prof. Kalupahana's work and commentary on the Mulamadhyamakakarika would be most inappropriate. Garfield's and Inada's would suffice.  On the other hand, if one leans toward an empirical approach to dhamma-vinaya,then, by all means, use this text.
This is not a text that can just be read.  It must be studied and thought about, over and over, until the beautiful logic of it shines through. I think I  have said enough.

I actually think that the writings of Nagarjuna himself aren't necessarily the best place to start to study Madhyamaka. The Mulamadhyamakakarika is the sum total of his teachings on emptiness but it doesn't actually explicitly teach emptiness in the way you are looking for. For example, the opening line says:

Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a
  cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise.

Which, taken at face value, is contrary to dependent origination. A lot of the Mulamadhyamakakarika is like that without explicitly teaching emptiness and the two truths. The real meaning of this first verse is that nothing arises from another, self, both, nor without a cause in terms of an intrinsic nature but the text itself doesn't explicitly clarify this. If you do want to study the Mulamadhyamakakarika, then I would recommend Jay Garfield's book The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way because he also gives a commentary which is indispensable for a text like this.
Although it was not written by Nagarjuna, the Madhyamakavatara by Chandrakirti is a very good text that lays out the teachings of Madhyamaka, the philosophical tradition founded by Nagarjuna. I recommend the book The Emptiness of Emptiness that has a commentary and a translation of the Madhyamakavatara.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Gautama Buddha the greatest Buddha who ever existed?
According to tradition, there were 27 Buddhas before Gautama Buddha.
Is Gautama Buddha the greatest Buddha out of all the 28 Buddhas?

Hi @Mawia. The question as it is written is likely to generate opinion based answers as Buddhas, being perfected beings, could not simply "be" greater or lesser than other Buddhas. Perhaps the question could be rewritten to  ask something quantifiable about the Buddhas?

@Robin111 I think you should write that as an answer. However, I think according to some traditions, Gautama is the supreme Buddha.

Some schools of Buddhism follow the words of Gautama Buddha and others derive great influence from cosmic Buddhas. So perhaps the question could be rewritten to ask about influence?

@Robin111 Whatever. Let's leave this as is. If it's not good we can close it as opinion-based. I can ask about influence separately.

Actually, according to tradition, there have probably been an unlimited number of Buddhas - one verse pays homage to the 2,048,109 (navuttarasata a.t.thacattaa.liisa sahassaka) Buddhas :)

One issue with the question is lack of precision in the notion of "greatness". That's also an attack point in Anselm's Ontological Argument, so it's significant in these kinds of things. Is "greatness" precisely defined in Buddhism?

No! All Sammasambuddhas are equal in their attainment of Buddhahood. They are all omniscient, equal in virtue, concentration and wisdom. However the time they take to cultivate Paramitha might vary from Bodhisatva to Bodhisatva. There are three classes of Bodhisattvas, namely; Intellectual Bodhisattvas (Pannadhika), Devotional Bodhisattvas (Saddhadhika) and Energetic Bodhisattas (Viriyadhika).
The minimum time it takes to become a Buddha after getting the confirmation from another Buddha is called "Sara Asankya Kalpa Lakshaya". Intellectual Bodhisattas take the minimum time. Our Buddha was an intellectual Bodhisatta. Saddhadhika Bodhisattas take double that time. Viriyadhika Bodhisattas take 4 times the minimum time required. Buddha Maitreya who will appear in the future is said to be a Viriyadhika Bodhisatta. But after attaining Buddhahood they are all equal.
Apart from that, there are 30 similarities and 8 dissimilarities. The dissimilarities are not directly related to Buddhahood. Ex: The tree under which they attain enlightenment, the life span, parents, wife, chief disciples, whether there's a Vinaya pitaka etc.
Read the Buddhawamsa for more details.

There is also the concept of Pratyekabuddhas or a private Buddha. This is a being who achieves enlightenment on their own and then does not go on to spread the Dharma as Gautama Buddha did during his 50 year ministry in Northern India.
So in the sense of spreading the Dharma, this being would be seen as less great than the Buddha's proper. Certainly in texts such as the White Lotus Sutra, the Pratyekabuddhas is spoken about in lesser terms than the vast array of Buddhas and Bodhsattvas that populate that  text.

There are infinite Buddha's. The 27 referenced above are the ones our Buddha got definite prophecy of Buddhahood. Though Buddhas are similar in their Morality, Mastery Over the Mind and Wisdom they do have differences arising from the length of Parami and and store of Karma.
The Buddha's who have longer Parami times generally are long lived and have loner Sasanas. Also their teaching style and and frequency of teaching changes. E.g. a Buddha who was Pannadhika during Paramis generally preach more often and while other Buddhas may through example and perhaps less frequently.

First of all no matter which version you learn as Buddhists we all believe that all of the Lord Buddhas are in the same level when it comes to understanding.there can be some differences in small things like how long they would live among humans.Being a Lord Buddha is reaching a certain level of understanding which is higher than any other being,so it is a status not a name for a person.Unlike other religions being a Lord Buddha is not out of reach for the followers,So if you for example take the time for the task as a Bodhisattva and finally become a Lord Buddha you will be equal with Gautama Buddha and every Buddha before.And the 27 you mentioned before is the number of Lord Buddhas who live in this era (Kalpa) not the amount who ever lived.So in that point of view Buddhas will be born as long as Humans exist.

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


text:
What caused the Golden Bowl to go upstream?
After finishing the last meal before attaining enlightenment, the Ascetic Gautama threw the golden bowl into the river and said:

"If I am to succeed in becoming a Buddha today, let this bowl go
  upstream, but if not, let it go downstream." (source)

Gautama was not yet a Buddha and I don't think he had psychic powers to make the bowl go upstream. Even if he had the power, it seems he was not doing it by himself.
Was Gautama expecting some divine being to answer his request?
Did a Deva or god make the bowl go upstream? If not, how did the Golden Bowl go upstream?

It's called Saccakiriya. It basically uses the power of true speech. But it has to be something strong.
ex:
I have never lied in my life! If that is true, may this happen!
I have never stolen in my life! If that is true, may this happen!
I have never killed in my life! If that is true, may this happen!
Once the Buddha instructed Venerable Angulimala to invoke his Saccakiriya to help a pregnant lady. This is what he said: "Since I was born of Aryan birth, O sister, I am not aware of having intentionally deprived any living being of his life. By this asseveration of Truth may you be well! May thy unborn child be well!"
In this scenario it's a true statement about the future. There was no Deva involved.

Don't you think the golden bowl statement was just metaphorical? That it was to say the Buddha went in a different direction leading him to Nirvana ?

People who are not comfortable with magical incidents, try to give different interpretations to such things. But I don't see it in any metaphorical sense

I am quite comfortable with believing in supernatural phenomena and I do not see any harm in believing either of the explanations.

No I didn't mean you personally. But that's usually the most likely origin of such interpretations.
I see no convincing reason to deviate from the traditional account :)

All Buddhist scriptures are some monks' interpretations since Buddha did not write it himself . It's just that your interpretation is more ancient than what I have mentioned. Guess we have to go by the Kalama Sutta and realize it ourselves.

Ah but it is wiser to go by interpretations that survived several Buddhist councils headed by many Arahanths unless you have a compelling reason to deviate :)

Wiser indeed... :)

I believe the golden bowl statement was metaphorical. For me it signifies an important lesson:
World cannot be understood by looking at it in the same manner we are used to. It will require us applying our thinking and understanding against the grain sometimes. Like the current of the river may fall through normally, but one need not be limited by its direction. We should not limit ourselves into traditional way of thinking, and mundane frames of understanding. After all, that frame of thinking is the main reason why we are here, stuck in sansara.
Albert Einstein : “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Lord Budhdha: "Sabbe Pruthajjana Unmaththaka" - All those who are not actively striving for Nirvana, are not right in their mind.

