text:
Is the Buddha God?
Is the Buddha an historic person (did he really exist)?
If yes, was he a human being or a God, or both, or a human that became a god or God?
Do Buddhists regard him as an emanation of God (for example, as Christians regard Jesus of Nazareth), or a prophet of God (as Muslims regard Mahomet), or an angel?
My question is honest and is asked with a friendship intend of peaceful dialogue to lower the tensions between religions, philosophies and esoterisms (rare private philosophies). My goal is to learn better and to show to others how to speak publicly about spirituality lowering the violence; not increasing it and not making money on it. I believe it is very important today to learn those skills.

The Moderation policies for Questions doesn't allow "broad religious comparisons" -- and, "what's the difference between the Buddha and Jesus" is an example of a question that's too broad. I edited it to try to focus the question on what people believe about the Buddha.

Also, Stack Exchange sites (including this one) are intended for a question-and-answer format (i.e. finite-sized answers to answerable questions), not for "dialogue" (I'm not saying dialogue is bad but this site exists to support people asking and answering questions).

Read this book "God is Not One" The author makes a compelling case that the differences among the religions are not superficial and that perennialism is not a useful or accurate viewpoint: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003F1WMAC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 Buddhism gets a chapter as do all the other major world religions.

Or read this one. 'The Transcendent Unity of Religion' by Frithjof Schuon. It's excellent and well-informed.

The Dona Sutta might be helpful:

On one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the road between
  Ukkattha and Setabya, and Dona the brahman was also traveling along
  the road between Ukkattha and Setabya. Dona the brahman saw, in the
  Blessed One's footprints, wheels with 1,000 spokes, together with rims
  and hubs, complete in all their features. On seeing them, the thought
  occurred to him, "How amazing! How astounding! These are not the
  footprints of a human being!"
Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a
  certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness
  established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's
  footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident,
  inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having
  attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses
  restrained, a naga. On seeing him, he went to him and said,
  "Master, are you a deva [a god]?"
"No, brahman, I am not a deva."
"Are you a gandhabba?"
"No..."
"... a yakkha?"
"No..."
"... a human being?"
"No, brahman, I am not a human being."
"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a
  deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I
  am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No,
  brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you
  answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being
  are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I
  would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made
  like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
  destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were
  not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being:
  Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra
  stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for
  future arising.
"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in
  the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water,
  in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having
  overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me,
  brahman, as 'awakened.'
"The fermentations by which I would go to a deva-state, or become a
  gandhabba in the sky, or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:  Those
  have been destroyed by me,    ruined, their stems removed. Like a blue
  lotus, rising up, unsmeared by water, unsmeared am I by the world, and
  so, brahman, I'm awake."

Is the Buddha God?

No. Although in Mahayana, the Buddha gains qualities of a God such as immortality and superpowers. But these are the same immortality and qualities than anyone who successfully completes the Bodhisattva path would have. This is different from an Abrahamic mono-god that works a lot more like Brahman, the pre-Buddhist entity that is sort of like a god or a universally shared soul.

Is Buddha an historic person (did he really exist)?

Yes, historians don't have as much evidence as they would like, but we don't have any evidence that he was a myth. The early suttas are written in plainspoken, realistic style. The later suttras (Mahayana) are written in a grand mythic style-- no space to discuss if everyone literally believed them as history.

If yes, was he a human being or a God, or both, or a human that became a god or God?

God doesn't even mean the same thing in Buddhist cosmologies as in an Abrahamic one. The Buddha was not a jealous god, nor a long lived god, nor anything else because those are realms where the practice of Buddhism isn't practical because existence is so comfortable you have no incentive to practice. Gods are mortal & they die and regret having lost what they had. There is no parallel in Christianity. AFAIK, in Christianity, adherents don't believe that they will be reincarnated as Gods nor that they used to be gods (and many other beings).

Do Buddhists regard him as an emanation of God (for example, as Christians regard Jesus of Nazareth), or a prophet of God (as Muslims regard Mahomet), or an angel?

There is a trikaya theory, which in Mahayana says that an Enlightened Buddha has multiple bodies. It solved the problem of how a Buddha could provide aid at a distance. The Dharmakaya is the body that is the most abstract and "fuzzy" and could be recognized as an Abrahamic style God.
The Buddha most similar to the Christian God is the Amitabha of Pure Land Buddhism.  That said, there are numerous differences. In Pure Land, you are still working on the same practice based project, except you expect to complete the project with assistance in the next life in the Pure Land. In Christian Heaven, you don't have a rigorous monastic program leading to Enlightenment, the end of suffering & the end of the cycle of rebirth.

Is the Buddha God?

No, he is/was not.
He was a human being reaching the highest potential a being can reach, i.e. becomming a fully enlightened Buddha (Sammasambuddha).

Is the Buddha an historic person (did he really exist)?

Yes he did. When practicing insight meditation it becomes very clear that the Dhamma can only come from a fully enlightened Buddha.

Do Buddhists regard him as an emanation of God?

They regard him as a teacher.

Is the Buddha an historic person (did he really exist)?

There are historians who stand in the "existed" and in the "not enough evidence" positions. I don't know of any serious arguments from people who claim he did not existed though.
The second group expects more archeological evidence or external records and accounts from other groups that lived during his life to be convinced (however, no period or place is equal in being able to -- or interested in --  producing evidence for events, and no event is safe from being disintegrated or lost with time). This is a similar position to those who are skeptic of the existence of Jesus.
Like Jesus, Buddha lived in a period and carried a life that could, indeed, produce very little material evidence for further generations -- a lot of the preserved historical records where materialized after their death.
Like Jesus, the prime evidence of Buddha's existence is what his disciples memorized -- and eventually wrote down -- about his life. A skeptic would be inclined to disregard such materials as evidence claiming these have an intrinsic bias, while historians point out that this is precisely the group of people who would produce the greatest number of evidence for events and existence of someone -- since they are the primary witnesses.
Now, considering the archeological material and the texts we have, there are compelling evidence in them that they are indeed authentic and, consequently, do describe the teachings of a single personality, that of the Buddha1.

Do Buddhists regard him as an emanation of God (for example, as Christians regard Jesus of Nazareth), or a prophet of God (as Muslims regard Mahomet), or an angel?

Buddhists cosmology/universe is populated with animals, humans and devas (spiritual beings). Together, they are simply "beings": these die and become other kind of being (e.g. humans die and may become devas, devas die and may become humans -- same with animals).
So, while buddhism acknowledge "gods" -- long-lived spiritual beings -- it does not acknowledge or identify a God, a Creator, who created everything and who never ever dies. So the Buddha does not say he is the Creator, nor does he say he represents a Creator2. He declares he is a teacher and he declares he represents his teaching: that of eliminating suffering for beings.

1 See Bhikkhu Sujato's and Bhikkhu Brahmali's The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts
2 though as @MatthewMartin said in his answer there are buddhists who consider the Buddha to be immortal.

This question is a category error; the premise of the question is such that, either a "yes" or "no" answer implies additional information that is not correct.  To say that Buddha = God, and Buddha != God, are both wrong.  Try to understand.
In Abrahamic faiths, God is the ultimate authority; any action that contradicts the will of God is sin, and can be punished by God.  In Buddhism, the Buddha is called "the Blessed One" and "perfectly enlightened", "most excellent among persons" -- the first of the Three Jewels.  Any action that contradicts the dharma he taught (which coincidentally is the second Jewel) is unskillful, and leads to suffering.
There is nonetheless a radical difference between Buddha, and God in monotheism, because they have a radically different basis of authority.  In monotheism, God deliberately caused the physical universe to exist, by giving a spoken order; just like a bronze-age warlord could cause a city or fortress or palace to exist by ordering his troops and servants.  In monotheism, God is all-seeing and immortal, and has the ability to send curses, cause plagues and take life.  Therefore, God must be unconditionally obeyed.
The Buddha, on the other hand, was just an ordinary human, who revealed to us the wisdom he had accumulated in countless, infinitely-many past lives.  He had previously lived (at various times) as a monk, philosopher, king, commoner, as various kinds of animal, and as a spirit in the worlds of the devas.  Thus, he had ample qualifications to share with us the Four Noble Truths, before he died his last death, never to return.
The Buddha never threatened to take away life, or advocated for violence; he always advised against war, or use of the death penalty, whenever a ruler asked for his advise.  He never attempted to coerce conversions from the unwilling, with the threat of punishment in the afterlife, although he did tell people there was a hell waiting for them if they committed acts that they already knew were wrong.  He was understanding and sympathetic whenever a person did not accept his claims of Buddhahood; he advised lay followers to never trust a teacher until they have thoroughly evaluated that teacher's honest mode of living, mental stability, compassion towards others, and dispassion towards his own interests.  He understood that, for the ordinary human without memory of past lives, naturalism, and skepticism of supernatural claims, is highly appropriate.
The teachings of the Buddha included a very strict moral code for the monks of his order.  Poverty, celibacy, strict vegetarianism, teetotalism, non-violence, refraining from use of any kind of jewelry, stylish clothing, fragrances or cosmetics.  All standard fare for ascetics in most religions.  It is not a life for everyone.  But the Buddha taught highly practical advise for people in every walk of life: kings, commoners, merchants and professionals, women and children.  The Noble Eightfold Path, which leads to an end of all suffering, touches on every part of one's life.
A major part of the Eightfold path is attained through the use of mindful meditation.  This can be practiced with the thought of focusing the mind on gods, spirits, ancestors and the like, but mindfulness, rightfully understood, is the decision to not let uninvited thought processes initiate themselves.  It is the exercise of choosing to think about, either nothing at all, or only one thing at a time.  Chants and breathing exercises are an end to that goal; completely shutting out foolish, selfish, or fearful thoughts, or considering them one at a time.  If an idea occurs to you that is obviously bad, do not attack it, and do not feel bad about it; just choose to passively forget it.
You do not have to be Buddhist to do this; modern psychology, psychiatry, and yoga/fitness professionals are skilled in using these techniques, and they are no less authentic for having been adopted in a secular, Western context.
Although the Buddha passed on, the he set into motion the wheel of dharma, by sharing and propagating the laws which he discovered.  It is said that these laws, once universally known, will lead to the enlightenment of all sentient beings.

