text:
Pitfalls of answers: what are effects of answers having be received, yet knowing they where wrong?
(A nother possible pitfall for defilement. Take care that they do not rebell and cick you instead of them into it.)
Supposed someone asks you something. Given that you have the feeling to know for sure, you answer.
The one asked receives it with joy, keeps it, carries it and might share it further.
Later you find out that you have been wrong. What now? What's the impact on yours? What should you do now? What are the consequences of the previous deed and eventuall consequences of your current deeds, now when you found out?
What to do to rest possible most at ease and secure, at the time of answer and at times things might be grow different, more clear?
Not to speak of what to do in cases when answered without being really sure or a bad mind state (with greed, aversion or not-knowing connected).

Supportive case samples:
Just to give a possible graspable case. One is asking you a secure way through the dangerous forest. You tell him what you think. Later you find out that this way leads through minefields.
Maybe apply-able by replacing "intent to kill" with intent that one takes on ones understanding? (Thinking: "Who ever might come accross my answer, way he fall to that."):

from BMC-Pārājika
The penalty, if an animal dies as a result, is a pācittiya; if a human being, a pārājika. In this case, the intention/perception of killing a living being is broad enough to include a human being, and so fulfills the relevant factors here.
In discussing this last case, the Commentary notes that if one digs the pitfall but then renounces one's intention to cause death, one has to completely fill in the pitfall in such a way that it cannot cause injury — even to the extent of causing someone to stumble — if one wants to avoid the penalty coming from any injury the pitfall might cause. If the pitfall is only partially filled in and a person stumbles into it and later dies from his injuries, the bhikkhu incurs the full offense under this rule. The same judgment applies to any other attempt to kill not aimed at a particular victim. For instance, if a bhikkhu harboring this sort of general intention builds a trap but then changes his mind, he has to destroy the trap so thoroughly that it cannot be reassembled. Similarly, when a bhikkhu writes a passage describing the advantages of dying (see below) with the thought that anyone who reads it might decide to commit suicide, if he then changes his mind he has to destroy the writing so thoroughly that it cannot be pieced together. If, instead of writing the passage himself, he simply picks up a pre-existing written passage of this sort and then — with a similar intention — puts it in a place where it might be easily seen, he can avoid any penalty simply by returning the passage to the place where he found it.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Some of the thoughts that came to mind when you asked this question include:

Be careful when you speak -- don't represent uncertainty as certainty.
If someone tells you, "there is the secure way through the dangerous forest", and then someone else asks you, "what is the way?", avoid telling them more than you know: for example instead of saying, "that way is secure" (which you don't know), you could say, "someone told me that way is secure, but I am not sure of that, I haven't tried it myself"; or "someone told me last week it was secure, but I don't know about this week."
A perhaps-exaggerated example of how careful you could be is: if you see a white house, and someone asks, "what colour is the house?", don't say "it's white" -- say, "it looks white, from this side" (because it might be a different colour on another side).
Be careful who you listen to and who you trust.
If someone tells you, "there is the secure way through the dangerous forest", then it matters whether you believe them. Are they deliberately lying, or telling the truth? Do they exaggerate their knowledge, deceiving themselves, or do they speak carefully? Are they knowledgeable (and reliable) about some topics, but not others?
Having a (good) idea about that topic will help you to avoid (accepting and) passing on false information from unreliable witnesses.
Can you correct the mistake?
If a wrong deed (e.g. wrong speech) should be confessed then, at least from a mundane perspective, confessing the mistake to the person whom you misinformed might be appropriate: "sorry, do you remember I told you about a safe path? I might have misinformed you about that, I just heard from someone else that it's dangerous".
The world is complicated.
Is there really nothing you can do to correct the mistake? Try not to make the same mistake again, but perhaps you need to forgive yourself, detach from your involvement in that past event, and regain some equanimity. After all it's not your fault (not your intention) that someone planted a minefield there, and that someone else misinformed you about it, and that a third person put too much trust into the information you relayed to them. If your intent was to be helpful, and you were skillful in what you did, then why not "rest most at ease and secure"?
People act a part within an imperfect (e.g. ignorant) system. You can (maybe should) try to improve that system and your role within it...
I suppose this is a kind of problem that a medical doctor must face for their whole working life: in spite of the good they do and try to do, their patients still get sick, and die sooner or later. A doctor is supposed to be careful when they help so that that (death) is not the doctor's fault, but there's some limit to what they can do.

First advices seems to be good. Thought on: "If your intent was to be helpful, and you were skillful in what you did, then why not "rest most at ease and secure"?" Sure? Is Chris at easy with the whole of his answer? Does in answer the question and correct? No need to argue, just written thoughts.

I hope much of the answer is correct, sensible advice, which could be supported by quoting from the suttas. The phrase "rest most at ease and secure" was taken from your question and, no, I'm not sure that my answer did answer your question (I'm not sure what your circumstances are, and motives, which prompted your question), therefore I used that phrase in a rhetorical question ("then why not ... ?") to invite you to judge whether you find the answer useful. I'm not very at easy with it, no, but I don't think I can improve it at the moment, given the (imperfect or limited) information I have.

I think the example you added ("if one digs the pitfall") was an example of digging a pitfall with the intention of trapping or killing someone. In that case then you should also destroy the dangerous pitfall which you intentionally created, if or when you renounce the intention of killing. I would have guessed that an example of "knowing it's wrong" when you dig the pitfall; but your original question said, "later you find out that you have been wrong", so originally I thought the question was about what happens when a well-intentioned answer (not a malevolent answer) results in harm.

And no I'm not at ease with "the whole of the answer" -- perhaps I can only review its pieces.

Just a question, pretty dangerous to interpretate something into ones intent and get unskillful. Others intent, others vipaka. Good summary at the and of that line. It's good to be at ease. How?

The doctrine of kamma-vipaka is for puthujjana (ordinary people). Refer to MN 117.
Enlightened mind knows honest mistake is caused by ignorance rather than by a 'self' (SN 12.17).
What to do to rest possible most at ease and secure is trust in anatta (not-self) & SN 12.17.
Buddhism is a path of liberation & love (AN 3.99) rather than a method of bondage & guilt.


text:
Helpful: Is an idea of being helpful, such an intent, a secure attribut of skilful action?

Helpful: Is an idea of being helpful, such an intent, a secure attribut of skilful action?
Can intention of being helpful be very unskilful? Thinking on mercy-killing, or taking away dirt, which in unknowenly actually the food of the person one thought to help.
What is helpful? What might be right resolve, intent, leading a helpful and skilful act?
Does a helpful act always benefits both, or just one of giver and receiver, or how should it be understood?

An illustration might be helpful: The compassioned monkey.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Why would someone ask rhetorical questions on a Q&A site?

To help? To wait for Andreis reaction? Because bored? Not sure. Is Andrei in such cases? Why did he ask suggestive?

When I said to one of my teachers that I wanted to help other people, her response was, "There are no other people." So I would say that asking: is this action skillful for me? has the same misunderstanding.

Seems to be a great fool, this teacher. Take a stick and beat her. When she starts to blame, tell her there are no people. @nocomprende . Pointless when such people teach, those "helpers"...

Can intention of being helpful be very unskilful?

Yes, if the intention is based in one of the three unwholesome roots; greed, hatred, delusion.

Does a helpful act always benefits both, or just one of giver and receiver, or how should it be understood?

Regarding the giving of food, the Buddha taught that its beneficial for both giver and reciever.
In the Suppavāsā Sutta (the Gift of Food), the Buddha gave the following teaching to the Koliyan Lady Suppavāsā;

"Suppavāsā, a noble female disciple, by giving food, gives four
  things to those who receive it. What four? She gives long life, beauty,
  happiness, and strength. By giving long life, she herself will be
  endowed with long life, human or divine. By giving beauty, she herself
  will be endowed with beauty, human or divine. By giving happiness,
  she herself will be endowed with happiness, human or divine. By giving
  strength, she herself will be endowed with strength, human or
  divine. A noble female disciple, by giving food, gives those four things
  to those who receive it".
-- AN 4:57; II 62–63, Bodhi trans

That would mean someone giving "just" answers becomes answers. Is that right? Good applyed for that case, or open to misunderstandings? Thinking on raising pigs for example.

@Bhante. I've updated the answer to include the situation where one gives food.