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


text:
Were robes a factor in the spread of Buddhism?
If you look at the countries where Theravada Buddhism has historically taken hold (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar/Burma) they are all in fairly close proximity to each other in the southern part of Asia. Countries where Mahayana Buddhism has historically taken hold tend to be considerably more widespread geographically in Asia and include the northern regions of Asia.
I remember reading on the internet (so it must be true! ;-)) that the reason for this was that in the Theravada tradition it was required that robes be made in very specific ways and made of cotton. Cotton not being suited to colder climates impeded monks from traveling north. The article continued that Mahayana had more flexible interpretations of robes so robes were simply made of wool and other heavier materials as monks moved north to spread the Dharma.
Is this explanation considered true and accurate or is there another explanation for the historical movement of Theravada Buddhism to areas south of India and Mahayana Buddhism to areas north of India?

The accidents of history that led to Kumārajīva translating the Mahayana texts into Chinese probably account for a large percent of the cause of the distribution of the major schools of Buddhism.

@MatthewMartin, would you be willing to expand on that as an answer?

Not really, because my comment is essentially saying there are 2 questions here-- what accounts for the various rules/traditions regarding robes, and 2) what circumstance led to East Asia being almost entirely Mahayana and SE asia being almost entirely Theravada? Maybe you can post the 2nd question?

In Theravada, robes may be made of six types of material, including linen, cotton, silk, wool, jute, or hemp (Mv.VIII.3.1). I've got a wool robe myself and it works fine in Canadian winters, so that shouldn't be a factor.
There may have been other geographic-based reasons, though; other aspects of monastic discipline might have made it difficult to practice the strict vinaya of the Theravada in colder climates, e.g. alms round, not-storing or cooking food for oneself, etc. Or, it may have been just by chance - kind of a "you go left, I'll go right" kind of thing.
One reason for Mahayana Buddhism spreading quicker might be the fact that it is generally-speaking easier to adapt to, since the focus is less on monastic discipline and more on engaged practice; in Zen Buddhism, for example, monks can drink alcohol and have wives, so much less adaptation is required for new practitioners. Tibetan Buddhism has spread mostly due to the humanitarian issues surrounding Tibet and the charisma of the Dalai Lama.
Another reason would probably be the Theravadin focus on attaining liberation in this life, a goal not easily accessible to the masses; the Bodhisatta path, while orders of magnitude more difficult in theory, can be relatively easy in practice.


text:
What is the significance of the 28 Buddhas within Buddhism?
Recently, I discovered in the Pāli Canon there is a text titled Buddhavamsa that describes the lives of 28 Buddhas.  Now, I am familiar with the significance of Gautama Buddha and Maitreya Buddha, however not the previous 27 Buddhas.  I am curious, what is the religious significance of the previous 27 Buddhas for teaching  the dharma?  How does reflecting on the 27 or 29 Buddhas help one reach enlightenment?

Buddhist men at the Sule Pagoda in Yangon, Myanmar, paying homage to the 28 Buddhas described in Chapter 27 of the Buddhavamsa. Courtesy of DiverDave.

As a quick answer, I think we can think about how rare it is to have a Buddha and his teachings. It took so many Kalpas (aeon) for 28 Buddha to appear. So we can reflect on this and think how urgently we need to practice the Dhamma.

Just an FYI... I didn't give the down vote.  Your answer starts off on a good point, which I believe would integrate nicely as a theme in a more detailed answer.  Thanks for the answer.

Sorry NeilD. Yes wanted to add and elaborate more. Thanks

I came across this webpage which is a concise guide to chanting in salutation of the 28 Buddhas. It mentions that the Buddhas of the past are infinite in number; however 28 is the number of known Buddhas and it lists the name and a trait of each of the 28. Gotama Buddha and the 3 that preceded him are the Buddhas of our current world cycle. Maitreya will be the upcoming and last Buddha of our current world cycle.
It is noted that all of the Buddhas have exactly the same qualities. So one can see that reflecting on the qualities of Gotama Buddha can be expanded to reflecting on the qualities of all the known 28 Buddhas and indeed all the infinite number of Buddhas known and unknown.  This can give one a sense of the continuation of the Dhamma over incalculable periods of time, which could lead an individual to have greater faith in the teachings.
http://www.jaibheem.com/BV-Page-9.htm


text:
How do Buddhists use mudras?
This is a practice question. I know both Mahayana buddhists and Vajrayana buddhists use mudras. In the former they show up in inconography, and hand resting positions while meditating, in the later it's part of elaborate rituals.
How are mudras used in lay and monastic practice in Mahayana?
Outside of being a step in larger rituals, how are mudras used in lay and monastic practice in Vajrayana?

This link may be of interest.  "Hand Mudras: How to use the Vajra and Bell" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvNXC1Z2vY4

In Vajrayana every practice is done on 3 levels - on the level of body, speech and mind. We work with the mind through visualising the Buddha forms, the speech centre is exercised through mantra repetitions and the body - through keeping the posture, using prayer beads (mala) and through the use of mudras.
As a Vajrayana practitioner I can think of a few cases when I use mudras.
First case is while doing the practice of prostrations. A person stands straight and brings their hands together in the 'lotus bud' mudra and places them in the crown of the head, then to the throat and then heart. Then the person kneels down and slides their body on the floor with arms stretched out towards the front. Then hands should meet to form lotus bud mudra again and then the person can stand up to perform another prostration. Touching the head represents purifying the body, touching throat - the speech centre and touching heart - purifying the mind.
People also touch their head, throat and heart centre when standing in front of the Stupa or Buddha statue. When meeting a great teacher or receiving blessing from him people usually hold their hands together and place them on the heart centre. All these gestures signify opening up the mind, speech and body to receive the blessing.
Another example when I use mudras is while attending a recitation of Mandala Offering text. It usually takes place before the teachings or empowerments given by high Lamas. During rituals it is usually the teacher who does the recitation and mudra sequences, however during the Mandala Offering, all students use a special mudra shown on the picture below. One beautiful addition to this mudra is placing rice and flower petals inside the palms and throwing them in the air as soon as the recitation is finished. As for the the meaning of the mudra itself, the arrangement of fingers symbolizes the simplified depiction of the universe one mentally creates and then offers to the Buddha - upright fingers in the middle represent Mount Meru and the 4 pairs around - four continents (if you're interested in details, look here). Mandala Offering is a third part of so-called preliminary practices Ngöndro and it is done to purify attachment, generate merit and create lots of positive impressions in the mind.

Since this question has sat for 3 weeks without anyone attempting an answer, I will try to add something that may perhaps point the questioner in a good direction. Mudras seem to be used mainly by the monastic and professional (dance, art, etc.) communities to convey symbolic messages to the Buddhas and those participating in or viewing the ceremony (practice, puja, sadhana, initiation, etc). Mudras can represent offerings to the Buddhas that are given mentally. (http://www.tibetanbuddhistaltar.org/offering-mudra/) (Pictures of the same mudras: http://chantamantra.com/index.php/prayers-a-rituals/64-mudra-for-8-outer-offerings) It is stated elsewhere that giving the whole of the physical universe, were it possible, would not be as great an offering to one's guru or the Buddhas as a few minutes of meditation. It is helpful, I think, for questions like these to remember that the original monastic community was very poor. Mental offerings given with a good heart and good motivation are no small thing. Here also is the Wikipedia page on Mudras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudra).
(My opinions follow.) Mudras seem to be like mantras for the body. I think use of mantras is meant to overcome the tendencies of the gross mind, and give the practitioner some mental space for positive practice. It seems to me mudras are meant to give the body a practice or physical focus that assists the mind in its meditation practice.
Hope that helps.

When meditating I was taught to hold my hands in the cosmic mudra as shown below. It's used as a comfortable position to hold one's hands during meditation. The thumbs should be touching but not pressing.
Also it's indicative of the mental states encountered during meditation. If the thumbs have become pressed tightly together then the meditator is probably in an anxious or tense state. On the other hand if the thumbs end up not pressing together at all and instead are waggling around in the air then the meditator is probably in a distracted state of mind. I've lost track of the number of times I've 'come round' during a meditation session and my thumbs are pointing in straight up in the air and are not touching at all.


text:
Why are the Perfection of Wisdom sutras seen as a coherent collection?
The Diamond Sutra, Heart Sutra, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra in 8000 lines and others are grouped together as Prajnaparamita (perfection of wisdom). Why is this?
Why are they seen as a coherent collection? Are they thematically similar or is the link because they were written at a particular geographic and historical period? Are they maybe linked because of they a reaction against other schools of Buddhist thought at that time? Should they be linked together at all?