Nice answer. Maybe not "strict vegetarianism", though, for monks (see e.g. here, or here, etc.).

Is the Buddha an historic person (did he really exist)?

See: Did Gautama Buddha exist?

If yes, was he a human being or a God, or both, or a human that became a god or God?

See (Pāda) Doṇa Sutta as pointed out in one of the other answers,

Do Buddhists regard him as an emanation of God (for example, as Christians regard Jesus of Nazareth), or a prophet of God (as Muslims regard Mahomet), or an angel?

No. You have to liberate yourself through your own pratice of Vipassana. Nobody else can give you liberation.

THERAVADA
"Buddha was not considered a deity; he was, in fact, a human being. However, he was far from an ordinary human; he can be described as a 'supreme level of human.'
In his previous life as a 'bodhisattva,' Buddha was believed to have been born in every divine realm, including the realms of gods and brahmas. He had already attained the highest level in these worlds.
Achieving the status of a 'pase Buddha,' 'arahath,' or any other title related to enlightenment cannot compare with the status of a 'Samma Sambuddha' (Buddha).
After completing his journey of 'paramitha,' or perfections, he was born as a human being. In this human life, he reached the pinnacle of spiritual attainment that anyone could possibly achieve in the entire universe.
In summary, Buddha was not a god; he was undoubtedly a human being. However, the depth of his knowledge and the extent of his spiritual power were beyond comparison with anyone or anything else

This are actually improper questions of what the Buddha is/was/... but to lay out a trace to his path one could follow:
Yes (on conventional level), the Buddha "was" a God (Brah-ma-na), in the deep sense of it's meaning. Yet not one that binds "his" "Devas", but lead them to independency if willing to bind oneself strongly to his bond (re-legion).
For some ideas of how the Sublime Buddha made clear of what makes one a real Brah-ma-n, one may gain some impressions at the Brahmanavagga
The "creator-god"-Buddha, as it should be understood:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things. iti 100

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks to keep caught in this or another Brahmā Net, but as a tiny door to escape)

Buddha is not a god, he is a human.
According to Buddhism, there are no gods who are eternal.
Buddha is greater than any god or any Brahma.
Buddha, in his previous lives (when he was a Bodhisattva), was born in every highest god realm. He did positive karma and improved good skills. After countless lives of sacrifices, in his last birth, he became Buddha and found a way to break the cycle of birth and death.

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


text:
How many monks required to ordain or create new Sangha?
How many monks does it take to ordain a new monk? How many monks does it take to create a new Sangha?
I've read this before, now I can't find it.
I think these are very old rules & are similar across different traditions.
Note. I already know that schism is considered the worst thing in the universe by traditional Buddhism.

Quorum of 10 of 10 years standing, 5 in border areas. 5 is the quorum generally outside India. [page 108, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) 2nd Edition
by Richard F. Gombrich]
The quorum to perform a patimokkha ceremony is 4 [page 110, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo (The Library of Religious Beliefs and Practices) 2nd Edition
by Richard F. Gombrich]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How should one look at buddhist mythologies and cosmologies from a scientific perspective
Although it could well be that those words were not directly from Gautama himself, yet just in case, assuming Gautama probably wouldn't lie except for educational purposes, how can those rather surreal descriptions of the world, which again share (too) many similarities with the hinduist ones, reconcile with modern science? Should one just regard them as "white lies" so that Buddhism be more easily accepted? How self-consistent are those descriptions anyways?
Also, I read somewhere before that those "insights", including Karma could be partially gained/observed through meditation. How true is this statement in terms of canonical literature reference?

I didn't understand your last paragraph / last question.

@ChrisW what i wanted to ask there is whether those insights were ever talked about in or confirmed by any canonical literature

... reconcile with modern science? ...

Modern science is always changing with new theories and discoveries but Buddhism is presented as eternal or timeless which is valid in the past, present and future. Hence these two cannot be fully reconciled. Since is refinement of theories and models getting closer to the truth while Buddhism is based on publically released ultimate realities. As science advance many of the concepts are in harmony and while there are perhaps hardly any scientifically proven discoveries which contradict Buddhism.

... which again share (too) many similarities with the hinduist ones ...

If you compare Hindu cosmology with Buddhist cosmology (especially Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school) there are wast differences. In Hinduism there is a creator but in Buddhism the universe goes through expansionary and contractionary phases.

... reconcile with modern science? ...

You cannot. But Buddhism has a theory of cyclical phases of the universe like the big bounce theory, parallel universes (see Parallel universes by Piya Tan), evolution, etc.
Also see: Buddhism and science, Buddhism and Modern Science - by Dr. Granville Dharmawardena (especially the highlighted areas), Is Buddhism the Most Science-Friendly Religion?

... including Karma could be partially gained/observed through meditation. ...

Meditation (especially samatha) can lead to psychic powers / supernormal knowledge like clairvoyance (divine eye) which can be give insights to the working of Karma. E.g.

Thus, by means of the divine eye, may I see beings passing away and reappearing, and how they fare according to their karma.’

Source: Nimitta Sutta similar passage in Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta, Samanna,phala Sutta, Maha Assa,pura Sutta, Kevaddha Sutta.

May I know more sources or is the Nimtta Sutta the only source with such description?

And the other answer suggested that the description in agganna sutta, which one of your links also points to, should not be taken literally and are merely parables?

There are many suttas so not possible to reference other suttas this might have such references but I added another one such Sutta.

Some of them may be direct and some may be a parable. See: Neyy’attha Nīt’attha Sutta

Also this might be interesting: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11703/how-to-reconcile-buddhist-cosmology-with-modern-worldview-especially-astronomy

-1 for 'Buddhism and science cannot be reconciled'

See if the issue is addressed.

How should one look at buddhist mythologies and cosmologies from a scientific perspective
This analysis of the Aggañña Sutta includes,

Like the Aggañña Sutta, most of the suttas mentioned above [3] belong to the genre of religious humour.
  15 The humorous language and imagery of such suttas is understandable as they deal with well-established
  ideas and norms, taken seriously especially by those who used them to legitimize their affluence
  and position in society. Like the Brahmana,dhammika Sutta, the Aggañña Sutta criticizes the brahmins
  saying that they have forgotten their past, resulting in their degeneration from an ideal way of life.

The two narratives are, on the surface level of a temporal sequence of actual events, quite different;
    but when read as parables using stories of the past to make a contemporary moral point,
    they complement each other perfectly well. (Collins 1993a:320)

Richard Gombrich, in his Theravada Buddhism: A social history from Benares to Colombo, remarks
  that the Aggañña Sutta is “an extended satire on brahminical ideas, full of parody and puns… As a debunking
  job I think the sermon is serious: its main aim is to show that the class system is nothing but a
  human invention”; however, “I cannot go here into all the reasons why I think that the positive statements
  in the myth are satirical and not meant to be taken literally.”

Should one just regard them as "white lies"
I would regard it as a parable.
There are many parables e.g. about an arrow, or about a blind turtle, or etc.: not a lie, an analogy.

How self-consistent are those descriptions anyways?
I guess you're asking whether the several descriptions of cosmology are consistent with each other.
I think we're supposed to read them as (or read in them) a description of Dharma: and consider their consistency with the Dharma.
According to the Four Great References people should study them:

Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.'

Nice, thanks for the reference commenting on the Agganna. For a while I've been curious about the reasons it is taken as a parody.

thanks for the answer, but I'm just wondering what the "Discourses' and the "Discipline" are, since as far as I know, there were only few if any scripts written when Gautama was still alive.

@andrew That's an interesting question. "The Discourses" is a word for the suttas, and "the Discipline" would be the vinaya (the rules for monks). They were allegedly spoken and remembered in the Buddha's lifetime, and written afterwards from memory or oral tradition (hence the need for the test I quoted), e.g. during the first council.

The orthodox view is that the transmission is correct, for reasons including that the people who attended at the councils were themselves enlightened (see also Buddhavacana). Sometimes scholars (one example is the paper referenced in this answer) think that maybe something were added or deleted later (so we still need, there is still the need, for that test: see "Experiential Emphasis" on this page).

