text:
Real Monk vs Fake Monk
Just as the Buddha referred to those who achieved the goal as "My Son", I am wondering if the Buddha made any similar distinctions between monks who lived by the precepts and practiced according to the teachings, and those who were there for reasons of their own, not in line with the teachings of the Buddha?
Did he give any teachings on how to deal with monastics who abuse their position for unwholesome motivations i.e. monks amassing wealth, gaining political influence, acting as antagonists for violence.
Just as high-profile leaders in other religions have given their respective faith a tarnished reputation with shady dealings in the past, is there anything to be done to protect the dignity of the Buddhas teaching from those with less than wholesome intentions?

Could you cite an example of the Buddha calling anyone "my son" under any circumstances? In many years of reading Buddhist texts I've never come across this.

here is one source, I know I've seen it in many other instances. I don't have the time at the moment to provide more references, perhaps someone else could provide some links :)  http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=029

"Though you are lazy and negligent you claim to be diligent and ever mindful; but you have made the other bhikkhu appear to be lazy and negligent though he is diligent and ever mindful. You are like a weak and slow horse compared to my son who is like a strong, fleet-footed horse."

"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."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.4.100-112.than.html

Is this question a duplicate of What can be done about fake monks?

@ChrisW No, the "fake monk" was figuratively speaking. I'm referring to ordained monks who do not conduct themselves according to the Buddha's teaching

@Ryan So that quote is from the commentary to the Dhammapada - it's not Buddhavacana. A

@uilium This quote is a parody of the Ṛgvedic hymn of creation RV 10.90. As such we should not take it literally - the Buddha is phrasing his answer in terms familiar to Brahmins. He does not repeat the words outside that context AFAIK. Note the Buddha says "I am a Brahmin" - but most texts say he is a kṣatriya (Pāḷi khattiya).

This is not about "my son" or not, but about a monk which developed later as a "fake monk" (your term, I think it doesn't fit there): would the story about Devadatta fit your question? Devadatta was a long time much respected bhikkhu, part of the sangha, but then built community with the son (Ajatasattu (?)) of the local king Bimbisara (the latter a friend of the Buddha) to overtake the order resp. the kingdom (the latter was successful for Ajatasattu). (One sutra is for instance A 5.100, but there are several ones which -in my view- show how the Buddha handled that problem)

@JayaravaAttwood The Buddha seemed to have had a habit of calling Arhats as his sons. I recall one sutta where he reveals to the gathered monks that one among them is an Arhat by calling out to him as "my son", unfortunately I don't remember the specific sutta off hand.

Without evidence for the proposition, there is not reason to think that it is true. Perhaps some research on your part is warranted here? So far this is unconvincing.

@GottfriedHelms It seems that your "comment" is really an "answer", perhaps you would consider posting it as an answer? I was being a little pedantic about the "son" part, but it cannot hurt to get ones facts right. Also I might learn something of value if the claim can be substantiated.

According to the point with the "my sons" -  I just found, that in the (Mahayana) Nirvana Sutra this phrase occurs. A discussion of some aspects of this sutra, citing it also, is http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/jiabs/article/viewFile/8578/2485 and a cite in this article begins with: "Good sons! In case there are people...()" . In the sutra might be some more occurences. Also there is a frequent reference to "Rahula" (the Siddharta Gautama's physical son) - maybe a workaround for the intended phrase "son".

What you can do to protect the dignity of the Buddha's teaching is to practice the noble eightfold path to the best of your ability while the true Dhamma can still be heard in the world. There is nothing else to be done. The teaching will inevitably become corrupt and disappear from the world. There is nothing that you or anybody else in the world can do to prevent that. It's only a matter of time.
When you witness others acting in ways that dishonor the Buddha's teaching, your mind will likely respond with aversion. Identify this aversion and let go of it. If you cling to this aversion and let it be a basis for further action you're only working against yourself, even if you think that you're trying to protect the dignity of the Buddha's teaching. Mindfully recognize the impermanence of the teaching itself and use that to cultivate samvega (urgency).
Cultivate compassion towards those who, intentionally or otherwise, dishonor the Buddha's teaching. Recognize how helpless these beings are. Recognize that under different circumstances you also have the capacity to act in similar ways due to delusion. Recognize that you're just as helpless as these beings because you aren't yet free from delusion. Then work towards realizing the Dhamma in this very lifetime because you can't help anybody else without helping yourself first. Otherwise it'll be the blind leading the blind.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

Thanks... I can understand that going to far with aversion caused understanding is just as bad as going too far with attraction caused understanding.. Noble Action must arise from understanding the Truths then..