The first answer is only partly right. The main thing that links these texts is the reference to prajñāpāramitā. They do share the point of view that elements of experience (dharmas) are empty of any self-existence (svabhāvaśūnya). They also seem to be against the tendency to Realism that emerged in the later Abhidharma traditions.
Many of the texts are obvious expansions of the original prajñāpāramitā. So Ratnaguṇasamcayagāthā (Collection of Verses on the Precious Qualities) and Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (The Perfection of Wisdom Consisting of 8000) are early Sanskrit translations of the basic text which was composed in Gāndhārī ca. 100 BCE. The Aṣṭasāhasrikā was expanded into texts of 10, 18, 25, and 100 thousand lines. They are a distinct group and very closely related.
The Heart Sutra or Prajñāpāramitāhṛdaya was composed ca. 7th century in Chinese using quotes from a Chinese translation of the 25,000 line sūtra (Taishō 223) translated by Kumārajīva. It combined some themes from Chapter three of T223 with devotion to the Bodhisatva Avalokiteśvara and a dhāraṇī (magic spell) taken from the Chinese Mahāmegha Sūtra (T387). It was subsequently back translated into Sanskrit and then expanded and translated into both Chinese and Tibetan.
The Diamond Sūtra or Vajracchedikā-prajñāpāramitā is another early sūtra on the subject of prajñāpāramitā which shares many features with the Aṣṭasāhasrikā but was written in a different milieu.
Both Aṣṭasāhasrikā and Vajracchedikā have obvious links to certain early Buddhist texts such as the Suññatā Suttas (MN 121 & 122). They both seem to focus on describing the point of view of someone who is immersed in the śūnyatā-samādhi. It seems likely that both were composed before the Mahāyāna became well defined as a distinct movement within Mainstream Buddhism (and modern scholarship suggests that this too centuries and was not complete until the 4th or 5th century CE).
Most of the other Prajñāpāramitā texts are Tantric texts that are written very much later, but in the style of the earlier texts. They are really of a different type and emphasis, but are lumped in with the others mainly because they call themselves Prajñāpāramitā texts.
Two excellent articles by David Drewes sum up and critique recent scholarship on the Mahāyāna. See his academia.edu page. On the very early history of the Prajñāpāramitā see the recent article by Karashima: Was the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Compiled in Gandhāra in Gāndhārī?

All of these sutras are on the subject of wisdom, or "voidness", "sunyata", or the "emptiness".

Śūnyatā
Introduction to Meditation on Voidness (Emptiness).

There are many good teachings on the concept; here's one: Advice for Studying Voidness (Emptiness)
Every school has its own teachings on the subject. Indeed, all of them (I think) advocate meditation on the concept at some point. One form of Mahamudara meditation advocates using it from the beginning: Mahamudra Meditation Manual.
Good stuff!

+1. The Diamond Cutter Sutra, The Heart of Prajna-Paramita Sutra, The Prajna-Paramita Sutra in 8000 lines -- are all essentially about the same topic, that all dharmas have the character of Emptiness and that Enlightenment is Self-Existent. And yes, in a way they are all reactions against Abhidharmists reifying dharmas and indeed the very Dharma itself.

The Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā never uses the word śūnyatā.


text:
What is a Mudra and what do they mean?
In Buddhist iconography the figures are illustrated or depicted with various hand gestures.  The symbolic hand gestures are called mudras.  What is the significance of a Buddhist mudra? What are the various meanings for different popular mudras?

Courtesy of Jordan

Courtesy of Asia Society

According to Dr. Robert Thurman:

The mudra “is a sacred gesture symbolically expressing inner wisdom,
  or, in tantra, a female consort for yogic practices that harness
  sexual energies to the path.  Some of the main gestures we see in
  Tibetan images are abhaya, the gesture of fearlessness, the right
  hand held in from with open palm raised up: dana, the gesture of
  giving, the right hand held open and downward;
  dharmacakrapravartana, the teaching gesture, each hand held with thumb and index fingers touching and the other three fingers upraised,
  the two hands touching each other in front of the heart center;
  dhyāna, contemplation gesture, either one or both hands held flat in the lap; trisharana,  the Triple Refuge gesture, similar to the
  teaching gesture, with the emphasis on the three upraised fingers,
  representing the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha; tarjanī, threatening
  gesture, with either hand held forward in a fist, the index and little
  fingers raised up; varada, boon-granting gesture, just like the
  giving gesture; and vitarka,  analytic or fine discernment gesture,
  like a one-handed teaching gesture, one hand held up with thumb and
  index finger forming a circle, the other three fingers raised up.” 1

Abhaya Mudra:

Courtesy of Acerca de Ernest Cappa
Dana Mudra:

Courtesy of Angela Wheeler on Ink me
The righthand is in the dana mudra gesture.
Dharmacakrapravartana Mudra:

Courtesy of Acerca de Ernest Cappa
Dhyāna Mudra:

Courtesy of eric_m #dhyanamudra - Instagram
Tarjanī Mudra:

Courtesy of erinhosfield #tarjanimudra - Instagram
Varada Mudra:

Courtesy of buddhabe #vitarka
Right hand in varada mudra.
Vitarka Mudra:

Courtesy of buddhabe #vitarka

Mandala: The Architecture of Enlightenment by Leidy and Thurman pg 168

If I can give an answer with reference to 5 Buddha mandala as I think it draws together the iconography into a satisfying whole.
As it's name suggests the 5 Buddha mandala 5 Buddhas at each compass point with one at the center. Each Buddha displays their own mudra. Each mudra points to a quality of that Buddha and thus to a quality of the enlightenment experience.

1. Aksobhya The blue Buddha
Mudra is the bhūmisparśa or earth touching mudra. The hand touches the earth. This points to the imperturbable.

2. Ratnasambhava - the yellow Buhha
Mudra is the dana or giving mudra. The hand points downward and out (shown by NeilD). This points to generosity.
3. Amitabha - the red budda
Mudra is the meditation or dhyana mudra. Hands together (show by NeilD). This obviously points to contemplation
4. Amoghasiddhi - the green buddha
Mudra is the fearlessness or abhaya mudra. Hand is up and poitn forward (shown by NeilD). This is self explanatory I think.
5. Vairocana - the white buddha
Mudra is the wheel-turning or Dharmacakrapravartana mudra (again shown by NeilD). This which fits his central place in the mandala, bringing all the other qualities together.

Where you able to find any images of the  trisharana mudra?  I found other mudras but not that one.  I would like to add an image of that to the answer.  Any help would be appreciated.  I like the context you added. :)

@NeilD I've put a put up of Aksobhya showing the mudra a bit more. I think I'll try to get decent pictures of all the buddhas up when I get a moment.

@Crab_Bucket Thanks for the additional picture.  I think you have a great idea.  The answers for this question need to include illustrations to help the readers.


text:
Can or should a Buddhist defend themselves physically?
If someone is attacking you to kill you should you defend yourself? Would it be ethical to kill an intruder coming into your home? If not, how did the bushido  samauri warriors justify it? We're they wrong?

When the Dalai Lama was fleeing Tibet, he did so with a rifle on his shoulder. Just thought I would throw that out there.

Re: Samurai-- How the Japanese (and Chinese?) warrior monks justified their actions is more interesting. The monks took vows, the Samurai didn't. I just checked, the Bushido as a moral code doesn't include non-killing or ahimsa. It would make it a peculiar moral code for warriors if it did.

@John According to his biography, the rifle was not to shoot people, but to disguise himself as a soldier.

If Buddhist warfare can be justified, there should be no problems with justification of killing in self-defence.

The Buddha requested this a basic principle, not to harm life. I really do not understand why people who dislike this simple principle are still wanting to call themselves "buddhist". Does it give money? Reputation? Moreover, even if one does not really understand the reason for the radicality of this precept: we should take it as a gift. Because it means, by keeping this principle any buddhist signals you need not have fear when you hear his/her feet in the night, forest, in the war (remember only the war in vietnam as reported by Chan Khong): there are some, who do not want kill you...