Buddhism speaks of Arya (noble) Experimentation. It's main purpose is to get rid of suffering. Therefore, through Arya Experimentation, one observes such suffering and concludes (if done thoroughly) that all things created, change and perish, thereby is sorrowful and causes suffering by nature. This is called the Four Noble Truths.
Science encourages such experimentation. Science encourages to note the observation and science notes the conclusions.
Science looks for a solution if the conclusions contains symptoms of a problem. Buddhism does the same. The path to finding the solution in Buddhism is the Noble Eightfold Path

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


text:
Does knowing Pali/Sanskrit (and to which level) give one more insights while reading Buddhist scripts?
I think we all have experienced with our own native languages how works written a while back can have different words for the same meaning or the other way round. Also that words get lost in translations, almost inevitably. Metaphor and other rhetorical uses of a language may be hard to detect as well and last but not least, the lack of modern scientific terminologies may likewise contribute to ambiguity and confusion.
Therefore I'd like to pose the following questions:
1.How well studied are the Buddhist scripts? (compared to the modern study on Greek, Roman and medieval philosophy)
2.How well studied are Pali and Sanskrit linguistically in the context of Buddhism? (compared to ancient Greek and Latin, or even Arabic/Islam if someone has experiences)
3.What efforts have people made to prevent misunderstanding caused by the observations I mentioned at the very beginning?
4.Although I know there are such things called canonical scripts/literature, I'd still like to know others' opinions regarding what (and maybe how) to read, and what to believe literally.
ps: my personal preference would be those that are most loyal to Gautama's own words with few extended discussions and little personal guessing, but what scriptures would this comprise?

Western scholarly work on "Buddhist studies" begun recently (also, Japan is said to have published more scholar work on Buddhism than the entire world combined).
Other than that, I think most "scholar work" has been written by buddhists for buddhists over the millennia (e.g. through commentaries and so forth) -- though focusing more on doctrine and not having much interest in establishing facts/history nor carrying the sophistication of modern methodologies (e.g. use of textual analysis; archeological evidences; the practice of publishing work for a larger community to criticize it; etc.).
so...

1.How well studied are the Buddhist scripts? (compared to the modern study on Greek, Roman and medieval philosophy)

I think not as well studied as the examples you gave, but they are studied and people publish their findings.

2.How well studied are Pali and Sanskrit linguistically in the context of Buddhism? (compared to ancient Greek and Latin, or even Arabic/Islam if someone has experiences)

From Wikipedia:
"Today Pāli is studied mainly to gain access to Buddhist scriptures, and is frequently chanted in a ritual context. [...] In Europe, the Pali Text Society has been a major force in promoting the study of Pāli by Western scholars since its founding in 1881. Based in the United Kingdom, the society publishes romanized Pāli editions, along with many English translations of these sources. In 1869, the first Pali Dictionary was published using the research of Robert Caesar Childers, one of the founding members of the Pali Text Society. It was the first Pāli translated text in English and was published in 1872. Childers's dictionary later received the Volney Prize in 1876.
The Pali Text Society was founded in part to compensate for the very low level of funds allocated to Indology in late 19th-century England and the rest of the UK; incongruously, the citizens of the UK were not nearly so robust in Sanskrit and Prakrit language studies as Germany, Russia, and even Denmark. Even without the inspiration of colonial holdings such as the former British occupation of Sri Lanka and Burma, institutions such as the Danish Royal Library have built up major collections of Pāli manuscripts, and major traditions of Pāli studies."

3.What efforts have people made to prevent misunderstanding caused by the observations I mentioned at the very beginning?

I guess they have studied and published their findings, like any other field (bound by funding, like any other field).

4.Although I know there are such things called canonical scripts/literature, I'd still like to know others' opinions regarding what (and maybe how) to read, and what to believe literally. ps: my personal preference would be those that are most loyal to Gautama's own words with few extended discussions and little personal guessing, but what scriptures would this comprise?

If you take "loyal to Gautama's own words" to be the narratives that are considered by some to be "most likely" to have taken place and what most likely he actually said then you would likely prefer the body of texts that has more historical significance (than, say, doctrinal significance).
My understanding is that studies of "early buddhism" (the pre-sectarian period comprising the undivided sangha during and after the Buddha's parinirvana) focus on identifying early strata of the sutras and studying them. In general, the four nikayas/agamas (digha, majjhima, samyutta, anguttara) are the main interest of study here -- other collections which have been considered to be older are frequently considered as well, such as the Sutta Nipata.
But if you take "loyal to gautama's words" to be anything that can be understood as reflecting Buddha dharma, not necessarily his words verbatim, I think the range of literature greatly increases, encompassing every sutra that has been written and accepted by buddhists of any sect.

Pali is difficult to translate into western languages due to lack of expressive power. Though there is much effort to study the Pali cannot there are instances where translators / teachers / lineages have disagreed on meaning. E.g.  What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?
In instances like this Goenka advices to take meaning:

Easy to understand on how it is to be practiced, i.e., which is not abstract, philosophical or purely theoretical
Which is actionable, i.e., which can be put into practice, not pure theoretical conjecture or not purely theoretical which cannot be put into pratice

E.g. "keeping your mindfulness in front" is not like keeping a glass or something in front of you. This is abstract and not practical. Keeping your mindfulness around the mouth is neither astract nor impractical. Since these are instruction to be practiced it should be practical and actionable.
Especially in English some translations are loose fit hence some argue that the particular rendering though they principally agree on the meaning can lead to confusions. E.g.

In order for meditators to understand the term sampajanna, we have translated it as-'The constant thorough understanding of impermanence'. It is felt that this translation conveys more fully the precise meaning of the term used by the Buddha. If the term sampajanna is translated too concisely into English its meaning can be lost. It has usually been translated as clear comprehension, bare comprehension, etc. At first glance, these translations appear to be correct. However, some have taken this to mean that one must merely have clear comprehension of bodily activities. Interpretations such as this may have had the effect of misleading some meditators on the path of Dhamma. To try and minimize any confusions for meditators the more wordy translation- 'the constant thorough understanding of impermanence'- has been chosen.

Source: Sampajanna-the Constant Thorough Understanding of Impermanence
Though strictly necessary knowing Pali would definitely help in understanding the teaching. There are many books which still has not being translated into other languages. E.g. Parajikan Atthakatha see: U Ba Khin and his reference to Parajikan Atthakatha
There multiple research groups which research the scriptures like:

http://atbu.org/
http://www.iabu.org/
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/religion/buddhist-centre/
http://ocbs.org/
http://gsas.columbia.edu/content/academic-programs/buddhist-studies
http://www.cbs.ugent.be/
https://www.bcbsdharma.org/
http://www.shin-ibs.edu/
http://buddhist-studies.uchicago.edu/
https://www.soas.ac.uk/buddhiststudies/
http://www.buddhism.hku.hk/
http://buddhiststudies.berkeley.edu/
http://www.international.ucla.edu/buddhist
http://www.digitalhimalaya.com/
http://www.bpu.ac.lk/
etc.

In addition the institutions which does Etymology studies:

http://vridhamma.org/
http://www.palitext.com/

Also there are prominent people who does research on this front. Excluding people tied to universities and institution following are very prominent:

Ven. Sujato - https://sujato.wordpress.com/
Piya Tan / http://dharmafarer.org/. E.g. on essay written in this area is: Language and Discourse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhikkhu_Bodhi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanamoli_Bhikkhu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyanaponika_Thera
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanavira_Thera


text:
How does the Dhamma reconcile slavery?
Since one of the aspects of wrong livelihood is human trafficking, why do we frequently read in the Canon instances where a slave should be good to his master, a master should be good to his slaves.

please quote references

I think you have mistaken servant for slave.

@Sankha Kulathantille in fact dasa/dasi seems to mean "slave" or it's that since  ALL servants at the time of slavery in ancient India were invariably slaves the word has two meanings which are inseparable, servant always implied a slave

Dictionary: Dāsa see also Wikipedia

I marked this down this question as it has no basis and lack of substance. There is no justification for slavery in the Dhamma.

In Vanijjā Sutta it is said a  lay follower should not engage in 5 types of trades which include Trading in humans (satta vaṇijjā). Some forms of slavery is still persist today.

Trading in humans. Although slavery has been officially or effectively banned and ended in
  almost every nation, various forms of slavery still exist. The most common kinds of disguised slavery
  include child labour, forced labour, forced prostitution, and the selling and buying of children and adults.
  Children should be schooling until they are old and mature enough to work gainfully. No one should be
  forced to work against their will or without proper health considerations, contract or remuneration. All
  workers and employees should be properly treated.
Prostitution is wrong simply because the person is treated and exploited in a physical sense. Even if
  they are paid for their services, the liaisons are rooted in lust, which is an unwholesome root as they are
  treated as mere objects of pleasure.
The negative implications are greater if the perpetrator is married,
  as this means disloyalty to the spouse and a bad example to their children, who are likely to repeat the
  vicious cycle. There are also the grave dangers of sexually-transmitted diseases.
  However, we should not be too quick to blame the prostitutes themselves, because they are usually
  the victims of abuse, poverty or social problems. The roots of the problem should be addressed in order to
  help them rise above their unwholesome circumstances to live dignified lives.
Buying and selling of children is a form of slavery as they often end up in forced labour, prostitution,
  abuse and other unhappy circumstances. Buddhism, however, is not against legal and proper adoption of
  children. In difficult circumstances, such as the children being abused or becoming orphans, they should
  be given proper care, protection (such as becoming wards of the state), and education.