There's one koan that sprung in my mind when reading "the Gift of Food" - "The Giver Should Be Thankful".

Nurishment, the Buddha taught, is the reason for suffering. So how does that work together? It all misses intent, it all misses objectiv. Again. Whats the kamma of a pig keeper? What's the matter with all wealth dis-ease? As supportive food, the compassioned monkey came to mind.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is buddhism point of view on money laundering?
What is buddhist point of view on money laundering and combating it (AML)? Are there any suttas that can be related to this topic?

hey, i am not an expert in Vinaya (rules for Buddhist monks), but i bet there is something about money laundry there.  Buddha was very careful and put more details for monks.    There is code about Tax Evasion.  I remember vaguely about a merchant asking a monk to carry a precious stone thru a custom post to avoid paying tax..etc.  hopefully someone who is an expert in Vinaya can remember something (if there is one).

Broadly, any form of thievery or deception is wrong.  But the answer cannot be found in the Vinaya (maybe in the suttas, though). Because monks cannot even touch money and for the lay people, On the other hand, the Vinaya does not apply.

Buddhism has no view, but in regard of the Buddha and to possible explain Dhamma, money laundering is usually part of an undertaking of thieving, e.g. taking of what is not given. As how far is one direct, indirect knowingly, indirect unknowingly... adapting an unskillful action (causes eighter birth in an animal womb, as hungy ghost, leads to hell or, if getting human existence, poorness), that is a case by case question.
Taking what is not given is unskilfull, incl. the 1001 ways, in also lying, cheating, betray...
As for "combating", it's worthy to read:
Wisdom over Justice and Justice vs. Skillfulness to get the Blessed Ones understanding and objectives best possible understood.
The Buddha teaches cause and effects and should be not understood as a judge for certain wordly objectives. Best, and if even that much possible, is to combating bad things within one self first.
If taking for example the Buddhas teaching to justify of what is not the Dhammas purpose: Such would be like money laundering. (by making Dhamma as impure so that it can be used outside of the religion, e.g. bond)
How ever, laundering ones view and action and to encourage to do it likewise is always the best engaging in laundering:
No way to clean another ones mind.

Cultivating skillful ways of thought
"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

— AN 10.176
Followed by "Skillful Verbal Action" and "Skillful Bodily Action", eventually keeping then the Uposatha of the Ariyas.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

These suttas may be vaguely related to the modern concept of money laundering:
From Vanijja Sutta, we find the following quotation. Money laundering is taking ill gotten gains (possibly from wrong types of businesses) and trying to make them legitimate.

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
  engage in."

From Maha-cattarisaka Sutta:

"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the
  forerunner? One discerns wrong livelihood as wrong livelihood, and
  right livelihood as right livelihood. This is one's right view. And
  what is wrong livelihood? Scheming, persuading, hinting, belittling, &
  pursuing gain with gain. This is wrong livelihood.

From the Sigalovada Sutta, we find a quotation below that covers taking what is not given and lying, which could be related to money laundering.

"What four impure actions are abandoned? The harming of living beings
  is an impure action, taking what is not given is an impure action,
  sexual misconduct is an impure action, and false speech is an impure
  action. These four are abandoned."

From the Samannaphala Sutta:

"And how is a monk consummate in virtue? ... Abandoning the taking of
  what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He takes
  only what is given, accepts only what is given, lives not by stealth
  but by means of a self that has become pure. This, too, is part of his
  virtue.

From the Mula Sutta, on the unskillfulness of greed:

"Greed itself is unskillful. Whatever a greedy person fabricates by
  means of body, speech, or intellect, that too is unskillful. Whatever
  suffering a greedy person — his mind overcome with greed, his mind
  consumed — wrongly inflicts on another person through beating or
  imprisonment or confiscation or placing blame or banishment, [with the
  thought,] 'I have power. I want power,' that too is unskillful. Thus
  it is that many evil, unskillful qualities/events — born of greed,
  caused by greed, originated through greed, conditioned by greed — come
  into play.

Don't waste your time. Money laundering is all about greed and yet you're feeding the greed. When there's not much time left, you'll feel regretful about the time wasted.

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


text:
What canon do you follow to modify the Buddha's views as knowledge advances?
Let's assume modern scientific discoveries contradict or alter the Buddha's explanations. How are we supposed to approach this new information as it relates to the Buddha's teachings?

Let's continue this discussion in the chat.

This question does not list what teachings of the Buddha that can be contradicted. The question is too open.

We can't keep asking the same kind of questions for ever, can we? What's wrong with accepting all questions and allow the user to filter as the user desires?

@Lowbrow If you read the chat you may decide that the question which the OP asked isn't the question which even the OP wanted answered. It may be a pointless nuisance if someone asks a question, you try to answer it, and they reply that your answer didn't address their question or solve their problem -- I prefer if possible to figure out what the question or OP is asking before trying to answer it, in order to be able to answer it once.

It would depend on the information, but when in doubt, I go back to the basics of the Four Noble Truths, and the Buddha's last words of "Be a light unto yourself." and would see where the new information fit in with those. Without an idea of how a Teaching might be disproved, it is difficult to speculate.
If ultimately, it was somehow proven, and I feel this is unlikely, the Teaching is incorrect, then another path would need to be considered.

exactly. this makes very much sense. you go back to the top of the tree (or down to the base as the case may be) and work your way back up/down until you find the errant branch or diversion. then investigate the reasons for the differences. this is what I do every step of the way.

The Buddha's teachings lead to the cessation of suffering or peace therefore science cannot disprove what makes the mind peaceful & satisfied. If it feels peaceful & satisfactory, its peaceful. In other words, the comment by Kauva Aatma is wrong.

As an aside, people are writing that "Be an island unto yourself" is maybe a better translation.

it's the action of meditating, not the content of the teaching meditated upon. I guess my objection just keeps getting lost in translation here.

Dhammika all over the world, those who have found certain faith, reflect daily by recitation the sublimness of the holly Dhamma.
[Yo so svākkhāto] bhagavatā dhammo,
The Dhamma well-expounded by the Blessed One,
Sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko,
to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come & see,
Opanayiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi:
leading inward, to be seen by the wise for themselves:
Tam-ahaṃ dhammaṃ abhipūjayāmi,
Tam-ahaṃ dhammaṃ sirasā namāmi.
I worship most highly that Dhamma,
To that Dhamma I bow my head down.

akāliko timeless, independent of certain times, views...

That derives from the Canon, the refuge in the Dhamma and the reflective meditation on Dhamma.

"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the Dhamma, thus: 'The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.' As he is recollecting the Dhamma, his mind is calmed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned, just as when the body is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is the body cleansed through the proper technique? Through the use of scouring balls & bath powder & the appropriate human effort. This is how the body is cleansed through the proper technique. In the same way, the defiled mind is cleansed through the proper technique. And how is the defiled mind cleansed through the proper technique? There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the Dhamma... As he is recollecting the Dhamma, his mind is cleansed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned. He is thus called a disciple of the noble ones undertaking the Dhamma-Uposatha. He lives with Dhamma. It is owing to Dhamma that his mind is calmed, that joy arises, and that whatever defilements there are in his mind are abandoned. This is how the mind is cleansed through the proper technique.Muluposatha Sutta: The Roots of the Uposatha

That's the cleaning of the Noble Ones. If wihing to see it, know it, arive at Dhamma, the cleaning from defilements is required to see the truth in the jungle of cheatings. For it's impossible to judge the Dhamma with the means of wordily views and with defilements, having a stand like "me, "we", "they"...
How best approach "new daily opinions ideas" changing every day? Seeing that meaningless, not lasting even one day, let go of them, knowing that normal humans are not able to find the right way outside of the timesless eightfold path.
There are many who, yet not able to conduct virtuose, attached to countless things, no liberation at all gained, think to be smarter then the Awakened One. Let them... orjoin if finding worthy refuge and real benefit from it. Aging, sickness death and those few going beyond will last nevertheless.
Kauva Ātman: if searching for Brahmanic or Mohayaniv approches, this modified ideas you could also find here for example: [English] Sarvastivada School of Realism, by Venerable Vira Avalokita. Imortand again: this are secular approches, defusing the Dhamma of the Buddha and certain counterfies of the well expounded sublime Dhamma.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Sadhu, Samana Johann, Sadhu! Sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko,
to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come & see,
Opanayiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi:
leading inward, to be seen by the wise for themselves:
Tam-ahaṃ dhammaṃ abhipūjayāmi,
Tam-ahaṃ dhammaṃ sirasā namāmi.
I worship most highly that Dhamma,
To that Dhamma I bow my head down.