Consider that YOU are a life that also should not be harmed. Consider that your family depend on you. Perhaps for many things. One of these may be defense. In allowing yourself to be harmed, they are harmed also.

If someone is attacking you to kill you should you defend yourself? ...

I think yes, you may. Our religion has never stopped us from doing that.

Would it be ethical to kill an intruder coming into your home?

you may stop an intruder forcefully. Our religion has never stopped us from doing that.
But for me, being Buddhist, the answer will not end there. Both (two above lines) questions are based on teaching of Ahimsa (not to injure). If it is so then it is important to know how we interpret this teaching. Following are some of the points we can consider-

Buddhism is a religion of principles and not rules. (yes there are rules as code of conduct, but it is not religion of rules). It teaches you basic principles and you are expected to make the decision on basis of that according to the context.
Buddhism is religion with "Metta" (unconditional love). You even are expected to love your enemy. But you are not prohibited from defending yourself.
Ahimsa in Buddhism is not the same as it is in Jainism.

These are the points in short based on which I said you can physically defend and you are not stopped by Buddhism from doing so. I don't want to say that you should (or even you can) kill. But you may defend. Dr. Ambedkar's discussion on Ahimsa is very enlightening in this regard. You can find it here -The Buddha and His Dhamma, Book 4, Part II, Section 3. It is a good read and the best part is it covers the whole debate in two pages. I also found this article interesting discussing the same point.

So, what's the difference between Ahimsa in Jainism & Buddhism?

@GokulNC, Though its nice question, I am not answering it here. It will start another discussion. In fact, probably it will be great if you start another discussion with new question. For now I can say only one thing - "In general, the precept against killing living beings in Buddhism centers around intent, whereas, the Jains take it further and avoid all possible killing." This is one of the things which we may say represents the difference. This all is according to my limited understanding. Please correct me if needed!

Yes. Buddhists can and sometimes even should defend themselves and people around them. However, consider the following:

If you do it out of anger, you will suffer from the results of this anger. The key is to use violence without any negative feelings but out of active compassion (see the next point)
If you are aware that the attacker wants to kill not only you but also 10 of your companions, less harm will be done if you kill him out of compassion towards your companions rather than if the attacker kills 11 people out of anger and ignorance. You can also feel compassion to this attacker - imagine how much would he have to suffer if he indeed commits those crimes. If we can stop him by defending ourselves, we definitely should do it.
If you see someone about to commit one of 5 deadly sins - you should definitely stop them as the results of such actions will be serious, immediate and long-lasting.
If you are a specialist doctor who can save lots of lives - it is of great benefit that your life is protected. You should defend yourself for the sake of your patients who rely on your expertise.

Those are the just the guidlines for those who took Bodhisattva Vow. In general, one is trying not to think about one's own good, but try to perceive every situation in a wider perspective. One should always ask oneself - which action will benefit the more people for the longest possible time? Compassion and unconditional love to others is the key. Imagine a mother defending her only child - she loves the child and she really doesn't mind spoiling her own Karma - the only thing she wants is the safety and well-being of her beloved child. She will resort to violence if this is the only way to protect the child. Those who took  Bodhisattva Vow aspire to develop such attitude towards all the sentient beings.

I agree, but the idea of killing to save a life is... Perplexing. Almost as much so as the fact that living things must eat other living things. Poor design, I say.

I think there are two question here with different answers
1. Should a Buddhist defend themselves physically
I would argue not. I believe that Buddhist teaches radical pacifism. The first precept explicitly states

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.

Which points to non-violence. The Kakacupama Sutta: The Parable of the Saw in the Pali Canon goes further

Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with
  a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at
  heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a
  situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds
  be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil
  words [...]

So even if you are being rendered limb from limb, one should still not practice violence. In a more modern day setting, I read of Tibetan monks held and tortured by Chinese officials whose greatest concern was that they would lose the capacity for compassion towards their tormentors. The compassion response is still possible even under such extreme circumstances.
2. Can Buddhism be ever used to justify violence
Yes unfortunately it can. To give an example the Tibetan Kalachakra Tantra has got anti-Islamic passages in it which can be used as a justification for violence

The Chakravartin shall come out at the end of the age, from the city
  the gods fashioned on Mount Kailasa. He shall smite the barbarians in
  battle with his own four-division army, on the entire surface of the
  earth.

Also some Japanese Zen Buddhists were supportive of the second world war which is closest to your samurai point. This article gives more detail on this point which I won't copy through here. One quote from Harada Daiun Sogaku is illustrative

[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the
  manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of
  Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the
  holy war [now under way]

So just to summarise the answer, Buddhism is vast, so it's unsurprising that some group, determined enough, can dig out something to justify violence. However the overwhelming majority of the texts and practices say precisely the opposite.

I think you can try to stop people from sawing your limbs off and still not harbor ill-will towards them. After all, if they saw your limbs off they're committing a terrible crime, so it's in their best interests to try to stop them.

In Buddhism the idea is preserving and guarding the mind is more important then preserving the body because the body is viewed as impermanent therefor one should not cling to it. If one take up arms in defense of the body there by killing or harming another being, then the mind becomes impure and one can not reach enlightenment.

Mind is also viewed as impermanent. Even more so than the body. But unlike the mind, whatever happens to your body cannot directly affect your future lives.

Yes very true. Well said!

A Theravada Buddhist monk is forbidden to attack back, i.e., kill in self-defense. If a monk kills a human being for any reason, he is defeated & is no longer a monk. To quote:

Intentionally bringing about the untimely death of a human being, even if it is still a foetus, is [an offence of Defeat.] (Summary
Paar. 3; BMC p.78)
The Bhikkhus' Rules

However, a Buddhist layperson can kill in self-defence or to mercifully protect family & society since the training rule for laypeople is about killing with violence rather than killing in self-defence. About killing, the scriptures state:

And how is one made impure... by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person takes life, is a hunter, bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings.
AN 10.176

The Buddhist scriptures teach: "kamma is intention" therefore the result (vipaka) of an action (kamma) will be determined by the intention.

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech & intellect.
AN 6.63

For example, most soldiers & people believe WW2 was "the good war" therefore Allied soldiers adversely affected psychologically by their participation in WW2 were probably less than soldiers adversely affected psychologically by WW1, the Vietnam War or the Iraq War because many soldiers eventually realised these 3 wars had little if any moral justification.
This is why government & media propaganda is such an important weapon of war, such as with WW2 or the 9/11 propaganda, which makes many Buddhists, including monks, direct or indirect supporters of the post 9/11 wars, which are actually unrelated to 9/11, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, etc. Anti-Islam propaganda makes most people uncaring towards & ignore these unjustified wars against Islamic societies.
Recently, the media was saturated with stories about a chemical-attack in Syria, which resulted in many people supporting a war against Syria (even though there was no evidence supporting these unlikely & absurd allegations). Thus not only intention but also truth is aspect of kamma & result.

In ancient China, areas were just plain dangerous to be on account of banditry and so on. This fact even showed up in the Brahma Net Sutra and the Upasaka Precepts.