Source: Right Livelihood by Piya Tan
It was common to have slaves in India at the time. Not too long ago there were prominent US presidents also who owned slaves and also a civil war over slavery. This again was a cultural norm than do with Buddhism. The Buddha also might have seen at that time any radical change might have not been possible, hence resorted to saying being good to slaves as this will have a wider and practical impact. If you look at the Sutta on the layman's precepts early Suttas did not have any reference to taking intoxicated. This was before all the major kings and tycoons were his disciples and it was acceptable in the higher classes to have a small drink. Introducing this prematurely would have put off possibly some people from the Dhamma. But once established and society and Kings and tycoons became receptive,  the Buddha did bring in the 5th precept. (E.g. Sigalovada Sutta only has the 4.) Likewise saying no to slavery may have triggered a reaction something akin to the US Civil on weighing the benefits of such against spreading the benefits of the Dhamma he would have thought saying be good to your slaves would resulted in overall maximising benefit to slaves and society at large. Even prominent disciples like Anathapindika, Visakha owned slaves but when the masters were receptive to the Dhamma and they got established they became good towards others including their slaves, the benefits flowed to the slaves also.
Some advice Vishaka was given from her father, also a follower of the Dhamma, included:

Before taking her food, a wife should first see that her parents-in-law and husband are served. She should also make sure that his servants are well cared for.
Before going to sleep, a wife should see that all doors are closed, furniture is safe, servants have performed their duties, and that parents-in-law have retired. As a rule, a wife should rise early in the morning and unless she is sick, she should not sleep during the day.

Source: Life of the Buddha - Visakha, Great Female Supporter
By mentioning something not in tune to the times and culture present those days would have made people less receptive to the Dhamma and would have reduced the benefits the slaves and society would have potentially got. There are accounts that both male and female slaves have also benefited from the Dhamma.
Also if the trade of slaves is discouraged so does the ability for one to acquire and build a large base of slaves.

I think you are mistaking servant for slave.

In five ways should a master minister to his servants and employees
(i) by assigning them work according to their ability,
(ii) by supplying them with food and with wages,
(iii) by tending them in sickness,
(iv) by sharing with them any delicacies,
(v) by granting them leave.
- Singalovada Sutta

This neither fits the description of a master-slave relationship nor does it involve any human trafficking. Therefore, it doesn't come under wrong livelihood.

this example however doesn't mean the Buddha has ever condemned slavery, which undeniably was practiced in ancient Indian society, in fact being a slave is one of the obstacles for monastic ordination

But the question doesn't ask if the Buddha condemned slavery

the title of the question is "how does Dhamma reconcile slavery", what your answer basically says is "never mind the slavery, it's about a master and a servant, not slave" which is another subject. so if Dhamma in any way does reconcile slavery, the Buddha must have made a statement specifically in this regard.

The content of the question explains what's meant by the title. The OP seems to have gotten a false impression that Buddhism encourages slavery since the cannon mentions duties of a servant towards the master & vice versa. This answer addresses that misunderstanding(without which the question wouldn't even arise).

@БаянКупи-ка could you point out the sutta in which obstacles for ordination are described?

in the Pali text "servants and employees" is dāsakammakarā https://suttacentral.net/pi/dn31/48.221-48.233, as i mentioned in an earlier comment dāsa may mean either "slave" or "servant", some translators prefer the second rendering, therefore your answer is based on a voluntary choice of the translator and doesn't disprove the understanding of the inquirer

@TheDarkKnightRules it's not in the Sutta, it's in the Vinaya https://suttacentral.net/en/pi-tv-kd1#Kd.1.47.1

My impression - which might be a false one - is that the Dharma, because it addresses how a slave should be treated, somehow passively accepts it. I know that many have spoken on how the Buddha'a aim was not necessarily one of social change, but thought the teachings and the teacher might have spoken out more forcibly against it, as was done with regard to say killing. Perhaps he has and my knowledge is simply limited in the teachings.

@m2015 the concept of human rights was unknown in the ancient world, personal freedom wasn't seen as a necessity, especially in such a very rigidly structured society as Indian, in the vedic mythology Brahma the creator or Prajapati didn't create all human beings free and equal and so from the ethical standpoint anything could be acceptable as long as a person doesn't suffer... the Buddha doesn't seem to have been rejecting or challenging the traditionally Vedic view of society, he was only interested in salvation and it's this side of brahmanism that he challenged

@БаянКупи-ка whichever way you choose to translate the word 'dasa', a person who is treated by his master according to the Singalovada sutta does not fit the description of a slave. :)

As Sankha explained in his final comment a person is not a slave if the master follows the singalovada sutta. If this sutta is properly implemented the worker is merely a servant or even an assistant working for a decent pay under decent conditions. In the ancient worlds slaves were not even entitled for payments FYI. They were merely objects who were smuggled and exploited. This sutta leaves no room for exploitation

@Sankha Kulathantille slave is a person totally dependent on the will of his master, kind treatment doesn't in any way changes this fact, a person can be well treated and still remain dependent, it's a judicial status, which is only changed judicially...
if Sigalovada sutta speaks of a servant, that's fine, but what about slaves? from the comment of m2015, the inquirer, it's clear that they do mean a slave in their question, this is its actual subject

@Heisenberg I doubt that "slaves" were "smuggled"? My guess is that slaves would tend to be captives of war, convicted criminals, tenant farmers (serfs), indentured, sold by their parents, and/or children of slaves.

@БаянКупи-ка by your definition, even children should be called slaves since they are usually totally dependent on parents or guardians. I don't think such a broad definition is very useful.

@Sankha Kulathantille you seem to intentionally overlook the phrase JUDICIAL STATUS which i used and which isn't applied to children or incapable people having guardians, who have a DIFFERENT judicial status, and again it's a case of substitution of notions as in the answer to the original question, so i propose to stay on the subject which is the Dhammic attitude towards slavery in adulthood (so there's no place for manipulation) and towards relationship between an adult slave and their master

@БаянКупи-ка Trying to reconcile judicial definitions with Buddhist definitions is pointless. "Slavery is a legal or economic system in which principles of property law are applied to humans allowing them to be classified as property, to be owned, bought and sold accordingly, and they cannot withdraw unilaterally from the arrangement"- Wikipedia. Singalovada sutta, as I said before, leaves no room for this. In my opinion "dasa" means subordinate.

@БаянКупи-ка Alright, so you prefer to define slavery by judicial status and I prefer to call it by how the employee is treated, which I think is more important in a Buddhist context. Even nowadays we see people being treated as slaves in certain Arabic countries when they are officially called 'housemaids'. So I wouldn't judge wrong livelihood depending on the judicial status. In any case, the answer addresses the misunderstanding that Buddhism supports wrong livelihood. Since another answer has been accepted already, I will comment no more.

@Sankha Kulathantille i actually prefer to stay on the original topic which is SLAVERY, you appear to be consistently avoiding addressing the point: the Dhammic attitude towards SLAVERY, what is it and is there any? - instead bringing up new topics with every new response, anyway continuation of this discussion is meaningless as the inquirer has selected a response which DID address the subject of their question and satisfied their curiosity

human trafficking is not the same as slave employment or exploitation
i think Dhammic view at this practice could be likened to the Dhammic view upon meat consumption: if a person wasn't provided as a slave specifically to another person, the slave buyer or owner doesn't incur fault
i'm speaking from the point of view of a person accustomed to slavery as a norm, personally i don't advocate or justify it

according to the commentary on Vinaya the Theravadin orthodox view on slavery is of acceptance as a fact of life
assistance a slave in escape from the master without mitigating factors is regarded as theft, a grave, parajika, offense, which invariably results in the offender's expulsion with no right to re-join the Sangha in the remaining lifetime
("The Buddhist Monastic Code, Pt 1" by Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu, p.70)

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Why do Buddhists cremate instead of burying?
A Buddhist, when dead, is most of the time cremated and not buried. Does this have to do with anything in the teachings of the Buddha? As far as I know, burying a body is more Eco-friendly than cremation. I share with you one of the best answers given by the legendary Neil deGrasse Tyson :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afGkv0IT4dU

Is a coomon believe that "Buddhist" burn their death, but not true. All kinds of deposite can be met and sure burial is the most common in traditional lands.

That answer in the video has a parallel in Sky burial where the body is exposed in the wilderness to be eaten by birds and animals.
That practice is unpopular (and, more to the point, illegal) in countries which don't have enough wilderness etc.
Cremation is a standard practice in India and, apparently, was the practice in the Buddha's time. The Maha-parinibbana Sutta ends with the monks telling the local society to do as they see fit (which included cremation).
I think there is a "religious" aspect to it: a Christian might believe in resurrection of the body and therefore want their body buried instead of destroyed. A Buddhist is more likely to see the body as impermanent and not-self (on the other hand Buddhists do collect relics, see e.g. here and here).
As for ecology I suppose that burial is more carbon-neutral, but it takes land, cemeteries run out of space.

Improper burials can cause ground contamination.

I have read Mahayana texts about how the body has some influence and that for some time after death there is an effort no to move the body etc   -  i follow Theravada in general  so it seems strange to me - but there defiantly seems to be a lot of importance  on the way they handle the body after death

@breath see also How long to leave a body undisturbed after death?

To add to the answers already given, cremation was considered as the respectful way of disposing of the dead. All Buddhas and Cakkavatti kings of the past were said to be cremated. You wouldn't want a body of a virtuous being to be put underground and subject it to disrespectful situations like people walking above, animals digging up body parts, worms working on it, people/animals defecating or urinating above it etc.
Even when they are alive, you always offer high places to them as a form of respect. So the traditional Buddhists are disinclined on putting them underground for the sake of a plant since the event is about paying respect, rather than an opportunity to feed a tree.