I read this as the process of meditation cleanses ... and it also mentions that the knowledge is revered. I would expect anyone touting their own knowledge to call it 'timeless' but they must be wary of not being too attached to the specifics for fear of that creating bad kamma even when a better solution is reached.

@KauvaAatma I tried to describe akaliko (timeless)
in this answer -- I think it's worth considering that the dhamma is or should be (is meant to be) timeless, that timelessness is important, and not assume that it is or can be obsoleted by science and news and the internet and whatnot.

The word "timeless" or "akaliko" means "without delay" or "immediately effective". In other words, as soon as Right View is established, a taste of peace & liberation will immediately occur.

Vipaka does not always accure immedately. Not only a wrong notion of akaliko but also the honey like tasting of foolishness acts of fools. Beware! One easy thinks ones bad kamma has no effect (anymore), overesteemating on self. So such ways of proves are scientific but not the way to see fr real.

I read that passage to say that the practice is more important than the content. That was my objection. I dont wish this to get into a discussion of meditation philosophy because that is outside the scope of my question.

I tried to understand (classical) Buddhist doctrine even though I have modern preconceptions (from a "modern scientific" education).
Generally IMO "modern science" and "Buddhism" are different topics: e.g. modern science provides models for the phenomena you observe through a microscope or telescope, which IMO is not at all what Buddhism is trying to teach.
IMO the fact that Buddhist doctrine is translated using modern words (including e.g. "elements"), which are also associated with modern doctrines (e.g. "the periodic table"), is a potential source of confusion (in the student who uses these words), but shouldn't be understood as proof that the topics (Buddhism and science) are the same topic (e.g. that they're both attempting to solve the same problem or describe the same phenomenal observations).
Thus IMO a lot of problems are avoided by not accepting the premise which you granted (i.e. that we should "assume modern scientific discoveries contradict or alter the Buddha's explanations").
For example, let's imagine that you and I were having an argument: where you were saying one thing and I was saying another. I think I should assume that you're trying to say something, that "means something" (or "is true") to you. The question is, what's Buddhism trying to say, what's it getting at, and why, what does it see that I don't, where's it coming from, what can I learn from it?
Some other problems can be avoided by understanding some of the doctrine as metaphorical: expressed using the language (including the "scientific" models) of the time.
Some people say that some small parts of it (e.g. a sutta which includes a cosmological model, and a description of the evolution of the human species) is a parody of contemporary models. That's a theory. Personally if something doesn't make sense to me then I'm inclined to leave it and look for something which does make sense (or makes more sense). Within that sutta, for example, as in many other Buddhist stories, I'd ask "what's the moral of the story, what lesson is it trying to teach?"
I am (personal history) accustomed to literature that uses or consists of parables, which uses talking animals as characters for example to teach the reader something about life. I don't want to say that Buddhism is a fable, or shouldn't be taken literally, because I think it's often carefully expressed and well-expounded (and purposeful). But there may be something of a mix in the canon, see for example ...

What is the difference between relative and absolute truth in Buddhist philosophy?
What are 'suttas of indirect meaning' in the Pali canon?

... which doesn't even get into the topic of "metaphor" etc., but in summary perhaps you shouldn't be too rigid when you read it (also when you begin to understand how difficult it may be to translate the written canon accurately).
I personally know little (probably less than you do) about modern psychology (so I can't comment on whatever disparities you may see between Buddhism and that science), although the little I've read of Freud and successors seems to me kind of puerile (especially compared with Buddhism). I've had some (limited) personal experience with clinical psychiatry and I don't think I'm overly impressed by that as a "science" either (it's not as if it has made Buddhism obsolete).
I suppose this has been an egocentric and wordy answer on the whole, but maybe some bit of it could help you to answer your own question.

I understand what you're saying here and with most of it I agree. I also try to interpret the lessons from a philosophical perspective rather than strict adherence to the words spoken. Mostly because so many things are lost in translation that you can't rely on the meaning of a single word in either canon or translation. But some things are, in fact, direct statements from which a philosophical perspective is hard to justify. If a sutta says hell is a real place located beneath the earth's crust then I know from geology that such a statement is false. Same with describing emotions biologically

thus I try to find the basis behind each side's formulation and evaluate it from there. If Buddhism says Mara wipes out memories and science says that is actually done by the hypothalamus then I have to figure out if I use a metaphoric stretch to agree with Buddhism's view or substitute actual knowledge in place of this 3,000 year old explanation. I find many examples such as this in Buddhism and I see a bunch of people trying to fit their square peg answer in the hole now made round by scientific knowledge. This is why I seek a proper standard and the answer to this question.

So now you're citing (unreferenced) examples? I don't know what you're talking about (unless I read those references too, and maybe also view "a bunch of people trying to ft their square peg answer" in the same way that you do, which may never happen) but in general (as mentioned at the top of my answer) I'd assume that Buddhism is probably trying to teach something, but that it isn't trying to teach geology or neurology.

I dont want to focus on some specific example. thats why I tried to refrain from providing them.

The Buddha taught his Dhamma is visible here-&-now therefore science cannot contradict it.
The Thai monk Ajahn Buddhadasa explained about the Pali word "jati" in Dependent Origination:

The word "birth" ("jati") refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I," "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed.
  The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical
  birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching.
Another Kind of Birth

In other words, the Buddha did not teach about "reincarnation" or "physical rebirth". However, if modern science discovers reincarnation is true, it will then contradict the teachings of the Buddha.

saying that "birth is not actual physical birth" denies everything about science? I find that to be quite a stretch.

I will amend my answer for you.

so you are answering the question by saying science has not discovered anything to contradict explanations offered by the Buddha 2,500 years ago?

I am saying you do not understand the core essence of Buddhism.

your quote did not say that.

If you become enlightened you don't even have to follow the Buddha's view, let alone modify them. But do not modify anything if you're not yet enlightened. Follow closely instead.


text:
Why did Buddha passed away in fourth Jhana?
I just wonder why Buddha attain Parinibbana in fourth Jhana.
 Why not first or say second Jhana?
Maha-parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding

I wonder how anyone can claim to know in what state he was at the time of passing. Seems like a fantasy add-on.

Buddha emerged from the 4th jhana and passed away with equanimity; to demonstrate he passed away with an ordinary mind viewing ordinary reality (rather than passing away in an altered state of consciousness). This shows faithful disciples they do not need jhana or any non-ordinary mind to pass away at peace. All that is needed is equanimity & wisdom.

Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of
  nothingness... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the
  dimension of the infinitude of space... the fourth jhana... the
  third... the second... the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana
  he entered the second... the third... the fourth jhana. Emerging from
  the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound. DN 16

However, the Buddha practised the jhanas before his passing to show he had not lost any mental mastery; per MN 12:

I am now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, and come to the last stage: my years have turned eighty. Now suppose that I had
  four disciples with a hundred years' lifespan, perfect in mindfulness,
  retentiveness, memory and lucidity of wisdom. Just as a skilled
  archer, trained, practiced and tested, could easily shoot a light
  arrow across the shadow of a palm tree, suppose that they were even to
  that extent perfect in mindfulness, retentiveness, memory and lucidity
  of wisdom. Suppose that they continuously asked me about the four
  foundations of mindfulness and that I answered them when asked and
  that they remembered each answer of mine and never asked a subsidiary
  question or paused except to eat, drink, consume food, taste, urinate,
  defecate and rest in order to remove sleepiness and tiredness. Still
  the Tathagata's exposition of the Dhamma, his explanations of factors
  of the Dhamma, and his replies to questions would not yet come to an
  end, but meanwhile those four disciples of mine with their hundred
  years' lifespan would have died at the end of those hundred years.
  Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there
  will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom. MN 12

How do we know what the Buddha was experiencing before parinibbana?  Did they use some kind of power to read the Buddha's mind?

Yes. Ven. Anuruddha, who reported this in the sutta, had psychic powers, the same as the Buddha, therefore could know the mind of the Buddha. For example, Buddha's attendant Ananda thought Buddha passed away prematurely but Ven. Anuruddha said Buddha had not passed away but was in the cessation of perception & feeling. Ananda did not have psychic power but Ven. Anuruddha did. Regards Read here: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.5-6.than.html#chap5

+1.  The closest we can get to know what was going is from Ven. Anuruddha’s description. But the part about the Buddha’s motivations (to demonstrate certain things to his disciples) is your guess, right? Or is his motivation aao mentioned somewhere in the canon?