37th minor precept: When practicing the austerities, the Buddhist
  disciple should avoid dangerous areas, unstable kingdoms, countries
  ruled by evil kings, precipitous terrains, remote wildernesses,
  regions inhabited by bandits, thieves, or lions, tigers, wolves,
  poisonous snakes, or areas subject to hurricanes, floods and fires.
  The disciple should avoid all such dangerous areas when practicing the
  austerities and also when observing the summer retreat. Otherwise, he
  commits a secondary offense.
  ref: http://www.purifymind.com/BrahmaNetSutra.htm

So the first part of the rule was to avoid getting into situation that called for defense.
Shoot, I have to unwrite what I just wrote-- as it turns out, the origins of the Shaolin (Chan) monks and Kung Fu are sort of lost to time.  We don't really know if Buddhist martial arts came about because a monastery was a big institution and estate that eventually sprouted warrior monks, like ones in Japan did, or if monks needed to defend themselves in a way that was consistent with their values, i.e. unarmed combat and doing as little damage as possible to your enemy. Or maybe the martial arts were a side effect of austere exercises, like standing in horse stance for hours, which created very strong legs and made it literally hard to push monks around.
Anyhow, if one is looking for inspiration for how to defend oneself while remaining consistent with your value system-- then I think Judo and Aikido seem to be the best example of applying the Buddhist ideal of ahimsa to self defense (although I'm not sure that they are explicitly related to Buddhism anymore)
Oh this question has a part 2-- How do lay Buddhist soldiers justify their actions? Well it's easier than the monastic soldiers (they did exist!)-- the monastics took vows, the lay Buddhist soldiers did not**. Lay Buddhist soldiers were more likely practice a devotional Buddhism, where you seek this and after worldly support from celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. In that system, if you are good enough, you are reborn in a Pureland where you don't have to made difficult decisions about if you should let a bandit walk all over you, if you should let the local Shogun draft you into an unfair and unjust battle, or other quandaries. Once one is in a Pure Land, you can practice more conventional morality and reach enlightenment.
Anyhow, even in modern times in things like an informal book club, you quickly learn that often times people are not participating in Buddhism because they want to follow the precepts-- they are there for other reasons, family tradition, for the benefits of meditation, and so on. So there isn't a strong cause to call hypocrisy if they on lay Buddhists who happen to work as Samurai. (Warrior monks is a different story altogether)
** Even when lay followers take the 5 precepts, they aren't expected to follow them with the rigor that monastics are expected to as the rules on sex make clear-- no sex at all for monks, no impropriety for lay followers. So I imagine a solider shouldn't kill in a socially unacceptable manner, while a monk is trying not to kill anything, or at least not be involved in socially unacceptable killing.

What do you mean with 'explicitly related to Buddhism anymore'?
AFAIK there never was a relationship other than the general influence Buddhism has had on all people in Japan. I must admit that the similarity between several principles in Aikido and Buddhism are striking, but Aikido was founded by Morihei Ueshiba who was actually a follower of Ōmoto-kyō, which originates from Shinto.

The link between kung fu and Chan Buddhism is clear. The influence of Buddhism on kung fu is reasonably clear, but my internet search isn't going to prove it for me since the origins and motivation of Kung Fu are in the hazy past. Judo/Akido are from a Buddhist country and seem concerned with not hurting the person you are attacking-- this is a very Buddhist theme, I have no idea if it was a conscious infusion of Buddhist ideas or maybe the originators where just very nice guys. Not really my area of expertise.

Questions that appeal to extremes aren't really sensical for Buddhists. The answer to your first question is: it depends. This is because as a Buddhist, you should understand that absolutes aren't tenable and that you should walk the tightrope in the middle beyond extremes.

Yes. Self-defense is OK.
Protection of arahats (DN 16):

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."
  - DN 16

I'm not sure whether Buddha, The Gospel (Paul Carus, 1894) is based on canonical texts:

Simha continued: "I am a soldier, O Blessed One, and am appointed by
  the king to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. Does the Tathagata
  who teaches kindness without end and compassion with all sufferers,
  permit the punishment of the criminal? and further, does the Tathagata
  declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes,
  our wives, our children, and our property? Does the Tathagata teach
  the doctrine of a complete self-surrender, so that I should suffer the
  evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who
  threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Tathagata
  maintain that all strife, including such warfare as is waged for a
  righteous cause should be forbidden?"
The Buddha replied: "He who deserves punishment must be punished, and
  he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Yet at the same time he
  teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and
  kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must
  be punished for the crimes which he has committed, suffers his injury
  not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evildoing.
  His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executer of the
  law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbor hatred in
  his breast, yet a murderer, when put to death, should consider that
  this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that
  the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate
  but rejoice at it."
The Blessed One continued: "The Tathagata teaches that all warfare in
  which man tries to slay his brother is lamentable, but he does not
  teach that those who go to war in a righteous cause after having
  exhausted all means to preserve the peace are blameworthy. He must
  be blamed who is the cause of war. The Tathagata teaches a complete
  surrender of self, but he does not teach a surrender of anything to
  those powers that are evil, be they men or gods or the elements of
  nature. Struggle must be, for all life is a struggle of some kind.
  But he that struggles should look to it lest he struggle in the
  interest of self against truth and righteousness.
  - Buddha, The Gospel 52

There are Zen stories in which the master will neither kill someone to defend himself (The Gates of Paradise), nor kill someone to defend his home (The Moon Cannot Be Stolen and The Thief Who Became a Disciple).

I beleive  kalama sutta makes it clear that people don't have to follow any thing blindly
It  not advised to folllow buddhist percepts blindly ,people have to think what action is better for common good and do it. If killing a terrorist can save 100 people stuck in a particular situation , I think that action is better for common good. ...

I think the story related to Angulimaan(later known as monk Ahinsak) could clear this doubt.
Buddha did not attacked him,neither defended himself.

Hello friendly and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here

You could physically prevent the attacker from killing you, which would be a compassionate act since if they did kill you it would torment them.
If in the act of trying to prevent the catastrophe they were to accidentally die, it would be unpleasant (for everyone) but not unwholesome.
Their karma would be light(attempt to cause harm) and you only accidentally killed them. If, however, someone sees an intruder in their home and as a result becomes frightened. And due to being scared decides to kill the intruder (from malice), the result would be quite terrible for everyone. Since if they are successful, torture ensues for them. And if you are successful, torture ensues for you instead.

Interesting thread.  One person wrote the following:
"In Buddhism the idea is preserving and guarding the mind is more important then preserving the body because the body is viewed as impermanent therefor one should not cling to it. If one take up arms in defense of the body there by killing or harming another being, then the mind becomes impure and one can not reach enlightenment."
I wholeheartedly disagree with statement.  First of all, there are thousands of Buddhists that have been to war.  The assumption here is that none of them can attain enlightenment or that it is at some distant time.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I have practiced Nichiren Buddhism for over 40 years and enlightenment can and is attainable in the here and now.
The second part of the statement says basically that the mind and body are separate.  This is also not true.  They are inseparable.  I see this person may not have a clear understanding of true Buddhism.
On the subject of killing in self defense, I would have the agree with many others.  The word I like to use here is "intent".  Cause and effect is definitely based on this word.  One's thoughts, words, and actions all create cause and their effects on our lives.  However, the intent at which time these causes were created definitely impacts the severity, timing, and nature of the effects.
Those are just thoughts from someone that practices the Lotus Sutra.  I truly believe the others are provisional.  The Buddha spent 42 years of his life writing the sutras, and the last 8 writing just one...the Lotus Sutra.  I think it is paramount importance to understand and practice it.
Thank you, everyone!

Hello Ken and welcome to the Buddhism Q&A! We are trying to stay away from polemics and prefer to keep this site true to its intended Q&A format. Do you mind if I ask you to please edit your answer (which is very thoughtful nevertheless) to stand on its own?

The statement that the Buddha spent the last eight years of his life writing the Lotus Sutra is not historically factual.