Not just one tree if we all do it we can feed billions :D It's all about perspective. If one sees this as a disrespect I guess you could go with cremating the body. But one could argue that burning the body is much worse than being eaten by animals. It's subjective

Combustion is considered as the respectful method in Asian countries as opposed to body parts being dragged all over the place by animals and everything else mentioned above. If everybody cremated, you could save acres of land all over the world where you can grow small jungles :)

Space is only an issue in urban areas

In historic times it was a practice to wrap the body in a cloth and throw it into the forest or designated grave ward. The clothes used to wrap the body was used to stitch robes. Also the pratice of doing cemetry contemplation was based on such disposed bodies.
Creation is a more cultural evolution than being Buddhist at least in the Theravada perspective, i.e., Buddhist do not have a particular way as to bury or cremate. This pratice has come among Buddhist perhaps due to Hindu and Indian influence and customs. See: search on hindu funeral pyre
For more on this see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnel_ground
Buddhism Practices : Buddhist funeral rites this is the pratice in Sri Lanka, I a not sure if the pratice is the same in other Theravada countries.

Since Buddhism is about living in good terms with nature don't you think it's time to adopt burial and let go of cremation which also causes certain level of pollution?

These are cultural things. Besides after cremation the ashers are sometimes put into a river which saves space for burial plots.

I would guess Asians cremated because they had plenty of trees.
Middle-Eastern people buried because they did not have plenty of trees.
A dead body must be disposed of is some way.
I was told this by Buddhist monk in Asia (however cannot confirm the truth of it).

burying a body is more Eco-friendly than cremation

This may not be true. It's the modern assertion that cremation is done in a crematorium using electricity and power. In ancient time people burnt it with dry leaves and twigs, those fuels used same for cooking and other works. Then the ashes from the burnt were used as fertilizers, or scattering back to the earth again.

Does this have to do with anything in the teachings of the Buddha?

I think so. If one study the Sutras carefully, Buddha was the one who most concerned with hygiene, some said toothbrush was invented by the Buddha. At that time, the Bhikhus chewed the willow twigs until became brush-like for cleaning teeth. Cremation is the best method hygiene-wise. During the Black Death, bodies were burnt to prevent the spreading. Most important, it has to be rooted in the teaching that the body is composed by the Four Greats: earth water fire and wind. Among these four, only fire can effectively and immediately disintegrating a body. Also, if one careful in studying the Sutra, in Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra it recorded the Buddha burnt himself by setting out fire from his own chest. In many other Mahayana texts, it reports many occasions of accomplished Buddhists - Arhats, Ch'an Masters, burnt themselves by setting out fire from their own bodies. With all these precedents, if a Buddhist can't burn himself up when dying, he has no choice but to seek aid from external fire :D.
One last less known factor is, when studying the Vinaya, it recorded at that time there was certain magic spell that could cause a dead body walking, or sometimes the corpse-ghost (起屍鬼) can animate a dead body. One story recorded a Bhikhu after collecting discarded clothes from the cemetery he was followed by a corpse, saying repeatedly "return my clothes", stopped at the entrance of the monastery, so the Bhikhu had to walk all the way back to the graveyard, put back the clothes, the corpse then collapsed to that very spot. This incident made the Buddha set another rule about collecting clothes from graveyard. Therefore, cremation, properly destroying the body after confirmed death, can prevent all these hassles. Of import is that, the modern hospital after confirming death immediately sending to mortuary a faulty practice. There's very good details in the Buddhist Sutras describing how a person dying, from beginning to the rest of all consecutive stages. The ancient Chinese would let the corpse sit in the hall for 7 days before burial or cremation. Burial often adopted since maybe the Daoist was quite obsessed with the immortality of the body, and the blood relations between the ancestor and offspring. That's why Fengshui was derived and inspected - another topic.


text:
Can someone point me the Sutra that explains the fall of Human civilization?
There is a sutra about the downfall of our civilization. It explains how some people flee the urban life and live in far away places while others go into a Killing spree/ War. It also features how the people who fled come to their senses and how they build a proper society again. This is a Sutra in Sutra pitaka (Theravada).
Can someone name this and give me a link?

This is found in Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta

The bit quoted by the OP (about "fleeing") might be, "What now if we enter the thick grass, (etc.)" in verse 21.2 on page 42


text:
Relics/ dhathu have supernatural powers?
I have heard and read that relics of Buddha have certain supernatural powers. I was reading a book once that said that it is not the relic alone that performs these supernatural acts but the deities that protect the relic. Can anyone help me understand this. thanks!

The sacred tooth relic of the Buddha is said to be capable of making rain

@SankhaKulathantille Yes I have heard so but is the deities protecting it that makes it rain?

Hard to tell unless you develop the faculty of the divine eye :)

@SankhaKulathantille I have heard all dathu of Buddha converge to a particular place and perform the yama maha pelahara before the end of Buddhism in this era. Only a Buddha can do this and I doubt deities can perform such a miracle. I do not know whether this is true though.

Yes, it will happen after about another 2500 years. It happens due to an Adhiṭṭhāna of the Buddha himself. Not because of deities.

No. Relics have no supernatural powers as far as the Dhamma is concerned. All supernatural powers mentioned in the Dhamma are performed by living beings not body parts of the dead, even the Buddha's. They are however be a source of inspiration

@Heisenberg where did you read/hear that? Sounds like superstitious mumbo jumbo.

A sermon on a poya day by a well known monk

@SankhaKulathantille Do you have a source link so that I can share this with people who doubt what I said in the comments? Maybe in the tripitaka?

The technical term is 'dhatu-parinibbana'. It's mentioned in the Anagata-vamsa.

Is that part of the thripitaka? @SankhaKulathantille

No, it's post-canonical. But it is believed to be what the Buddha preached about the coming Buddha Matrieya. Here's a link

... or here is a link which includes references in the footnotes.

The supernormal acts can happen in 2 ways:

The Person has Jhanic powers and made a strong determination that so and so should happen with the relicts
A deva or being which the power influence matter in the human realm influences the relicts

Generally in my opinion the latter is happens when relicts mysteriously appear in shrine rooms and places of worship. If the relicts do not get veneration in where they are a deva may bring them to another place where they might get the veneration.
The former case may be associated with crystallizing of the relicts. E.g.: http://www.bdcu.org.au/bddronline/bddr12no7/Mun168.htm

Is there a way to distinguish between the two

This might be distinguishable to someone who has developed psychic abilities to the needed extent to identify between the two.

If it relics of the Buddha or one of the great Arahats or a monk with super normal ability it can very well be the former. If it is a monk with high virtue and spiritual attainment but not noted for psychic abilities then it might be the latter.

Yes it is the latter which happens. Power of deva or such influence relics. I have read it in a book of Ven. Rerukane Chandawimala thero.

@DewminiGunasekera Yes I read about it in the same book!

I have heard and read that relics of Buddha have certain supernatural
  powers. I was reading a book once that said that it is not the relic
  alone that performs these supernatural acts but the deities that
  protect the relic. Can anyone help me understand this. thanks!

Sadly what you have heard and read is just some conjured up mumbo jumbo propagated by trinket peddlers, and has nothing to do with the Dhamma. True practitioners will stir clear from these baseless and blatantly false stories. Once the idea has been embedded in a devout person that a certain relic has supernatural powers its very difficult to get rid of such ideas.
The Buddha on many occasions referred to his body has foul object, in his latter years, he referred to it as a derelict cart plastered together. After his demise the foul thing was burnt.
People who are unable to realize the nature of impermanence, who have yet to destroy the view of self pertaining to the body (form) and the other khandas, say such things as the Buddha's immortality and continued existence through remaining pieces of bone.
Many Sri Lankans fall gullible, or at least used to, when some monks claim to display relics of great Arhats of the past. In most cases its a money making scam. These days people want more definitive proof about the origins and authenticity of such relics.
There is certainly a sense of nostalgia and awe to be in presence of a the relics of the a great man. However, the mindful realize that its not the relics that are great, but the life and the dhamma of the person who lived, and for the truly motivated, we don't need relics.
May you be well and happy.

"After his demise the foul thing was burnt". This is a vile statement. We all know what happens to people who destroy Buddha statues etc. So I would caution you, out of respect, to be more respectful when it comes to the actual relics of Buddha

I mean no disrespect. However if the Buddha called out something, especially his body as foul who am I to say otherwise. The Buddha on numerous times instructed his disciples to pay heed to the dhamma and not his body.


text:
Buddhist point of view in the research process
I'm looking for some texts where the Buddha explains the nature of mind in relation with the process of learning/researching. I was reading a quote by a famous mathematician known to be very interested in Buddhism and I thought his point of view was related to some teachings of the Buddha. I would like to read more Buddhist literature to see if this connection is real. The quote:

The unknown thing to be known appeared to me as some stretch of earth or hard marl, resisting penetration… the sea advances insensibly in silence, nothing seems to happen, nothing moves, the water is so far off you hardly hear it.. yet it finally surrounds the resistant substance. (Alexander Grothendieck)

I believe the idea of the "Rising Sea" can be understood in Buddhist terms. From my experience Buddhism has a lot of metaphors showing the mind/consciousness as an entity similar to the sea. I would like to see some texts where I can draw an analogy between the awakening process and the process of discovering something new.