The question is:

"Did he give any teachings on how to deal with monastics who abuse their position for unwholesome motivations i.e. monks amassing wealth, gaining political influence, acting as antagonists for violence."

And the answer is yes! The five books of the Vinaya aim to do exactly this.

This answer is not about the ["my son"-or-not] part, but about a monk which developed later as a "fake monk" (your term, I think it is not the best here for my example).
Would the story about Devadatta(wiki,accesstoinsight.org, palikanon.com) fit your question? Devadatta was a long time much respected bhikkhu, part of the sangha, but then built community with the son (Ajatasattu (?)) of the local king Bimbisara (the latter a friend of the Buddha) to overtake the order resp. the kingdom (the latter was successful for Ajatasattu).
One sutra is for instance A 5.100 in German in english, but there are several ones which -in my view- together show how the Buddha handled that problem.

Following Jayarava's request: I remember what I'd read about the process only roughly today, but some milestones might be interesting [and/or also correct ;-)] .
[update] here is a link to a german translation of the Culla Vagga, chap 7.  and here to the pali-text at palikanon.com (the pali version seems to begin at chap 331 or 333, but I don't know for sure: I can't read Pali except that I recognize some names). I didn't find english translations at access-to-insight.org, perhaps this wiki provides a full source in english
First, Devadatta (also cousin of the Buddha) was much respected in the sangha. When now the Buddha was reported that Devadatta wanted to overtake the order, he advised his Bhikkhus to spread the word to the country, that Devadatta would no more speak for the order, that he's no more to be seen as a follower of the Buddha. Some monks were afraid (maybe even Sariputta) to tell now in the open, that the so long high valued monk would now be disrespected, because: what light would this shed on the order?! But the Buddha said: no way, we always must say the truth about the case.
Next (or before, I don't know the actual timeline at the moment), Devadatta collected a non neglectable number of followers in the sangha and made separate teachings. The Buddha seemed not to react. But Sariputta and Mogallana went to the place - seemingly let it happen, that Devadatta and his friends assumed they came as interested ones and possibly followers. Having such eminent arhats at his place they were allowed to teach, and the legend tells, that Devadatta was tired and fell asleep. While he was sleeping, Sariputta and Mogallana managed to change the mind of the monks with their talk and to lead them back to the Buddha's sangha.
Part of Devadatta's initiative had been to claim that the order's rules (for collecting food, for eating etc) were too weak, too little ascetic (today we would say "too little radical") and challenged the Buddha openly. But the Buddha defended the rules as the appropriate middle path - but left it to the taste of each one to behave individually the more ascetic way. (Ironically, that ascetic way was not what Devadatta in company with Ajatattu lived later on, if I recall the tellings in the sutras correctly).
Devadatta undertook also a life-threat to the Buddha, trying to kill him with a rock falling down the hill. The Buddha stayed "easy" after that, saying, that Devadatta would never be able to kill a Buddha. Well, this was an attack at the person, not one focusing the order, so this might be a little less relevant for your question.
In summary, what I've got from it, was that the Buddha let him do things until it would come out from the deeds themselves what's going on. Which does not mean he did him allow to proceed in secrecy - as far as the order was concerned the Buddha was not silent about the dissens, even although he had to correct a widely spread opinion about that monk and his high reputation.
And later, after Ajatattu had overtaken the kingdom (from the Buddha's friend and his own father Bimbisara) and even had put Bimbisara in jail to let him die there by starving, the Buddha still accepted (again later) an invitation of the ruthless new king - but even managed to make him regret his deeds.

Could you say a little more about how - in your view - the Buddha handled the problem? perhaps a summary of what's in those suttas for a more complete answer?