It is clear from the suttas that the Buddha advocated total pacifism for monastics, much as Yeshua did. The relevant passage has already been quoted by a previous respondent. However, this precept is not necessarily applicable to householders. I cannot imagine that the Buddha actually advocated allowing bandits to overrun society, which is what would happen if the First Precept were taken literally and applied universally by householders. The Chinese Shaolin monastics developed the discipline of martial arts in the context of persistent attacks on monastics and the monasteries to use the energy of the attacker to repel them without injuring or killing them. In the context of the First Precept, not to harm or kill others, intention is the essential thing in Buddhism as noted above. An important point is that one's body is a colony of living, sentient beings - i.e., about 37 trillion human cells and an equal number of microbiota (see Wikipedia, Human microbiota). Buddhism does not distinguish between quality of life and demands that all life be respected. Therefore, to actively allow an attacker to injure one's body also violates the First Precept. This is the reason for the prohibition of suicide. It follows from the foregoing that one not only has a right to defend oneself, it is one's duty to do so based on the First Precept. Where the question becomes tricky is what to do if repelling an attacker is not sufficient and one faces actual death or injury if one does not respond in kind. Does one have the right to kill or injure the body of another living being if it is certain that that living being would otherwise kill or injure one's own body? Can one kill or injure another living being without having the will or intention to kill or injure them? I'd love to see a primary canonical text that addresses this specific point, but have not seen such as yet. With respect to a sub-question of the question being asked, it would definitely not be ok to kill or even injure an intruder into one's home based on the foregoing.
Later today I happened to come across the following in Peter Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism: "Asanga's Bodhisattva-bhumi ... says that an (advanced) Bodhisattva may kill a person about to kill many people - so that he saves them and the assailant avoids the evil karma of killing - provided that this is done out of genuine compassion, and with a willingness to suffer the karmic consequences of killing; however, if this is sincere, such consequences will be lighter than normal. He may also lie to save others, and steal the booty of thieves and unjust rulers, so that they are hindered in their evil ways. ... The first precept ... is the resolution not to intentionally kill any human, animals, bird, fish or insect: the word for 'living being' (Pali pana; Skt prana) in the precept literally means a 'breather.' ... Most lay Buddhists have been prepared to break the first precept in self-defence, though... " (pp. 271f).

I didn't understand the sentence, "An important point that has not been made ...": why is it important, and why did you include that sentence if the answer? Also, are cells and microbiota considered "sentient?" I thought that plants aren't considered sentient, and guessed that neither are microbes.

It's important because no one has discussed one's moral obligation to oneself and I included the statement to indicate why I thought my answer contributed something valuable and new to the discussion. The question about sentience versus life did occur to me as I wrote it, but I let it slide because I think Buddhism generally considers all animals to be sentient and only excludes vegetables. This is a worthwhile question too I think but I will not address it further here because that is not the question at hand.

FYI that one sentence (which says that the body is a colony of cells) just seems to me irrelevant, and unconnected to the rest of the sentence.

Then I'm afraid you have not understand my point, which is that we not only have the right, we have the obligation to defend ourselves, i.e., our body, from harm, and this is why.

I thought that the conclusion ("prevent harm to all sentient beings, meaning anybody including one's own body") would follow from one's body being a sentient being ... the body's also being multi-cellular is modern biology and not at all relevant to the argument?

I don't see why something being modern biology is irrelevant. Dharma is transtemporal and transhistorical. My point is that it isn't just "one's body" - which suggests a subtle form of egotism/narcissism (self-identify doctrine, atta), which the Buddha repudiated. It is a colony of subordinate beings to whom one also has a moral obligation. It nuances the argument and communicates the realization that one's body is not one's body. I don't think it is irrelevant at all.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
If we have the law of karma, why do we need other laws, or do we?
Since we have the law of karma then there should be no need for laws or prisons? The law of karma will issue out punishment automatically. So if you murder someone there will be equal consequences regardless. Is this correct?

The goals (or laws) of the universe don't align with the goals of the king or government. Karma, by traditional accounts, can take lifetimes to bear fruit (i.e. crime today, punishment in 100 lives from now). To run a country, you need to provide more immediate incentives for those who don't believe in karma and as a practical matter, to separate those who are likely re-offend from society so as to protect other innocents.

Even in a world where the law of karma is real and in effect, one needs laws and punishment for a few reasons.
Karma doesn't "issue", and its effects are not "punishment"; in Buddhist view it's a blind process of cause and effect and the effects of karma are not to be known or speculated about. This is one of the four imponderables:

§ 22.    "These four imponderables are not to be speculated about.
  Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation.
  Which four? The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers
  a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha]... The jhana-range
  of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may
  obtain while absorbed in jhana]... The results of kamma... Speculation
  about [the first moment, purpose, etc., of] the cosmos is an
  imponderable that is not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates
  about these things would go mad & experience vexation."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html#causes
It's not known when the effect of karma comes to fruition, in what way, or if they come to fruition at all. If karma comes to fruition, one doesn't necessary realize: "This is because of my bad karma, I should change my ways."
Therefore, the concept of karma doesn't:

repel those who want to commit crimes
remove those who commit crimes (temporarily) from society
rehabilitate those who have been found guilty

Which, in an ideal justice system, laws and prisons do.

First of all we have to keep in mind that the karma is a activity which is based on reason and result theory (Pratītyasamutpāda). in karma reason is the cetanā( intention of the doing). Result of the doing which has done with cetanā(intention) depends on the nature of cetanā. if someone did something with good intention he will have good results and if someone did something with bad intention he will have bad results. But anyone except the Load Buddha cannot say the time taken to give the result. But all karma can be categorized into 4 types according to the time they will give the result,

Ditta dhamma wedaniya karma
Upapajja wedhaniya karma
Aparapariya wedaniya karma
Ahosi karma

Now let's consider them one by one.

Ditta dhamma wedaniya karma

Ditta dhamma wedaniya karma means the results will definitely be given in the same "Bhawaya"(Bhawaya refers to the time period from birth to die in one life). This is the situation where if someone can apply the karma as a law. But without the capability of determine the time of result-back it is useless to apply as a law.

Upapajja wedhaniya karma

Karma that will give the result definitely in next life. in other words, immediate next Bhawaya.

Aparapariya wedaniya karma

Karma that will give the result in between the third Bhawaya and before Nirvana call as Aparapariya wedaniya karma.

Ahosi Karma

Karma That will cancel due to the inability of giving the result is called as Ahosi karma.
So now anyone can decide the practical issue of using karma as a Law.

Prisons (and the laws that put people in them) serve two purposes:

As a punishment for criminals (with the goal of rehabilitation) and a deterrent would-be criminals.
To protect the public from people who are likely to re-offend and cause harm to others.

Especially in the second case, we can see incarceration of dangerous people as an act of compassion towards potential future victims, to protect them from harm.
In an ideal world, society would be structured in such a way that individuals would be able to act according to their impulses, without the danger of causing harm to others.  (Imagine if everyone had a 100% efficient robot bodyguard.)  But until we reach such a state, laws act as a way to guide our behaviour and protect people from real danger.
Consider other laws pertaining to food safety (hygiene) and safety in the workplace.  These prevent potential accidents which would harm not only the victims but also the people who created the danger (saving them from feelings of guilt and loss of karma).  So these laws can be seen as compassionate towards both parties!

"Since we have the law of karma then there should be no need for laws or prisons? The law of karma will issue out punishment automatically. So if you murder someone there will be equal consequences regardless. Is this correct?"
I essentially agree with your conclusion. The ones inflicting any sort of suffering will be "punished" by karma. This includes all who think they are inflicting "justice", another sort of suffering. No "justice" will take the place of one's karma. (This is how I understand the issue. Logic must fail eventually when speculating on these physical issues.) I also agree that, since we have, by Buddhist definitions, lived for countless lives, any attempt to enumerate or figure out anyone's karma will be unsuccessful. The cravings for all of these actions seems to be the driver so it is only through mindfulness, it seems, (and meditation) where one can change the basis for future events.
It is quite easy to have compassion for a victim (whose karma has caused his suffering). It is quite difficult to have compassion for those who are harming the victim (due to karma's result) also and those who think they must inflict justice (also due to karma's result). IF the idea of karma is true, then All suffering is from the result of previous actions.
However, as another answer notes, logic is only good up to a point. Beyond that point, only meditation can show one the truth of life (or their truth, perhaps). Speculation (even when using logic) is a product of the physical side of life and will, by definition, always fall short of the ultimate truth. So, all "answers" only "point" to the ultimate answer, which you (all of us) must find within you. (My "answer" so far, anyway.)
Good luck.

Because other laws serve their purpose and karma law is law of nature. So, to acquire our goals we establish our laws. With established laws we don't try to replace law of karma.

So if you murder someone there will be equal consequences regardless.

Degree of consequences is not established by the law of karma, only wholesomeness of them. Check this fine sutta AN 3.99.

"There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain
  individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same
  sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the
  here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.

In AN 8.40 (how do you make those hyperlinks, they are neat) Some consequences of actions are stated: "The taking of life — when indulged in, developed, & pursued — is something that leads to hell, to rebirth as a common animal, to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span."