Buddha (and other masters) tend to depart from this life--or into the other boundless jhanas from the 4th jhana.
This is because the 1st three jhanas are "tainted" with certain attachments to bliss, joy, and pleasure.

Buddha has no attachment to neurological bliss in jhana. Pleasurable feelings are not a "taint" (asava). Refer to link: https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.124  Regards

Not a "taint" in the sense that you know. Pleasure is an impurity relative to higher jhanas.

And where did I say that Buddha has attachment to the bliss?


text:
Would the Buddha Shelter us from being offended?
Would the Buddha shelter one from being offended by people? If so, how would he shelter one? If not, then why not?

What do you mean by shelter someone from being offended?, I don't quite understand the precise meaning of these words.

Being offended is the very opposite of Buddhist practice. In the Assalāyana Sutta, the story is told about the seer Asita Devala, who was of dark skin, where the more the seer Asita Devala was insulted & reviled by others, the more radiant & beautiful his complexion became.
Being offended requires attachment of ego. No ego or no attachment = no being offended. The goal of Buddhism is to end "I making", "my making" & egoism.
Therefore, Buddhism does not offer us shelter from being offended but, instead, offers shelter to those who try to offend us.
For example, in the Angulimala Sutta, the Buddha exhorted a monk who was attacked by insults & rocks to: "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it!".

Then, Assalāyana, the seven brahman seers put a curse on the seer Asita Devala, saying: ‘Become a vile cinder.’ But, Assalāyana, the
  more the seven brahman seers cursed the seer Asita Devala, the more
  lovely became the seer Asita Devala, the more good to look upon and
  the more charming. Then, Assalāyana, it occurred to the seven brahman
  seers: ‘Vain is austerity for us, fruitless the Brahma-faring.
  Formerly when we put a curse on anyone, saying: Become a vile cinder,
  he became as a cinder; but the more we put a curse on this one the
  more lovely he becomes, the more good to look upon, the more
  charming.’

Also, MN 2:

And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There
  is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He
  tolerates cold, heat, hunger & thirst; the touch of flies,
  mosquitoes, wind, sun & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words &
  bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp,
  piercing, disagreeable, displeasing & menacing to life. The
  fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to
  tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them.
  These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating.

And MN 21:

Neither will our minds become perverted nor will we utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will we dwell, with a mind of
  friendliness, void of hatred; and we will dwell having suffused that
  person with a mind of friendliness; and, beginning with him, we will
  dwell having suffused the whole world with a mind of friendliness that
  is far-reaching, widespread, immeasurable, without enmity, without
  malevolence.’
This is how you must train yourselves, monks.
Monks, as low-down thieves might carve one limb from limb with a double-handled saw, yet even then whoever sets his mind at enmity, he,
  for this reason, is not a doer of my teaching. Herein, monks, you
  should train yourselves thus:
‘Neither will our minds become perverted nor will we utter an evil speech, but kindly and compassionate will we dwell, with a mind of
  friendliness, void of hatred; and we will dwell having suffused that
  person with a mind of friendliness; and, beginning with him, we will
  dwell having suffused the whole world with a mind of friendliness that
  is far-reaching, widespread, immeasurable, without enmity, without
  malevolence.’
This is how you must train yourselves, monks.
If you, monks, were to attend repeatedly to this exhortation on the Parable of the Saw, would you, monks, see any way of speech, subtle or
  gross, that you could not endure?”
“No, Lord.”
“Wherefore, monks, consider repeatedly this exhortation on the Parable of the Saw; for a long time it will be for your welfare and
  happiness.”
Thus spoke the Lord. Delighted, these monks rejoiced in what the Lord had said.

Do you mean the historical Buddha? Maybe not, maybe he wouldn't: "not very active at participating in conflicts" is my impression of him -- the Akkosa Sutta: Insult maybe explains why.
I think instead he instructs people to "take refuge" and "be islands" for themselves.
He also taught "right speech" and the benefits of being harmless (which helps to shelter everyone).
Maybe too (I don't know) the Vinaya helps to regulate the sangha to make it an inoffensive society.

that's right. In another sutta he directly said if he sees bhikhus quarreling he tends to avoid them.

Nice! see also SN 47.19  on protecting oneself and others.

Yes the historical Buddha... but I wouldn't mind hearing about other Buddhas too.

Have you ever noticed the common phrase pairing:

"No offence meant." ... "None taken."

Also that you take offence with/at something?
Offence is only ever taken, never given.
In other words, it is your choice to be offended by something or someone.
Most offence is "taken" when someone talks about something about yourself that you aren't comfortable with or disparages a view our belief that you hold and aren't necessarily OK with and you feel the need to violently defend it.
The offence comes from your own insecurities, not the malice of the other person. That's not to say they may not have intended malice, but the offence you take comes from you not them.
If you truly accept who and what you are it is impossible for anyone to offend you.
It is often said it is impossible to offend a Buddhist. And it's true. Not through any great stoicism, but because they know exactly who and what they are. And they choose not to take offence.
People say I'm fat, and I am. I know that, and I accept that. I have tried losing weight, but it hasn't worked. Many times. But that's fine. I am what I am, and no one can offend or upset me by calling me fat. They're just stating the obvious.
The best way, if someone intends malice, of completely removing that malice is to turn it into a joke and completely reverse it. If you accept yourself for who you are you can laugh at yourself with impunity. And in laughing at yourself any malice intended is instantly gone.
So much suffering in this world is caused by people's insecurities. Mostly their religious insecurities. Wars are fought over inconsequentialities. And all because religious views are so tenuous and fragile and easy to offend.
That's why there has never been a holy war in the name of Buddhism. We are comfortable with what we are. You can't threaten our beliefs because they aren't based on faith in some beard in the sky.
And that's what sets Buddhism apart from every other religion in the world. Buddha basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here):

Don't believe what I tell you. Try it out for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

You don't have to defend Buddhism. There is no deity to offend. Sure, pay your respects to Buddha as a great teacher, but you should do the same for everyone anyway.
But I digress.
So to sum it up: No, Buddha doesn't shelter you from offence. Offence doesn't exist, only your perception of it. If you choose that something will be offensive it will be offensive. Only you have the control over that, never the person "being" offensive.
Buddha doesn't shelter you. He handed us the tools and an instruction manual. It is up to us to use them to the best of our abilities. "Taking refuge" in the Buddha doesn't mean hiding under his arm. It means trying what he taught and discovering reality for the first time.

Being offended requires attachment to ones' ego. No ego or no attachment = no being offended.

No, not for the case of taking side, not in a wordily sense. He would nevertheless speak of what is good, explain cause and effect but never making a favor, never "playing" world empire king or judge. Mara often tried to bring him to become a leader, a judge in wordly views.
Knowing kamma, knowing that beings are heir of their deeds, wise don't do such, letting beings chose their deeds and defent or shelter, devote only to the Dhamma.
For more to understand, read:

Wisdom over Justice
Justice vs. Skillfulness

Yes, in regard of real help, if posdible, not easy to understand it as such.
Worthy to note: If still aspecting your self to be helped, itjs you duty to help. Only if one does no more aspect to be helped, one is rightous free of helping others. And of course, aside helping onself first to get ride of desire, aversion and delution, one who helps others at the same time is more sublime. Yet such is not a inherent duty of the path but of course a duty to be able to reach the path. That is why having helped those who one owes service is one of the highest blessings.

Support for one's parents,
  assistance to one's wife and children,
  consistency in one's work:
      This is the highest protection.
Giving, living in rectitude,
  assistance to one's relatives,
  deeds that are blameless:
      This is the highest protection.

And about the highest help, less are willing to take on but just act for own objectives:

§98 This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma. There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things & sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the Dhamma. There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help with the Dhamma."
The gift he describes
  as foremost & unsurpassed,
  the sharing the Blessed One has extolled:
  who — confident in the supreme field of merit,
      wise, discerning —
  wouldn't give it at appropriate times?
  Both for those who proclaim it
  and those who listen,
  confident in the message of the One Well-gone:
  it purifies their foremost benefit —
      those heeding the message
      of the One Well-gone.