Google suggests that this quote ("L’image qui m’était venue il y a quelques semaines etc.") come from his book Récoltes et Semailles which was written in 1985. An obituary says, "From 1974 Grothendieck turned to Buddhism", and, "But
his attachment to Buddhism
did not last. From around
1980 Grothendieck gravitated
toward Christian mystical
and esoteric ideas".

I think the question is too broad as-is i.e. there are too many texts which could be described as "the Buddha explaining the nature of mind". Maybe it would be better to ask for references to Buddhist and/or Buddhist-influenced texts which are reminiscent of (similar or analogous to) the quote you referenced: would that be an OK rewording of the question? Do you know, can you say, what you're hoping to learn from any answers? The quote you referenced is a description of one way to prove a theorem, i.e. to think about it until you understand (or know or "cognize") it and everything about it.

@ChrisW thanks for your words I'll try to rewrite the question in order to make it more useful for the community.

I think it is better now. It's hard to write about this stuff in English! Anyway, feel free to edit whatever your want and thanks again.

One more thing: that obituary says of his Buddhism only that, "From 1974 Grothendieck turned to Buddhism;
several times he was visited by Japanese monks
from the order Nipponzan Myohoji (in English the
name translates roughly as “Japanese community
of the wonderful lotus sutra”), which preaches
strict nonviolence and erects peace pagodas throughout the world." That implies that Mahayana answers too (and not only, the earliest "texts where Buddha explains") would be on-topic and relevant.

There is the simile of mind as water regarding the 5 hindrances. ("If there is water in a pot mixed with red, yellow, blue or orange color, a man with a normal faculty of sight, looking into it, could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face...")

I can attempt to answer this from a Theravada standpoint. Though I can try to draw a parallel between the mind and ocean but this might not be the Mahayana standpoint. But I found this if this might be of interest: Make Your Mind an Ocean: Aspects of Buddhist Psychology by Ven. Lama Thubten Yeshe Edited by Nicholas Ribush
Also what has being quoted seems related to the Bible as it is said this person turned to Christianity or could have been a mix and match from Buddhism and Christianity. Strikingly similar passages Isaiah 57:20, Ephesians 4:14 and James 1:6.

When you learn or do research you learn a concept (paññatti). First you will have words labeling (nama-paññatti) certain concepts (attha-paññatti). To describe this you will use a vocabulary which gives meaning to the conceptual terms (nirutti). There perhaps would be a language around how the words are used.
In learning when conceptualising something you recognise elements by which you want to build the concept. Say initially a baby sees his mother then applies the labeling "mother" and concept associated with it. As you learn new things there are 2 parts. 1st apply a label and then associate meaning with the lable.
For a more theoretical discussion on this see:

Two kinds of paññatti are distinguished. One is called nama-paññatti and the other attha-paññatti. The first refers to names, words, signs, or symbols through which things, real or unreal, are designated: “It is the mere mode of recognising (saññakaramatta) by way of this or that word whose significance is determined by worldly convention.” [128] It is created by worldly consent (lokasanketa-nimmita) and established by worldly usage (lokavoharena siddha). [129] The other, called attha-paññatti, refers to ideas, notions, or concepts corresponding to the names, words, signs, or symbols. It is produced by the interpretative function of the mind (kappana) and is based on the various forms or appearances presented by the real elements when they are in particular situations or positions (avattha-visesa). [130] Both nama-paññatti and attha-paññatti thus have a psychological origin and as such both are devoid of objective reality.

Source: The Dhamma Theory Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma by Y. Karunadasa
Formulating a thesis or research ideas involve conceptualisation. Also these have to be expressed or communicated as finding or publication. More on this is as follows:

Nama-paññatti is often defined as that which makes known (paññapanato paññatti) and attha-paññatti as that which is made known (paññapiyatta paññatti). [131] The former is an instance of agency definition (kattu-sadhana) and the latter of object definition (kamma-sadhana). What both attempt to show is that nama-paññatti which makes attha-paññatti known, and attha-paññatti which is made known by nama-paññatti, are mutually inter-dependent and therefore logically inseparable. This explains the significance of another definition which states that nama-paññatti is the term’s relationship with the ideas (saddassa atthehi sambandho) and that attha-paññatti is the idea’s relationship with the terms (atthassa saddehi sambandho). [132] These two pairs of definition show that the two processes of conceptualization and verbalization through the symbolic medium of language are but two separate aspects of the same phenomenon. It is for the convenience of definition that what really amounts to a single phenomenon is treated from two different angles, which represent two ways of looking at the same thing.
The difference is established by defining the same word, paññatti, in two different ways. When it is defined as subject it is nama-paññatti—the concept as name. When it is defined as object it is attha-paññatti—the concept as meaning. If the former is that which expresses (vacaka), the latter is that which is expressible (vacaniya). [133] In this same sense, if the former is abhidhana, the latter is abhidheya. [134] Since attha-paññatti stands for the process of conceptualization it represents more the subjective and dynamic aspect, and since nama-paññatti stands for the process of verbalization it represents more the objective and static aspect. For the assignment of a term to what is constructed in thought—in other words, its expression through the symbolic medium of language—invests it with some kind of relative permanence and objectivity. It is, so to say, crystallised into an entity.

Source: The Dhamma Theory Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma by Y. Karunadasa
I Buddhism there concepts which are ultimate realities which may be the subject of Buddhist research. Following describes how these are learned and understood at the conceptual level.

Now the definition of attha-paññatti as that which is made known by nama-paññatti gives rise to the question as to what its position is in relation to the real existents (dhammas). For if the real existents, too, can be made known (= attha-paññatti), on what basis are the two categories, the real and conceptual, to be distinguished? What should not be overlooked here is that according to its very definition attha-paññatti exists by virtue of its being conceived (parikappiyamana) and expressed (paññapiyamana). Hence it is incorrect to explain attha-paññatti as that which is conceptualizable and expressible, for its very existence stems from the act of being conceptualised and expressed. This rules out the possibility of its existing without being conceptualised and expressed. In the case of the dhammas or real existents the situation is quite different. While they can be made known by nama-paññatti, their existence is not dependent on their being known or conceptualised. Where such a real existent is made known by a nama-paññatti, the latter is called vijjamana-paññatti, [135] because it represents something that exists in the real and ultimate sense (paramatthato). And the notion or concept (= attha-paññatti) corresponding to it is called tajja-paññatti, the verisimilar or appropriate concept. [136] This does not mean that the real existent has transformed itself into a concept. It only means that a concept corresponding to it has been established.

Source: The Dhamma Theory Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma by Y. Karunadasa

An untamed mind your thoughts rise and fall like sea waves. So effort should be put to tame your mind. With continuous stilling of the mind the resistance or hindrances to achieving this is overcome.
Interestingly a few others have things along similar lines but all share some resemblance to Bible verses adopted to the Buddhist context. Perhaps since "mind like the sea" passages even in a Buddhist context are adopted from bible passages.

Conquer Yourself
“It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell.”
He who can conquer himself is greater than the mighty. To conquer yourself you must conquer your mind. You must control your thinking. Your thoughts cannot be tossed to and fro like the waves of the sea. You may be thinking, “I can’t control my thoughts, if a thought comes, it comes.” To that I say, you may not be able to stop a bird from flying over your head, but you can certainly stop him from building a nest in your hair. Dismiss thoughts that are contrary to the life you desire to live. Buddha said, “It is a man’s own mind, not his enemy or foe that lures him to evil ways.”

Source: 10 Must Read Life Lessons from Buddha

“It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles.”
-Buddha
"One must find the source within one's own Self, one must possess it. Everything else was seeking -- a detour, an error."
-Siddhartha
I firmly believe in the realization of one's self. From it stems the true meaning of my life. From here am I, bestowed with the understanding and courage to follow my righteous path.
Unless we learn to control our 'self', we will be swayed by it. I believe that whatever you desire and dream, is attained, once you agree to the notion that it is you, and you only that needs to be conquered. To discover and unravel the fountainhead of everything - passion, greed, peace, anger, anxiety, and true happiness, you need not go anywhere but listen to your inner voice. Your mind knows only some things, but your inner voice tells you everything.
However your inner voice, your internal speech or your conscience, whatever you may want to call it, has been burdened, thwarted and gradually emptied by the vices in your life. Your conscience has yielded to the perfect examples of how ordinary men should live their lives. It has been designed by the beliefs in popular magazines and opinions others have of you. It has even been wrongly submerged under your own sea of thoughts, most of which you believe, define you as a being. However, it isn't the truth. Far from it.
That silvery voice speaks to you every so often. To be receptive, you must halt your mind from obstructing it. Hence, to conquer yourself, you must conquer your mind. You must pay heed to, but constrain your thinking. Your thoughts cannot be tossed to and fro like the waves of the sea. You may be thinking, “I can’t control my thoughts, it comes, if it wants to.” Buddha says "You may not be able to stop a bird from flying over your head, but you can certainly stop him from building a nest in your hair." If you dream of a life with endless possibilities, live with an unsatiated curiosity for the knowledge of 'self' and dismiss thoughts negating your promise-filled belief.

Source: What is the most important belief that propels your life? and What is your most unshakeable belief? but this mis attributes one of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Martin Luther quotes as one of the Buddha's.

As Martin Luther once said with regard to temptation and tempting thoughts: we cannot control what birds fly over our heads. We can only control whether they build nests in our hair.