Just press link button in answer editor, unfortunately no such button in comment editor.


text:
Has Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance got anything to do with Zen?
I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig a few years ago and really enjoyed it. However I'm not convinced it's got anything to do with Zen. From what I remember the protagonist spends a lot of time fixing his motorbike and contemplating the notion of quality. But does the text link into Buddhism generally and Zen specifically? If not, why has it got Zen in the title?

I read an article that stated the book has nothing to with Zen Buddhism.  Only a subtle reference to Zen as being present in the moment.  Also, I don't know anyone who has finished the book.  It is a difficult read.

Pirsig disavows any relationship between the content of his book and Buddhist Zen. Just yesterday I was at the bookstore and this book was right next to the Dalai Lama. Looks like folk philosophy to me. I haven't read the whole book. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance

I read the whole book years ago, I didn't think it was that difficult. It depends on whether you can relate to the point it is making and are willing to delve in to someone else's psyche to follow it. "Quality" is described as a non-dual experience of reality. He explains it very well. This is probably the first good Western explanation, at least that I know of (1974).

The main idea is pretty Zen yes. The premise of the book is that Western philosophy made a wrong turn at Aristotle, who placed (conceptual) Truth at the top of the hierarchy of all knowable, thereby subsuming the Good (aka Quality aka Beauty) as a byproduct of Truth. Through this sleight of hands the conceptual has falsely acquired status of universal, while the experiential from being the mother of conceptual became its slave and hostage. Instead, argues the author, the (preconceptual) Good exists in the sphere of direct experience, and can be known directly. According to author, true understanding of Quality, Beauty and Ethics is possible only through such direct nonconceptual contact with the principle of Good. At which point Good is reinstated to the throne of knowable and Truth becomes merely one of alternative ways of attaining Good.
This very much parallels Zen Buddhism's interpretation of Buddha-Dharma, according to which Self-Existing Enlightenment is not to be understood through analytical reasoning, but is awakened to through direct experience. Meditation, koan work, interviews with Zen Master, calligraphy, tea ceremony etc. are all means of getting in touch with this direct experience, which in Zen Buddhism is emphasized over analytical study of texts.
In my opinion it would not be too much of a stretch to equate book author's direct insight into Good/Quality with Enlightenment as it is understood in Zen Buddhism. Although technically, Zen Buddhism goes further in that it gets one into direct contact not just with Good, but also with the very Emptiness itself. So strictly speaking the author falls short of full-scale Enlightenment, but still does a good job illuminating the trap of strict rationality and the primacy of direct experience.

I think the answer is not much. Robert Pirsig states that

it should in no way be associated with that great body of factual
  information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very
  factual on motorcycles, either.

The title itself is apparently a play on the book Zen and the Art of Archery
However to say it isn't about Zen doesn't mean it's nothing to do with the enlightenment experience. The guys over at Partially Examined life when discussing don't talk about Zen but do talk about enlightenment. In the pivotal point of the book the protagonist undergoes a physiological break. Pirsig himself refused to say whether the experience was a physiological/psychotic break or a genuine enlightment experience

I think that the protagonist was an intense person who went over into being a Neo (self without ego operating) for a while and then self-destructed psychologically due to lack of self-care and overwhelming pressure in his life circumstances. This can happen. Some emerge (Byron Katie?) and become "enlightened" (non-self) from there.

The word Zen is derived from Pali word Jhāna which means concentrated or absorbed state of mind. So whenever I see the word Zen outside of Religious work I assume it just refered to absorption . Therefore I would assume in your case it would refer to absorption into art of motorcycle repairing :).

The book actually has little to with repairing motorcycles.


text:
A good source to learn the Pali language?
I have asked this considering the importance of Pali in Buddhism.
I want to learn Pali.
 I want to learn it individually on my own.
Is there any relatively simple way?
Can anyone suggest me anything?
Any free learning sites will be appreciated.

I think we should be more human in this site and help a one who is trying to find a way to learn Buddhism before being formal robots. this question should remain open.

You see that "reopen" link up there? If five people click it, the question will be reopened.

@Theravada There's a help topic titled Cast Close And Reopen Votes. See also this meta-topic where you discuss this specific question.

This topic's History shows that it had 5 reopen votes, which were ineffective because they "aged away" (they weren't all simultaneous). So I'm voting to reopen, see also Proposal: Pali should be on-topic on Meta.

Good, Thank You: didnt see a reopen button ; Pali, Romanised Pali, Hybrid Sanskrits, Other Sanskrit Variants, Etc, are Very relevant to Buddhism & The Teachings of The Buddha & are necessary for careful scholarly considerations of some aspects of Buddhist Doctrines & Participation etc

, and in Original Characters & Manuscript Characters & Manuscripts & Carvings etc also, in additon to any translations etc

(Bear in mind, I don't have mastery over the language but I've been swimming in it continuously for the last two years. The following advice is based on this experience.)
There is a whole list of books about learning Pāḷi. Some of them you can find here. I suggest applying the grammar that you learn from them, in Yuttadhammo's Digital Pali Reader (DPR) which will help you learn the vocabulary. DPR has an easy-to-use interface, dictionaries & various helpful tools including one of the grammar books mentioned in the first link.
These are the resources I use and I complement them with the available translations on ATI, SC & in secondary literature. I also confer this Sanskrit dictionary.
I hope this information will be useful. Good luck.

The DPR also has grammar and vocab quizzes

Indeed, that's why I wrote above "various helpful tools including one of the grammar books mentioned in the first link". By the way, thank you for the tool. It's very useful.

Courses

Partiyatti Learning Center offers two free online Pāli courses.
Pali Online School at the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies is a very intensive 3-week online Pāli course, that involves live instruction by prof. Richard Gombrich, a well-known scholar of Theravāda. The aim is to enable students to read original canonical texts in Pāli, with the aid of dictionares and grammars. The course is expensive, but I've taken it and can wholeheartedly recommend it. I doubt there is any other way to learn a good deal of Pāli in such a short time.

Dictionaries

Pali-English Dictionary (PED) by Rhys Davids and Stede is the most comprehensive fully published Pāli dictionary available to date. It is freely available online, but the search interface has some strange bugs (the anusvara needs to be typed as ŋ instead of the standard ṃ, and the first letter of a headword must be written in uppercase if it contains a diacritic, e.g. Āsana instead of āsana). http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/
Several Pāli dictionaries, including the PED (though not all the entries), are available here. The search interface is much more user-friendly, but lacks more advanced features of the aforementioned one (it's not possible to search for words in definitions, words that start/end/contain a particular character sequence, etc.). https://palidictionary.appspot.com/
A PDF version of the PED is freely available, as well as a text version in a single big file.
Dictionary of Pali by Margaret Cone is an improvement over the PED, with more usage examples, but only volumes I (A-Kh) and II (G-N) have been published (note the different alphabetical order in Pāli).

Books

A Pali Grammar by Wilhelm Geiger, revised by K.R. Norman

Describes phonology (the sound system) and morphology (how words are inflected), but has no information about syntax (how words are combined together)

An Introduction to Pali by A.K. Warder

generally regarded as the standard Pāli textbook
teaches about compounds (samāsa) and about some aspects of syntax and idiomatic language use, that is, the topics that are absent in Geiger's grammar
however, according to prof. Gombrich, the book cannot be relied on, because it contains strange mistakes, and sometimes is unclear or misleading

If you follow a tradition that involves chanting in Pāli (by the teacher and/or by the students), it may be useful to take a look at the chanted texts and their translation. In such case you are already familiar with the pronunciation and rhythm of the text, so learning should be much easier. For example, this book may be useful for people who follow S.N. Goenka's tradition:

Gem Set in Gold, Dhamma Chanting: English Translation with Pali and Hindi by S.N. Goenka

General

Access to Insight provides a list of resources for learning Pāli.
The Pāli Canon and its translations are obviously important learning resources, available on SuttaCentral and Access to Insight. See also answers to this question.
Here is a nice set of well-known Pāli chants on YouTube, with their transcription and translation into English. It's a good starting point for learning Pāli pronunciation.
For learning vocabulary, I recommend making flashcards in a spaced repetition program (the most popular one is Anki). Spaced repetition is a general way to memorise things in the long term, and it is tremendously useful for language learning. It is especially useful if you don't read Pāli texts regularly and don't want to forget the words.