And who does not simply help his defiöements, to identify him/herself to gain, sacrify pointless and does not keep Silas, doing his obligations? Do you?
Watch out the worthy guṇa for your sacrifies!
Render help and assistance, doing ones duties, is a factor of the merits of virtue and is called Veyyāvacca
One who is not devoted to anything suffers, the Awakened saw, and that is why he devoted all lasting fuel in service for the truth, the Dhamma, yet free of any duty at all.
See also The Arrows of Thinking
Papañca & the path to end conflict

I will tell
  of how
  I experienced
  samvega.
  Seeing people floundering
  like fish in small puddles,
  competing with one another–
as I saw this,
      fear came into me.
The world was entirely
  without substance.
  All the directions
  were knocked out of line.
  Wanting a haven for myself,
  I saw nothing
  that wasn’t laid claim to.
  Seeing nothing in the end
  but competition,
  I felt discontent.
Rather than trying to solve the problem by looking for a larger puddle for himself or his fellow fish, he looked inside to see why people would want to be fish in the first place. What he found was an arrow embedded in his own heart:
And then I saw
      an arrow here,
  so very hard to see,
  embedded in the heart.
  Overcome by this arrow
  you run in all directions.
  But simply
      on pulling it out
      you don’t run,
      you don’t sink.
This arrow has many names in the Pali Canon–the oldest extant record of the Buddha’s teachings–and one of them is papañca. Papañca is a type of thinking that causes conflict within those who think it, and leads them into conflict with people outside.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Am I holding the right views?
Apart from right view of stress , origination of stress, cessation of stress and path to cessation of stress, I hold the view that humanity,which is under stress, must be saved.
My question is :Am I holding the right view that humanity must be saved from stress?

Mankind should be introduced to the Dhamma and taught the Dhamma. But it is up to the individual to choose whether he or she wants to become free of suffering, or not. Not everyone wants to be liberated from suffering.
From MN75:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.

From MN26:

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this
  generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys
  attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by
  attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent
  co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the
  resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
  And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me,
  that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'

Dheeraj Verma
I hold the view that humanity,which is under stress, must be saved.
If this view, and it's not easy different, causes you stress, how could it be right view? What should that be humanity? Such is really strong attachment, strong wrong view, especially because it conains "must". Who and why says?
And what about ants? What if you are part of them, identify with them? So what if the two trouble each other? Whom to help?
No no, that's all far from right view and so, one still is able to make strong wrong things, even kill ones mother or an Arahat is possible, not to speak about precepts: to help and save....
Let's rebeat them:

Pañcavaggiyakathā - The Discussion of the Group of Five
“Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
(Mv.I.6.20) “And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
(Mv.I.6.21) “And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.
(Mv.I.6.22) “And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, … right concentration.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Kind of curious and please excuse my ignorance, but did the Buddha really use the word “stress”? Who translated the word?

"Meaning" of words depent on common use. There is no problem in translating dukkha with stress, e.g. "not at ease", Mr. Smith. If prevering another word, that at least would just fit to own preferences. So one is free and wise to translate any word best to his understanding mentally. What it means the Buddha described. Now coming to a phenomena that is stressful, it importand to know that. Does giving phenomenas inherent names cause stress? Is remebering, perception stressful (one of the five aggregates)? Is what is stressful worthy to grasp, to take it as real? Nyom @CSmith ?

@CSmith Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). (reference). To avoid (unsatisfactory) translations, some people just use the word dukkha instead.

@SamanaJohann "Who and why says?" - Dheeraj says so because Dheeraj wishes to hold the right views. Right views will lead Dheeraj to better understanding of morality.

Then focus just on helping your self, those wishing to help humanity sooner or later become Hitlers or other confused "Bodhisattvas". The only way to be secure is nibbana. Suffering in the world is unavidable. Are you free of desires for your self? Do you know your self how to escape from suffering? @DheerajVerma ? Just right view. Yes, one holding right view is one who can nothing but act according to highest moral. How does one help?

@SamanaJohann I am trying my best to slowly remove the desires. It is difficult but I am trying. I understand little bit of Dhamma. I guess that there is an escape route from the suffering. I am caught up in the vicious cycle of birth and rebirth because I am misidentifying myself with that which is impermanent,cause of suffering and changeable. I think the right view should be about Dhamma first then the 4 Nobel Truths.The doctrine of no self makes us realize who we are. It immediately liberates us.This view is the right view.

Mudita. Step by step an as long as taking really care of oneself there is nothing to fear that one does not help really all others best. That's the way you have joy in reflecting about your deeds and virtues Nyom @DheerajVerma .

@SamanaJohann I was simply asking for the author of the translation. If it was you, so be it. No need to pick finer points here and that was not my intention. Was looking for some authenticated teaching.

THERE ARE 2 KINDS OF RIGHT VIEW.

The 1st is "conceptual" right view and it's about:

-understanding the teaching, the Dhamma
-knowing what is right practice
-knowing a method that will enable one to experience the 2nd right view.

The 2nd is "ultimate" right view and it's about:

-Knowing one's own experience as it arises and as it is without modifying it with our own assumptions, concepts and judgments.
-Knowing the difference between the 1st right view and  the 2nd right view, the scaffolding and the finished product, the finger pointing at the moon and the moon.
(The 1st kind of right view is like like scaffolding for
  the 2nd kind of right view that is like the building.)

When we clearly understand the 2nd right view we see how futile it is to hold any view or opinion.
Ghandi said, "Be the change you would like to see in the world".
We can't necessarily hold ourselves apart from anyone else that might be causing suffering in the world,  so we might as well search for our own soul over searching for  somebody else's soul.
Practicing the Buddha's Teaching is an effective way to save humanity in my opinion.
I hope this helps :)

The world is suffering because of the wrong view. If we take the right view then automatically everything falls into its place. The right view is the view of Dhamma. But 2nd right view is not any 'view' or 'philosophy' or and dhamma. The 2nd right view attempts to portray self as a witness with no participation. But you are not the Witness because the witness becomes the participant. 2nd right view is wrong view in my opinion.

2nd view doesn't attempt to do anything  except seeing directly, it's a way of seeing directly and if we identify as a self during it and notice it directly that's just seeing anatta, that we as a self is not in control of anything. Are you saying you don't practice to see in the 2nd viiew.  What other way do you think that we can know our mind and body as it  is?

Where  did you get that idea? There is no witness. There is no Atman to find with seeing directly the experience of the mind and body and when we are seeing like this it might seem like there is a witness  at first but just intellectually, we know that that is wrong because how can the witness be witnessed? This practice is how we break delusions like that witness down. We can see an opinion in this way of seeing but it's just a formation  like everything else...it is a reaction...

This is how we see mind and body and break all formations down to see at a more and more subtle levels until Nibbana but it's not as though  old habits and defilements don't make it hard.

I don't think you'll find that view expressed in the Pali canon (and so, to that extent, it's not "right view").
The Buddha was persuaded to teach Dhamma [only] for the sake of those (few) who had "little dust in their eyes".
I'm not sure that it's possible to "save humanity" -- so, saying that they must be saved might be an example of not seeings things rightly, as they are, and might be an unsatisfiable desire or craving or attachment. It could also be a conceit (e.g. "I am better than other people, I must save them").
On the other hand, as far as I understand it, some (other) forms of Buddhism (see e.g. this answer and this answer) teach that humanity has already been saved (by the Buddha).
Furthermore the sila (virtue) part of the doctrine (e.g. the precepts) help to save humanity from, at least, unnecessary external harm.
If there is a Buddhist doctrine about saving humanity, you might find it not in the Pali canon but in the Mahayana. I'm not sure but maybe the "eightfold path" (which you tagged this question with) is associated with the "first turning of the wheel".

Humanity can be saved. Buddha taught Dhamma to the people to save them from suffering. Saving people is same as saving humanity. Off course entire humanity can not be saved at the same time. Slowly we will be able to save the humanity if we believe in Sangha I guess. My desire is not misplaced or impractical. It is the right desire. Question is : is it the right desire? If it is the right desire originating out of right view then it will lead to Nibbana.

There are many types of suffering and stress, anxiety, fear etc are mental sufferings. Thus wanting to be free from suffering is natural and knowing the path is the right view.

I not only want the cessation of my own suffering but also the cessation of suffering of the masses.