Source: Did Jesus Ever Sin?


text:
Is being skeptical bad?
Vicikicca or skeptical doubt, some interpret this as perplexity, is known to be one of the mental hindrances. But why is having doubt bad for one's mind?
For me, doubt is what makes me think more harder to understand certain issues. Doubt leads to creative thinking as well. I am sorry if I have misinterpreted vicikicca but would much appreciate if you could help me out with this

In the mundane world:

Doubt on One's Ability

You might not undertake beneficial action because of lack of confidence

Doubt in a Teacher or Doctor

You will not learn what is been taught or take the treatment given

Doubt Something Will Work

If you have doubts on if something will work or has a chance to succeed you will not attempt it

If you doubt something works for you specifically

You have confidence something will work but doubtful if it will benefit you. Say you are doubtful a certain fitness routine works on you due to some reason you will avoid such routine or not follow through with earnest

You have doubt something will work in current times

If you think something worked in the past but not any more you might not follow through with it in earnest
You are too old or too young to do something

Similarly when practicing meditation. You have to have confidence in:

Teacher
The technique
The benefits to be reaped
One's ability to execute and come out successful
It will work for you
It will work currently and also regardless of one's age

Also some forms of doubt is wholesome and will not be a hindrance if done in the spirit of free inquiry. E.g. Kesa,puttiya Sutta (or  Kālāma Sutta). Also the Buddha mention that doubt is justified in couple of Suttas including Kutūhala,sālā Sutta. As I see it any of these instances are skeptical on what is been heard or taught by others or skepticism arisen due to logical fallacies in reasoning with the accepted norms of the day. Also the people were in a stage prior to doing serious pratice of the path and training. So doubts before serious pratice and arisen from what has been taught or inferred the general acceptable knowledge is justifiable but so when you pratice or regarding the path and training.
In essence being skeptical in any endeavour diminishes your ability to accomplish the end goal. When you initially approach a task or endeavor you can have your skepticism but when your you start executing you ideally should be void of doubt.
More broadly speaking with respect to all the hindrances including doubt. What needs to be done is to starve the hindrances and feed the awakening factors. [(Nīvaraṇa Bojjhaṅga) Ahara Sutta] Since hindrances weekend wisdom and the awakening factors enhances wisdom. [Āvaraṇa Nīvaraṇa Sutta]. The hindrances are also dependently arise based on the unwholesome roots. [(Akusala,mūla) Añña,titthiya Sutta]. Couple of way to overcome them are given in [Nīvarana,pahana Vagga], [(Satipaṭṭhāna) Nīvaraṇa Sutta], etc.
Coming back to doubt specifically. The reason for doubt is unwise attention. [Nīvarana,pahana Vagga] With unwise attention you begin to believe something not inline with reality (more on these perversion see: Vipallasa Sutta) and start doubting the teacher, teaching, benefits of the pratice. Not being able to clearly see the truth of the dhamma, teaching and practice leads to perplexity. Unwise attention should be overcome by seeing or experiencing the truth. [Sabb’āsava Sutta]
Also see:

Vicikicchā by Piya Tan,
The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera,
The Wings to Awakening: An Anthology from the Pali Canon translated and Explained by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff) - on awakening factors which you should strengthen

Doubt is good or bad depending on conditions and circumstances of the practitioner's understanding.
If you want to practice Dharma in true way, you should always have doubt unless you experience it by yourself or natural conviction but still you should always have doubt even in Dharma or Buddha if they hinder you actually practising true Dharma.
His Holiness Dalai Lama said you should doubt Buddha, Dharma, or teacher and don't believe just because they said or do certain things but you should actually experience it by yourself and confirm it naturally.


text:
where we put the meals after offering to the Buddha?
can we give them to animals, after offering the meal for Buddha's statue and where them put after offering?

There's a similar question which already has an answer that you might find helpful.


text:
Where to find multilingual and/or beautifully typeset Buddhist texts?
I recently stumbled upon a lovely collection of well-typeset Vietnamese Buddhist texts. It must have taken tremendous effort to typeset this  bilingual Chinese-Vietnamese edition of the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra in LaTeX, for example.
As a computational linguist and Buddhism enthusiast, I would be highly interested to discover more sources of beautifully typeset multilingual Buddhist materials.

Beautifully typed texts - http://dharmafarer.org/, also http://www.thripitakaya.org/ and http://pitaka.lk/ but in Singhala
Multilingual texts - https://suttacentral.net/ (you can say it is also beautifully formated), http://www.buddha-vacana.org/ (English and French)

Suttacentral makes a point to not format translations in multilingual manner

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Can you point me some Sutras on Buddhist Cosmology?
Can someone point me some good sutras for Buddhist Cosmology. I'm interested in the Theravada school's teaching on this.

Kosala Sutta 1
Aggañña Sutta
Cakka,vatti Siha,nāda Sutta
Satta Suriya Sutta
Pāṭika Sutta
Saṅkhārupapatti Sutta
Brahma,jala Sutta Also see for introduction: An Introduction to the Brahma,jāla Sutta

Also Abhidhamma books contain a lot on this subject.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.029.than.html another link for the Kosala Sutra.

Thank you very much Suminda, I should tell you that you have helped me to provide another article on my blog with this answer that will be read by few 100 a day. So thanks agian and i share the good karma with you. Namo Buddhaya!

Great that it helped.


text:
Was the Buddha against violence in all situations?
  Is a strictly pacifist Buddhism exactly correct or are there certain situations were violence or war might be appropriate according to the Buddha's teaching?
  What did the Buddha say about the Military?
  Given that Buddhist countries have soldiers, what doctrine[s] do they use to justify having a military to defend the people and the Dharma?
  Is there anything in the Tipitaka to support the idea that a soldier  who selflessly tries to defend others and/or the Dharma by violent means, makes good karma?

do you equate the term Buddhism with Buddhadhamma?

@Баян Купи-ка  In my opinion it seems that Buddha's teaching  is Buddhism and Buddhism is Buddha's teaching + different culture's interpretations. There has to be interpretations otherwise it would be difficult to understand the Buddha's Teaching just from the Pali Suttas. They are incredibly profound hidden underneath magical stories-Metta

actually everything is in the suttas and for the purpose of the answer Buddhism i equate with Buddhadhamma, not sure what meaning the inquirer imparts it

And how, householders, are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in
  accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone kills
  living beings; he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and
  violence, merciless to living beings.
So, householders, it is by reason of such conduct not in accordance
  with the Dhamma, by reason of such unrighteous conduct that some
  beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in
  states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even
  in hell.

Saleyyaka sutta (MN 41)
one could be a Buddhist who got caught up in unfortunate circumstances where they are forced to use violence or a deadly force which they wouldn't use otherwise, but they'll still have to experience kammic consequences, which is normally birth in hell
such a kamma i think to a certain degree can be alleviated if the mind isn't clouded and blinded with defilements, first of all with desire of killing, at the time of its (the kamma) creation

Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the
  source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual
  pleasures, men take swords and shields and buckle on bows and quivers,
  and they charge into battle massed in double array with arrows and
  spears flying and swords flashing; and there they are wounded by
  arrows and spears, and their heads are cut off by swords, whereby they
  incur death or deadly suffering.
Now this is a danger in the case of sensual pleasures, a mass of
  suffering visible here and now, having sensual pleasures as its cause,
  sensual pleasures as its source, sensual pleasures as its basis, the
  cause being simply sensual pleasures.
Again, with sensual pleasures as the cause, sensual pleasures as the
  source, sensual pleasures as the basis, the cause being simply sensual
  pleasures, men take swords and shields and buckle on bows and quivers,
  and they charge slippery bastions, with arrows and spears flying and
  swords flashing; and there they are wounded by arrows and spears and
  splashed with boiling liquids and crushed under heavy weights, and
  their heads are cut off by swords, whereby they incur death or deadly
  suffering.
Now this is a danger in the case of sensual pleasures, a mass of
  suffering visible here and now, having sensual pleasures as its cause,
  sensual pleasures as its source, sensual pleasures as its basis, the
  cause being simply sensual pleasures.

Mahadukkhakkhandha sutta (MN 13)

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
  seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
  struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
  exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
  striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
  body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
  slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior
  strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down &
  slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with
  the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of
  devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two
  destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or
  the animal womb."