The techniques for learning Pali are much the same for learning any language.
Something unusual about Pali as a language of Buddhism is that the language is a little different from country to country, especially with respect to pronunciation.
Flash cards, although sometimes boring, are the most effective way to learn enough words in a language to become proficient in it.
ref: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/7151/pali-flashcards
Because people don't like flash cards, there are a million and one other techniques for learning a language, this is a website with lots of people with good advice.

It would be better to enroll yourself and learn Pali from any university or institute but if you feel that you can manage to do it on your own then you'll have to depend on reading and understanding books etc.. Apart from that you'll need to be in contact with a Pali teacher who may guide you step by step, which will be fruitful.

There's An Introduction to Pali over ZOOM • A Summer Intensive Course

No prior knowledge of Pali is required. The course will start with the basics, showing students how the alphabet is organized and how to find words in a dictionary. Basic grammar will be covered in depth. Students will begin to read passages of the Pali canon themselves.
This course will use two textbooks. The first, Lily De Silva’s Pali Primer, is available in print as well as freely available on line. This text starts with very simple sentences that introduce the noun and verb forms of Pali. Once this book is worked through, A New Course in Reading Pali: Entering the Word of the Buddha by James Gair and W.S. Karunatillake will be used to begin reading the Pali canon. Additional materials will be made available for students via dropbox.

The first lesson was two days ago, the next starts in a few hours from now.
This answer will be rapidly out of date -- the course is 5 weeks, 2 days a week, 75 minutes per day, via Zoom and with a live (not being recorded) overflow on YouTube.


text:
Could meditation help with reducing memory and concentration problems? As with ADD or ADHD?
There have been studies showing that meditation can help dealing with depression, stress and anxiety. But are there meditation techniques that help with ADD and ADHD problems? And if there are, which ones?
Since three of the unwholesome mental factors seem to coincide with ADD/ADHD symtoms:
Muṣitasmṛtitā - forgetfulness
Asaṃprajanya - non-alertness, inattentiveness
Vikṣepa - distraction, desultoriness

One of the problems you're going to find with answering this is that most published studies focus on short duration meditation -- 4 to 8 weeks and the like. I personally have an ADHD diagnosis (although I'm not convinced it's a real pathology), and an issue I've faced is that my ADHD (if that's what it is) is an obstacle to actually getting a practice underway for any length of time; i.e. for more than 4 to 8 weeks at a time. Therefore, if benefit is to be had, but it arises only in the longer term, then few if any of the studies would see it.
That said, there was some work done at UCLA, and a lead in that direction could be Lydia Zylowska. A few pubs are mentioned at the bottom of this page.


text:
Are "Saya Asadharana Nana" part of Nibbana?
Buddha's knowledge or Wisdom which cannot be achieved by his disciples comprises six kinds. They  are called the Saya Asadharana Nana. Did the Buddha attain them at the same moment he attained Nibbana? If so, are they part of Nibbana and are they considered as Asankara as well?

Yes, the Buddha attained each of these knowledges at the moment of enlightenment.
No, the knowledges are mundane, and thus sankhata (formed). They are a by-product of the Buddha's specific enlightenment, not qualities of nibbana itself, which has only three qualities, viz. voidness, signlessness, and desirelessness.


text:
How to become a samma sambuddha (Theravada)
If one aspired to being a samma sambuddha, how would the Theravadan tradition advise them to proceed?
I am familiar with some of the canonical references, (e.g., about getting a prediction from a Buddha) but what steps should one take that would advance that goal in this life?
Thanks!

According to the Buddhist literature, there are 10 perfections (in pali, Paramis) for one to develop to become a samma sambuddha. Everyone who wishes to attain Buddha-hood has to practice these perfections to a specific length of time. Our Gautama Buddha, for instance, had to willingly fulfill the ten perfections in his many existences for an innumerable period of time before being born as "Siddhartha Gautama".
The ten perfections are as follows:

Perfection of generosity giving
Perfection of Morality
Perfection of Renunciation
Perfection of Wisdom
Perfection of Effort
Perfection of Tolerance
Perfection of Truthfulness
Perfection of Strong Determination
Perfection of Loving-kindness
Perfection of Indifference towards all beings or Equanimity

Everyone seeking for Buddha-hood has to fulfill willingly all or most of these perfections, each in three different ways, in his every life for a very long period of time until he has already fully possessed all these ten qualities finally leading to Buddha-hood in his rebirth.
However, the time taken to develop these Paramis can vary from Bodhisattvas to Bodhisattvas. There are three types of Bodhisattvas, namely, Intellectual Bodhisattvas Devotional Bodhisattvas and Energetic Bodhisattvas. Intellectual Bodhisattvas take the least amount of time and Energetic Bodhisattvas the most. Our Gautama Buddha was an Intellectual Bodhisattva.

Technically you don't follow the teachings of one Sammasambuddha to become another Sammasambuddha. You have to do it all by yourself. Even if you do Samatha/Vipassana meditation, you won't be able to go pass the Jhanas. Usually people who don't understand the enormity of the task are discouraged to have such aspirations.
It all started for our Bodhisatva when he swam seven days in the ocean to rescue his mother, carrying her on his back. It is said that when the Mahabrahma saw this, he thought to himself that a being of such courage, energy and determination is worthy of aspiring for only one goal. That is to become a Sammasambuddha. So he planted the thought in the Bodhisattas mind through his mother. When they reached the shore, his mother's heart overflowed with happiness and gratitude and told the Boddhisatva "May you become a Buddha one day my wonderful son!". That is when the thought first entered his mind. From that point onwards, he thought about becoming a Buddha over a period of "Sath(seven) Asankya Kalpas". During that time he saw 125,000 Sammasambuddhas. After that he not only thought about it, but also spoke about his intentions of becoming a Sammasambuddha over a period of "Nava(nine) Asankya Kalpas". During that period, he met 387,000 Sammasambuddhas. So in total, he spent 16 Asankya Kalpas just thinking and speaking about it. Only after such a long time, he met the Buddha Deepankara and got the confirmation to become a Buddha in the future. Then he had to perfect the Dasa Paramitha in three ways over a period of "Sarasankya Kalpa Lakshaya". During that period he saw 27 Sammasambuddhas. So from the life he started thinking about it, he spent a total of (20*Anankya*Kalpa + 100,000*Kalpas) to attain Buddhahood. The next and the final Buddha who is going to appear before the end of the world is Buddha Maitreya. After him, there will be a period of vast number of Kalpas without any Buddhas.
So, if you are thinking of becoming a Buddha, you will have to wait a very very long time. It is said that Pacceca Buddhas are a result of those who aspire to become Buddhas but never get the confirmation from another Buddha.
If all of the above doesn't discourage you and if you think you are a person capable of great deeds like swimming for seven days to rescue your mother, start by cultivating Dasa Paramita. :) There's a detailed explanation about Paramitha in the Buddhawamsa.

What will happen to the Dhamma after Buddha Maitreya's period?

It will disappear for a long time

When will it come back?

After the world system is destroyed and reformed and when the lifespan of humans are between 100 to 100k.

@Lanka rise and fall

Maybe a useful link to the answer Bodhisatta describing certain evidences in the Pali canon, pointing on the lives of Buddhas to be. It does not seem that all here has evidence in the Tipitaka but there are certain additions from a later developed "Maitreya-Sasana". There are certain many additional glorification stories added. The main sources of the Suttas them self give much lesser informations: A Sketch of the Buddha's Life but more sober.

Satuuk, Satuuk, Satuuk; All the answers on the top are wonderful and inspiring. Just keep it in mind and heart, please always practice the five Fold and remember the eight and tenth fold's which is already describe at the top. Always do  Charities and meditattion...... Every wishes you should wish for is always to become the Buddha and reach Preah Nipean.......The procedure is so immensely long, this is a short detail in a nutshell......May your determination be fullfill.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE:) Could put in some canonical references to your answer. That would be great.