We are never sure of appearances. It is possible that there are no suffering of the masses except ourselves.

It is not possible that there are no suffering of the masses except ourselves because it will mean that those selfs which have conquered suffering are the true ones and rest are false. Buddha says sabbe dhamma anatta which means all beings are without that notion of self which is beyond suffering. We are all suffering.

@tutu There is no ourselves to be found. The self appears the same as others appear,  "empty of self".

Avalokiteshvara did vow that if his practice cannot enlighten all sentient beings and free them from sufferings, he will not enter Buddhahood.. However, Avalokiteshvara attained Buddhood a long time ago.


text:
Did the Buddha ever argue in saying "there are no people"?
It's often used, this argument, for a good or a bad: "there are no people" equal to "there is no self": My person doubt either out nor for wisdom.
Did the Buddha ever use such abstract arugents?
What are possible bad impacts if arguing in such a way?
How would people react if you tell them that they are just an illusion? Whould they be free of fear from you who thinks of others in such a way?
Didn't the Buddha teaches cause and effect? It seems that an "is" argument is far away from Dhamma: How would people aruge valid to maintain such ideas?
Can those who tell such things bear it to get beaten while the harming person says "Nobody get's beaten"?
Would my person fails if saying that's the "Dhamma" of the foolish Jhains?

There are the contemplatives called the Niganthas (Jains). They get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Lay down the rod with regard to beings who live more than 100 leagues to the east... more than 100 leagues to the west... more than 100 leagues to the north... more than 100 leagues to the south.' Thus they get the disciple to undertake kindness & sympathy to some beings, but not to others.
"On the Uposatha day (medi sessions, discussions....), they get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Having stripped off all your clothing, say this: "I am nothing by anything or of anything. Thus there is nothing by anything or of anything that is mine."' Yet in spite of that, his parents know of him that 'This is our child.' And he knows of them that 'These are my parents.' His wives & children know of him that 'This is our husband & father.' And he knows of them that 'These are my wives & children.' His workers & slaves know of him that 'This is our master.' And he knows of them that 'These are my workers & slaves.' Thus at a time when he should be persuaded to undertake truthfulness, he is persuaded to undertake falsehood. At the end of the night, he resumes the consumption of his belongings, even though they aren't given back to him. This counts as stealing, I tell you. Such is the Uposatha of the Jains, Visakha. When this Uposatha of the Jains is undertaken, it is not of great fruit or great benefit, not of great glory or great radiance.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

I don't like when a question is asked with no interest in receiving an answer, then the author does not upvote answers and starts arguing in comments under almost every answer. Bad pattern, in my opinion. The purpose of questions here is to receive answers, not to teach with questions. Should we discuss this on meta?

My person is not here for gain, maybe some are, but that's their suffering with it. A gathering that has release as object is a gathering worthy to take part. If up for reputations, intellectual gain, ... feel free, it's your demerit., the same demerit as well if dealing gifts like drugs. There are planty out there who you can bind with your ways to get not lacking on reasons to help and continue the "hero" trip, Mr. Andrei. Fear that nobody to help any more? And yes, discuss it and take the Buddha and SE as guidline. Such would be good to get more ride of defilements if having cern authority.

Yes. If you consider a person to be a living being, then, in the Diamond Sutra.

Just as the Buddha declares that form is not form, so he also declares
  that all living beings are, in fact, not living beings.

People (and specific individuals) do in fact exist, but just not the way we think they do. This is the uniquely buddhist concept that all phenomena are empty, or devoid of self existence.

The statement that "there are no people" sounded to me too similar to one of the definitions of "wrong view":

There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.

Therefore I wouldn't have said this phrase to you: I guessed you could find it disagreeable.
One possible (perhaps not certain) bad impact is that it may lead to inhumane actions ("humane" means "having or showing compassion or benevolence"), even a disregard for "human rights".
"Nobody gets beaten" is the subject of one of the famous Zen (teaching) stories:

Nothing Exists
Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no relaization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

I can't tell you whether it's Jain.

I suppose your question must be based on this comment:

When I said to one of my teachers that I wanted to help other people, her response was, "There are no other people." So I would say that asking: is this action skillful for me? has the same misunderstanding.

First, I should mention that the author of that comment says, "I am not a Buddhist"; and quite probably his teacher, too, is not.

Second, I note that the quote is, "There are no 'other' people" -- that's a not unusual teaching among "mystics" -- something like that is found in Christianity, for example ("love thy neighbour as thyself" and "what you do unto others you do unto me"). I think that similar teaching is even hinted in sila doctrines of some of the Pali canon, for example:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

Also the Dalai Lama said something like (in an interview: sorry I can't quote or reference it properly), that he likes to see himself as being "like other people" and "not special" (I think that's in order to avoid dukkha associated with selfish views).

Anyway if the phrase is a little bit Buddhist, maybe it's more like a Mahayana answer.
Note that the converse of the statement (i.e. "there are other people") may be a bit problematic too -- perhaps that view implies some self-view or conceit.

In summary I don't recall that the Buddha did use such abstract arguments.
I also find it difficult to think of any argument he used that is as short as that one -- there are only a few short formula I can think of at the moment, "Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." (or some verses from the Dhammapada).

Well balanced and good prepared, Nyom Chris. Sadhu!


text:
Expaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist
How can you explain karma in the genocide of babies and "innocents" (For example: The Holocaust) in Buddhist terms to a non-Buddhist, without seeming cold and uncaring? Yesterday, I tried--by saying, "I cannot say unequivocally, why the millions had to suffer or whether karma came into play or not, but perhaps it is better to focus attention on the present and try to generate good karma here and now." I know Buddha said certain topics will only foster disputation and I felt like this is one of those that can only be speculation so I steered the conversation in another direction. What can you say in a better (or kinder) way to explain it to a non-Buddhist person who asks how the holocaust suffering can be justified and who expresses interest in knowing the Buddhist view about it?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about history rather than about Buddhism.

If you want to post about the historical causes of the Holocaust, please do that elsewhere i.e. not on this site -- see e.g. here and here

This topic was seeking views on how to explain karma to non Buddhist practioners in regards to atrocities of seemingly innocent people.  It could have been countless situations, I went with the question that caused the subject to surface. It has little to do with history and more of karma, dependent origination and dukkha. As noted by some of the interesting comments, I find nothing "off topic "

Kamma is not something divorced from visible historical causes. The Buddha said his dhamma is "visible here & now". Your ideas are not Buddhist and promote superstition and are completely unrelated to "dependent origination".

IMO an answer like this video suggested it's possible to answer from a Buddhist perspective (e.g. an explanation of  kamma), rather than trying for a historical/political answer (e.g. an explanation of what if anything people did to cause the holocaust).

Pride. When someone thinks he is better than others, looks down on others, the attitude of superiority creates a certain type of latent tension... That sometimes gets resolved in brutal ways.
In this case it was the prides of multiple peoples, German, Jews, of Hitler himself, of the old Arya people. The pride of superiority that accumulated for thousands of years have burst.
I'm not blaming it on any single people, I'm not saying Jews were retributed for their pride, or Germans were, nothing like that. I'm saying pride sways, carries,  creates circumstances, then circumstances affect people. The impersonal mechanism of karma at play.

@AndreiVolkov Probably by far the most satisfying answer to me, pride gives rise to cirumstances which affect other people, so what can the people who are at the receiving end of these circumstances  do, in order to prevent the circumstances arising from other peoples' pride?

That is bonafide racism.

@anon Andriy's answer may be based on more than only the Pali text, but I interpret this  answer as referring to what in Pali is called māna translated "conceit" -- see for example Wikipedia, and this topic. Māna is a "fetter" (a problem) that affects everyone who's not fully-enlightened, and which is a cause of many if not all disputes. Race is one of many things that somebody could be conceited about, but this answer isn't racist -- I read it as 'universal' (and based on Buddhist doctrine).