Yodhajiva sutta (SN 42.3)
one who is a Buddhist serving in a military during peace time with intent to slack on his duty at the high noon in favor of his obligations as a Buddhist, i think would be committing verbal misconduct of lying
Here's how Ajahn Sucitto of Cittaviveka Vihara describes his encounter with road bandits while on a pilgrimage in India

Then everything blew up. Nick turned round with a menacing expression
  on his face; someone was tugging my robe on one side while the ﬁrst
  man was hauling frantically at the mug on its strap on the other.
  Three men charged at Nick who was crouched boxer-style; he wheeled and
  hit them with his backpack, then ran off with the three of them in hot
  pursuit. I was being lugged in two directions simultaneously by the
  strap on my water bottle and on my bag, I could only try to get the
  stuff off and let them have it, but their pulling on it made that
  impossible. We were going round in circles, with their excitement
  spinning into frenzy . I had to stop this. “Wait! Wait! Let me get
  this stuff off !” Momentarily they stood still. They all had axes and
  staves. The leader glared at me through twisted features and raised
  his axe.
  Funny how your mind goes clear when the options disappear. Why
  struggle against the inevitable? The only freedom was to go without
  fear. I bowed my head and pointed the top of my skull toward him, drew
  the blade of my hand along it from the crown of my head to the brow.
  “Hit it right there.” Something shifted; he backed off, waving his axe
  and muttering angrily. I stepped forward and repeated the action. Give
  it away; let it all go.
  Things settled. He lowered his axe. I slipped off the bag and the water
  bottle and stepped back. The three of them began excitedly picking over
  the  treasure. I imagined that they’d rummage around, ﬁnd there was
  nothing there of any value, and run off. Two of them picked up the
  gear and scurried down the track away. I felt shaky and sat down.
  Better keep cool — I started chanting softly. Then Nick ambled along with a
  smile but without his pack or assailants. “I’ve hidden the money;
  Bhante, are you all right?”
  His return signalled further frenzy. As his assailants returned, the men
  charged at him with their sticks and began swinging blows; Nick caught
  most of them on his arms: “ All right, all right! I’ll show you
  where.” And the mob had streamed off into the forest by the time that
  I got to my feet, leaving me with one lad, who sullenly resisted my
  attempts to strike up a conversation. But he was mellow compared to
  the older men when they returned — without Nick or the bags. They
  jumped on me and pulled off the bag that I had around my neck
  containing the relics and Buddha image; they ripped off the waistband
  that was threaded through my pouch; they clawed under my sabong and
  dragged the passport out of another pouch that was hanging around my
  waist.
  Then they were off with the loot tied up in bundles on their
  heads. The leader turned round and said “Your bags are over there,”
  pointing into the forest. “Fine, OK.” I said, in a vaguely warm way .
  The forest went back to silence as usual ... a sunny day, with the
  forested slopes on either side.

"Rude Awakenings" (pp. 238-239)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9YE1oP-qr0#t=1h1m15s

There's a lot in the suttas that opposes violence and praises non-violence ... but that doesn't quite answer the question. Is there a sutta where the Buddha talks about the military, or talks to a soldier, for example? Given that Buddhist countries have soldiers, what doctrine[s] do they use to justify that?

they pervert the Dhamma or conveniently ignore its tenets just like Christians do with the message of Christ, some Burmese Buddhists do pogroms of muslims in the name of the Dhamma, how do they justify it? to be honest i don't care, i don't think searching for Dhammic justification for every obviously outlandish thing people do is a fruitful and sensible approach. It's been said the killing and violence are bodily misconduct, an activity discordant with the Dhamma, i think it's good enough and am uninterested in searching for contradictory statements, which there're none so far as i'm aware

i don't think Dhamma can be successfully married with the concept of state period...
with suttas where the Buddha would give advise to soldiers i'm unfortunately unfamiliar, in one sutta the Buddha answers that warriors which kill on a battlefield are reborn either as animals or in hell, i added a quotation to my answer

Wonderful answer_/_

It's hard to prove a negative but in this article, Getting the Message, Thanissaro Bhikkhu emphasizes "no killing":

When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.

This might answer your question about "violence", too: apparently "striking back in self-defense" might be OK (I guess that might be in the Vinaya rather than a sutta), but not killing.
I think the Vinaya also recommends avoiding violence, by the way (e.g. avoid going to a place where there are known to be robbers).

neither striking back is, the only viable behavior for a buddhist in response to violence is either non-violent attempt to stop the aggressor or flight, a more radical response would be passive endurance of the attack ... i welcome you to get more intimate with the suttas, because statements to this effect seem to betray a certain lack of knowledge in this province.... it's noteworthy that secondary opinion you seem to hold as more authoritative than the source Teaching...  Vinaya is of no use here because it only applies to monastics and adds rules on top of those which are universal....

for getting an illustration of dhammic reaction to violence you're also welcome to listen to Ajahn Sucitto account of his encounter with road bandits while on a pilgrimage in India https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9YE1oP-qr0#t=1h1m15s

A more primary source is referenced on page 398 of this document (by the same author) -- "According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense for a bhikkhu
who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow “desiring freedom.”"

there's no offence according to Vinaya, but this doesn't exempt one from bad kamma incurred as a result... Vinaya is only a set of mechanic rules majority of which have no moral significance being just safeguards and proactive measures, and to reiterate - it doesn't apply to laity and has never been taught to laity as opposed to 10 courses of skillful action, Vinaya is a legalistic system, not ethical

If trying to escape isn't "malevolent" nor "wrong view", then maybe it's not "opposed to" the 10 courses of skillful action. The OP asked whether there were "certain situations were violence might be appropriate" ... and this was mentioned as one (limited) situation where it might be permitted. The article I referenced follows that with a quote from MN 21, i.e. "Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding.", and uncompromising "no room for exceptions" re. "no killing".

i base my argument on the Suttanta, not on articles, and see no reason or justification in referring to secondary material when the point is clearly and unambiguously expounded in the primary sources which are readily available, please read Kakacupama sutta (MN 21) in full, you will derive much benefit

The reason I quoted an article is because it's difficult to "prove a negative" i.e. to prove that there's no sutta where the Buddha says something permissive to a soldier (my personal opinion that it would be uncharacteristic doesn't count as evidence). And so I tried to do the next best thing i.e. quote someone (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) who has read more extensively and presumably discussed it and is willing to state that "In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all".

Your occupation doesn't determine.
But there are occupations that could fall you victim of bad karma.
You can compensate it through practicimg Dharma and helping others.

No matter what , violence is against Dhamma. Killing is Killing. Harming is Harming.

Hi Saurabh, if the person who is asking the question is new to the teaching it would be very helpful to have a good explanation from answers. So think about it next time when you post your answer and generously share your knowledge.

Thank you for your kind suggestion.Next time i will keep this in mind. :)

Your'e welcome mate! see you soon with a long answer then ;-)

There's a book titled, In Defense of Dharma: Just-war Ideology in Buddhist Sri Lanka.
This review of it (by Annewieke Vroom in the Journal of Buddhist Ethics) includes,

Nationalist stories
In chapter two, "Just-war Thinking in Texts and Contexts,"
  Bartholomeusz describes what narratives are used to justify Buddhist
  violence. The major culprit here is the post-canonical scripture the
  Mahavamsa (Great History). In this text kings and forefathers defend the
  country from "external influences" after the Buddha himself makes three
  magical trips to Sri Lanka, which he prepares to be the dharmadwipa (island
  of the dharma). "[T]he Mahavamsa occupies the same position in Sinhala
  society that the Ramayana holds in Indian society." Bartholomeusz quotes
  Steven Kemper on the importance of this text: "As children, they hear
  shreds and patches of the tradition recited, they see temple paintings
  evoking it, or they follow cartoons in Sinhala newspapers representing the
  lives of righteous kings." (pp. 20-21) Thus Bartholomeusz portrays the
  background of the Sri Lankan Buddhist perception of the island: stories that
  present the island as destined to be Buddhist.
Really Buddhist
Sri Lankan Buddhist religio-nationalism is supported by the monks who
  are understood to have the task to safeguard the "Dharma-Island" from
  threat by "foreign influences" such as the Tamils. In support of this
  nationalist worldview, many texts are quoted that paint the history of the
  island as one of heroic warrior kings who (violently) "defend" the country
  from damilas (now read as Tamils) (chapter three: "Dharma yuddhaya and
  Dharma Warriors in Sri Lanka"). Even though most of the quoted texts are
  post-canonical, Bartholomeusz stresses as in earlier publications that it is
  naive to explain dharma yuddhaya (religious/dharma-war) thinking as a
  post-Theravāda development, a Sri Lankan aberration, or for other reasons
  not "truly Buddhist." (p. 66) She locates the seeds for violence in canonical
  Buddhist texts such as the Dhammapada, that are "replete with military
  metaphors." (p. 41)

In summary, "The major culprit here is the post-canonical scripture the
Mahavamsa (Great History)."
I don't have the book, so I can't tell you what it's citing from canonical literature. One of the "military metaphors in the Dhammapada" might be the first verse of Chapter 23 (though in my opinion using that to justify war would be taking it out of context).

Verse 320: As an elephant in battlefield withstands the arrow shot from a bow, so shall I endure abuse. Indeed, many people are without morality.

See also, What does Buddha and Buddhism say about fighting against enemy of dharma?

You might be more interested in Thailand. There's a book Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand, which is reviewed here, and which is quoted on Wikipedia as saying that,

In the 1970s, nationalist Buddhist monks like Phra Kittiwuttho argued that killing Communists did not violate any of the Buddhist precepts. The militant side of Thai Buddhism became prominent again in 2004 when a Malay Muslim insurgency renewed in Thailand's deep south. Since January 2004, the Thai government has converted Buddhist monasteries into military outposts, commissioned Buddhist military monks and given support to Buddhist vigilante squads.

The review (I haven't read the book) suggests that the justification or reasoning for this is identification with nationalism (e.g. "Thailand is Buddhist").

Good observations Chris. You see sometimes we have a choice to just die or fight to last. If you come to Sri Lanka and ask from a good Buddhist "What would you fight to protect, Your teaching or your country" the answer is a very simple "For the teaching". Any Buddhist here would gladly leave all behind and go anywhere it needs to keep the teaching alive for a few more generations. Whether the approaches towards such acts always end up in the right side or not is another topic. I guess this is what happens when learning & practicing is surpassed by recognition.

authors: Баян Купи-ка