@anon I think that an example of a "racist" statement might be of the form, "Because so-and-so is of such-and-such a race, therefore they [some stereotype or generalisation about that race]". Whereas instead I think that this answer is a summary of Buddhist doctrine about a "fetter" that's present in unenlightened minds and which occasions disputes. There's nothing in the doctrine that attributes this fetter to only one race or another.

ahh OK I get it @ChrisW strange.

it is a slightly insensitive way of framing it, and i wasn't reading it as a "non-enlightenment caused it" sort of thing. Luther [On the Jews and their lies]. Christianity-Revealed.com (published 2011). If God is to become gracious also to them, the Jews, they must first of all banish such blasphemous prayers and songs, that boast so arrogantly about their lineage, from their synagogues, from their hearts, and from their lips, for such prayers ever increase and sharpen God’s wrath toward them". anti-semitism has a long history @ChrisW

is it their go to argument for explaining all tragedy? I doubt it, but I don't suppose it matters

maybe it's my imagination, and few anti semites link jews with arrogance. mind you, what bad traits aren't claimed in racism? i just didn't see the conceit view in this, and it seemed a bit insensitive.

The popular portrayal of kamma isn't what The Buddha believed in (if someone does good deeds then good things would happen to them or if they do evil deeds bad things will happen).
He thought that there were many different variables involved in one's experiences besides good or bad deeds.
There are also certain deeds perceived as good that are actually bad and other deeds perceived as bad that are actually good.
As explained in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta (MN 136) there are certain people who do evil deeds who still go to heavenly worlds after death and other certain people who do good deeds who still go to hell after death:

"Now there is the person who has killed living beings
  here... has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But
  (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him
  earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him
  later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time
  of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.
  But since he has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he
  will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or
  in some subsequent existence
..."Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here... has had right view. And on the dissolution of
  the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in
  an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil
  kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil
  kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was
  undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was
  why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the
  states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in
  hell. But since he has abstained from killing living beings here...
  has had right view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or
  in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence." (Maha
  Kammavibhanga Sutta, MN 136)

Here we see The Buddha explaining the variables involved earlier kamma, later kamma, and the view at the time of death.
The person will always feel the effect their deeds in some form, but how that happens relies on many different factors.
As explained in the Lonaphala Sutta:

"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell."
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment." (Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99)

So you see there can be many people perceived as good but undeveloped in many aspects (contemplating the body, virtue, mind, discernment, heart) so any trifling evil deed they did in the past many take them to hell (or cause them to have negative experiences).
And there can be many people perceived as evil but developed in many aspects (contemplating the body, virtue, mind, discernment, heart) so many trifling evil deeds they did in the past still may not take them to hell (or cause them to have negative experiences).
There have been many genocides in history besides the holocaust, the genocide of the Jews. There have been for instance the persecution and execution of Buddhist monks by many different groups in history.
How this ties in is that there are many different variables involved in one's experiences...it does not necessarily mean that those who took birth into a region or time-period where they were persecuted and executed for no real reason are evil-doers or came from one of the three lower destinations (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts) although it does mean that they are exhausting their evil kamma that was caused for some reason or another (and also means that the one executing the violence is causing evil kamma).
If mankind as a whole wants violence to end all around the world we have to cause good kammas (bodily, verbal, mental) such that only good beings can exist on Earth...if you look the global homicide rate and violence around the world that time hasn't come yet...but will certainly come sometime in the future if more and more people continue doing good deeds and practicing metta (loving-kindness).

The second-last paragraph isn't clear to me: it starts with "for no real reason" and then says "exhausting their evil kamma" (as if "exhausting their evil kamma" is the real reason, therefore not "for no real reason").

I mean it appears in the perception of many that the person was killed for no real reason, just an apparently innocent person who was executed or murdered (but in reality the person is exhausting evil kammas caused by some reason or another)...that's what I mean.
By no real reason I'm referring to how it appears. Like you may hear of or read stories of many innocent people killed for no apparent reason.

Maha Moggallana, a chief disciple and arahant a is a good example of this, he was murdered by Jains apparently for no real reason or no good reason, but in some past existence he had killed his own parents and this kamma was not yet exhausted. I'm sure in the perception of many it appears as if he was killed for no real reason yet he was exhausting evil kammas that was caused by some reason.

To add to this answer as the number of past existences is countless or incalculably high everyone has likely done many trifling evil deeds in the past...knowing this to be true you should see the true innocence of all beings...everyone deserves forgiveness...if people keep doing good deeds and practicing metta eventually only higher good beings will take birth on Earth, violence will naturally cease, as will negative thoughts, negative health conditions, things will become like a Utopia...but it seems like that may take a while to happen...

In the West, we see the Eastern philosophy and religion through the colored glasses of Christianity hence Karma is understood as some form of retribution for your sins. Or through the eyes of new-age movement as "poetic justice"  The best translation that comes close to the true meaning of Karma is "your doing" but it is a scholastic, semantic translation without the understanding of the meaning behind the label. The meaning of Karma the way I understand it is "the law of unintended consequences" In the Holocaust scenario being that what made the German Jewish community so strong and successful (identity, culture, religion, economic success etc.) became also their death sentence.

From my understanding of karma, one thing that can be said for sure is “every action has consequences”. Another is “every effect has causes that led to it”.  What cannot be said are A: “my action will have an effect fro me”, B. “This action will have that particular effect” or C. “This effect came from that particular cause”. I want to highlight statement A in particular in regards to this answer.  It wouldn’t be right to trace the holocaust back (however benignly) to the German Jewish community’s action or mind state.

Numerous actions and minds over ages related to various actors would have played a part.  Those actors to include non-Jewish Germans, people in nearby countries, authorities in various places who could do things but kept quiet, people who contributed to the event not knowing that they did, some who tried but not hard enough to stop things, people in many countries who even encouraged certain views over centuries about the Jewish because well it benefited themselves, people in Europe and worldover who indulge in thrills of nationalism disregarding the dangers...prospective causes are numerous.

In the first comment, I intended to conclude with the word “solely”.

In this video "Ask A Monk: Karma in a Holocaust", by Ven. Yuttadhammo, he addresses the topic of kamma in relation to a Holocaust/mass suffering.
In summary:

No-one experiences death in the same way - some calm, some frightened, some enraged - depending on their mindstate.
Only a buddha could understand karma.
To explain an event such as "many people dying in a tsunami", that is a confluence of different causes: science explains how things comes together; karma explains the part the mind plays in that ... each person has their own experience.

May this be of use to you.

I added a summary of the first half of the video; I found the second half difficult to summarise.

I think the wise way is not to go straight into "Karma". These days, even some "Buddhist" can't accept Karma as one of the doctrines taught authentically by the Buddha, how could one expect non-Buddhist to immediately grasp the idea? But not be fooled by the face value?
Maybe the right way is to say, everything happens for a reason. This is called Karma in a certain sense. Sometimes the reason is so beyond our normal way of comprehension, or diluted/deferred by time we can't immediately identify their relationships in those events.
Of course genocide of babies and "innocents" in Holocaust (the twisted facts yet have to be revealed by history one day) happened as we understood should be condemned and denounced. But what, those chickens in the battery farm millions and millions are killed and dismembered everyday, if these needn't to be condemned and denounced also? If we believe the proof of science in the law of conservation of energy, why these killings everyday, that this killing energy is not needed to express in another conversion? Of course, this is just one example.
There is this story about Karma and retribution: The Buddha explaint his Shakyan people were razed by King Virudhaka, due to many eons ago these Shakyan people in famine eating all the fishes in one river, included the fish-king. The Buddha at that time was a kid disliked fish but he took a stick to knock on the fish-king's head for fun. This fish-king many eons later reborn as King Virudhaka. Thus the Buddha had three days of headache when this event happened. The play of Karma is very intriguing. Like today, many of the stars and galaxies captured by our telescopes not as they are in fact, for time delay due to distance their appearances not in sync. What we see is not what it is.
Thus, we should always hold our respect to something we don't fully comprehend. Because we don't know everything that's why we are human; also we can know everything by starting being human. This "can know everything" will increase the capacity by learning. Mahayana relates this to Prajna Paramita. The rule is: do good, do no evil, or, compassion, within the spectrum of what's known already.

What to say?
If you wish for your long term welfare, don't associated with fools, seek for wise, even to make an earning, fulfill your duties towrad those who deserve it (e.g. your parents, family, teacher, companions, leader, Brahmans and contemplatives), abstain from unskillful deeds (even for fullfilment of duties), nurish and do skillful deeds and harmless undertakings and clean your mind.
If you wish to help others, teach them as well in this skills, best after knowing the task your self, in generosity, virtue and contemplation of the Dhamma.
In explaining this and encourage to simply this, you do the best for all.

Phenomena are   preceded by the heart [and the deeds following it],
      ruled by the heart,
      made of the heart.
  If you speak or act
  with a corrupted heart,
  then suffering follows you —
  as the wheel of the cart,
      the track of the ox
      that pulls it.
Phenomena [one experians] are  preceded by the heart [ones],
      ruled by the heart,
      made of the heart.
  If you speak or act
  with a calm, bright heart,
  then happiness follows you,
  like a shadow
      that never leaves. -dhp 1-2

Affirming the Truths of the Heart, bias or taking a stand is endless wandering on. Fools will always just work on their own destructiin and not easy could they be helped.
Generally, this essays are a good help for understanding: "Wisdom over Justice" and "Justice vs. Skillfulness" but require some amount of having cleansed one mind a little already to do not quick fall into papanca (objectification, identification, with its endless expansions and beark apparts) again.

And then I saw
      an arrow here,
  so very hard to see,
  embedded in the heart.
  Overcome by this arrow
  you run in all directions.
  But simply
      on pulling it out
      you don’t run,
      you don’t sink.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]

The way I understand, the holocaust or atomic bombing of Japan can be explained by dependent origination and Kamma. what is important to understand is that all are not the result of Kamma.

First of all, the Holocaust is best viewed as a multitude of crimes performed by a multitude of individuals. Each victim was killed or harmed by a large number of crimes. You seem to be suggesting that each crime is somehow caused (and justified) by the past actions of the victim! If so, then you are perpetuating a profound disservice to the Great Teachings of the Buddha. I have already provided a partial answer under the Buddhist Stack item “Does everything happen for a reason?” If you have in mind kamma-vipaka, then I have provided an explanation under item “What is the deal with ‘instant’ Karma?” But, if I am correct in my assessment of your view of the concept of “karma,” then you have failed to grasp one of the most profound dimensions of the Buddhadharma. Please allow me to explain. In providing an explanation, I will expand on the concept of sankhara, briefly defined in my reply to item “Unity of Wisdom.”
According to the teachings of Theravadin Buddhism, the Abhidharma provides a causal description of every mental event, including Enlightenment itself, the causes of suffering, the causes of the cessation of suffering, and the nature of karma. According to the Abhidharma, each and every mental event, mental process, and mental action has causes and consequences that make sense to a person who understands the Theravadin Abhidharma. (Just for the record, a person does not need to understand the Abhidharma in order to achieve Enlightenment. Indeed, according to tradition, a monk or nun studies the Abhidharma only after Enlightenment because it is extremely difficult to fully understand and because it requires special siddhis to explore.) Nonetheless, a basic understanding of karma can be acquired through understanding the concept of sankhara.
The concept of sankhara explains how all forms of intelligent consciousness are possible. From a modern point of view, the concept of sankhara is a scientific theory that is equivalent to the theory of everything (TOE) in quantum physics. In essence, it explains how the mind makes sense of experience. The concept of sankhara has a double meaning. One meaning views the sankhara as a sophisticated structure or system of interrelated beliefs, wishes, values, perceptions, motives, memories, and other propositional attitudes. This structure is formed or modified in response to experience. It is the product of a process of learning or adaptation. It makes sense of experience. The second meaning consists of the (largely unconscious) cognitive or mental processes that occurs when this system is engaged to provide an intelligent response to a specific situation. This adaptive process generally involves various adjustments and corrections that generate a perception, understanding, feeling, motive, desire, recollection, emotion, or thought process that makes sense under the circumstances. The mind has a vast storage of sankhara that, in a well-organized way, cause all of our experiences and all of our behaviour. In this context, the mental actions (karma) that cause the formation or modification of a sankhara are those actions that determine our experience and behaviour in the future. To say that such actions can cause us to be murdered by a Nazi soldier in the remote future is nothing short of bizarre and a profound distortion of the Theravadin concept of causality.

I think what a lot of you are failing to understand is that if Buddha believed kamma was merely cause and effect, then the popular idea of "karma" (good/bad following you into a next life) doesn't apply...Therefore, a person could justify in their own mind that life is meaningless, kill others and then kill themselves, be reincarnated and see no negative consequences other than the pain of suicide. You could make the argument that the person's decision may have some effect on them in the next life in their subconscious, but basically if kamma is just cause and effect, then there's no justification for the people that were hurt. It just happened.

Never, ever should any Buddhist try to "justify" the extreme suffering of others. They may try to explain it, which means that it occurs for the same reason as every other tragedy in life: past lives. To blame "the jews" for their suffering in the holocaust is simply insanity, and extremely anti-semitic. I think anyone suggesting otherwise needs to rethink what they are doing and believe.
I am not surprised, but shocked, that new ageist buddhism has become so evil and racist.

Yes "justified" is not a good word. Do you have any answer to the other part of the question, i.e. how to "explain" disputes and karma -- and/or causes of the Holocaust -- to a non-Buddhist who asks about it?

Here is an explanation.  The Christian church has, in addition to the peaceful teachings of Jesus, also preached hatred, jealousy, and rage throughout its existence.  In particular, rather than peacefully co-existing with other ideologies it has sought to suppress and annihilate them.  Perhaps the only ideology to survive the cultural genocide of Europe by the Christian Church was Judaism.  For the crime of surviving, the Church preached hate towards this ideology and its people for centuries.  This hate has exploded into action many times throughout history, including during WWII.
According to Buddhism, neurotic emotions such as hatred and jealousy ultimately bring suffering to those experiencing them.  In particular, if the ideas become negative actions.  And in particular, if the negative actions are not completely regretted later.  Part of our work as Buddhists is to find the seeds of all of these neurotic emotions and try to purify them into their stainless wisdom nature which is completely beneficial to all beings.
I asked one acclaimed Buddhist teacher about trying to understand the specifics of karma.  He answered something along the lines of it is like trying to understand quantum physics as opposed to Newtonian physics.  It is difficult for us to presume to understand the details, but yet we can sometimes see glimpses of it at work.

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


text:
Where can I find sources for historical data on Buddhist populations in various regions around the world?
I need some sources regarding the changes in the size of Buddhist populations since the death of Gautama Buddha, e.g. the number of Buddhists in what is modern day India from 410 BC until now, or just global historical data of Buddhist populations around the world since the religion started spreading. Exact sources would be great. This is part of a research paper I am doing, and partly out of pure curiousity as well. Thanks.

Is this a homework assignment?

It's possible you would get a better answer on History.SE, if this question would be on-topic there.

There's the Maps of Ancient Buddhist Asia and History of Buddhism mentions some population figures for certain eras, but I don't know of any detailed census data particular to Buddhism prior to the last couple of centuries.

For recent data, there's the PEW Religious Affiliation Report
Hope this helps in some small way.


text:
What is the meaning of 'acala sukha'?
What is the exact meaning of 'acala sukha'? Is it mentioned in the Pali-canon? If so, where ? In what context ?

The PTS dictionary says,

Cala (adj.) [see calati] moving, quivering; unsteady, fickle, transient S iv.68 (dhammā calā c' eva vyayā ca aniccā, etc.); J ii.299; iii.381; v.345; Miln 93, 418; Sdhp 430, 494.
  -- acala steadfast, immovable S i.232; J i.71 (ṭṭhāna); Vv 514 (˚ṭṭhāna=Ep. of Nibbāna); acalaŋ sukhaŋ (=Nibbāna) Th 2, 350; cp. niccala motionless DhA iii.38

So cala means "unsteady", acala means "not unsteady", and acala sukha means "unwavering happiness" i.e. nibbana.
The phrase is in some of the suttas, e.g. the last line of Ud 8.10; and the end of the first verse of Thag 3.16.

+1 with one caveat, sukha is rather something like "peace", the (quiet) state of no trouble, than a rapturous type of happiness. Maybe "nonquivering peace"...

I hoped the OP would already know sukha (see e.g. PTS definition here and Wikipedia here).

Stuffs turn Vaṭṭa on (vaṭṭa) = appearing stuffs in paṭiccasamuppāda  = non stopping cycling of stuffs = anicca (unstable) & dukkha = cala (unstable) = whole 5 aggregates (stuffs)
Stuffs turn vaṭṭa off (vivaṭṭa) = disappeared stuffs in paṭiccasamuppāda = stopped cycling of stuffs = niccatā (stable) & sukkha = acala (stable) = nibbāna
Whole 5 aggregates and nibbāna are anatta.