I think this is an English version (towards the bottom of the page, numbered "10" and named "Kakudhatherasuttāṃ - The elder Kakudha").


text:
Noting-Technique: How many notes per second/minute?
I'm a bit confused by contradicting statements about the noting/labeling-technique. On the one hand, one teacher has once told me to note as fast as possible to not let anything else enter the mind, than the chosen meditation object e.g. the belly or the tip of the nose.
On the other hand, this seems to make the practice very cognitive and another teacher suggested that one should have a few seconds of pause to become aware of other things and induce more calmness.
So, what do you think? Are there simply two ways of handling noting? (one being to note very fast and the other one at a moderate speed)
Or has it something to do with how advanced one is practicing? (the first teacher also pointed out, when I correctly remember that one needs to do that this fast to enter vipassana-jhanas or something like this...)
Would be nice to hear your opinions and experiences on this topic.
Kind regards
Rafi

could you please include which practice of meditation you are practicing? that could alter the appropriate answer

To give you a little meditation-biography: I've started with 3 goenka-retreats and then had a retreat in the tradition of Mahasi with a teacher, trained under U Pandita. She was also the one, recommending labeling that fast. The other labeling instructions (slow) I've received from a teacher who was in the line of tibetan buddhism. So has it maybe something to do with that? Andrei Volkov's response also sounds like what that teacher told me. Thanks for that, Andrei! About my practice right now: I note all kind of phenomena while trying to stay fixed on the tip of my nose.

Here's a good summary of vipassana noting : http://www.saraniya.com/books/mahasi-sayadaw/pdf/mahasi_sayadaw-1951_practical_vipassana_meditation_exercises.pdf

As Trungpa Rinpoche explained, noting/labeling is done at the time of recovering from distraction, not all the time!
You sit and breathe and let your mind expand in its natural state, while the fishes of psychosomatic shadows swim deep under the ice, and then sooner or later one of the them raises up getting progressively sharper, becomes a fully-formed thought, then suddenly swallows you and carries away. As soon as you can, you notice that you got carried away, mentally label this very fact (silently saying "thought" in your head, or just making a mental note), and come back to just sitting. Makes sense?
You don't rigidly fasten the mind to the here-and-now, nor do you mechanically attach discursive evaluation ("thought" or whatever) to each and every mental phenomena. You give your mind some room.
This is like watching the airplanes do the touch-and-goes, you don't shut down the sky, you don't forcefully control every airplane, you wide open the sky and let them fly -- but when one of them tries to land on your airport and grasp you, you allow it to just brush your airstrip with its wheels, and then slip away letting it dissolve back to the pregnant emptiness it came from.
But if it does land and capture you, then by definition you are no longer watching. You can setup a subconscious alarm though, that will ring soon after you're caught -- and this is when you wake up, say "thought!", let go of the thought, and come back to watching.

One does not have to note everything that arises.
What is important is to see the objects clearly so that one can come to see their true nature, i.e. the 3 signs of existence (impermance, unsatisfactoriness and not-self).
If you note too fast it can result in a restless and agitated mind.
If you note too slow sloth and torpor might arise.
One should not note too fast or too slow but a place in the middle (way).

"Now what do you think, Sona. Before, when you were a house-dweller,
  were you skilled at playing the vina?"
"Yes, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut,
  was your vina in tune & playable?"
"No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose,
  was your vina in tune & playable?"
"No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too
  taut nor too loose, but tuned1 to be right on pitch, was your vina
  in tune & playable?"
"Yes, lord."
"In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to
  restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. Thus you
  should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune[2]the
  pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your
  theme."

Sona Sutta - Access to Insight

"and there pick up your theme" - is my favorite part ;)

On the other hand, this seems to make the practice very cognitive

This is because noting there is Vitarka & Vicara (also see: Vitakka,vicāra by Piya Tan) creating access concentration.

... teacher has once told me to note as fast as possible to not let anything else enter the mind ...
... when I correctly remember that one needs to do that this fast to enter vipassana-jhanas or something like this ...

Doing this very fast build some level of concentration. This does have some benefits, but again this also creates verbal fabrication which you should avoid. More on this see this answer.

So, what do you think? Are there simply two ways of handling noting?

Since nothing creates verbal fabrications ideally you should avoid this. Also any visualisation of metal or cognitive activity. Also see this answer.
The basic principle of mediation should be on arising and passing of sensations (either as pleasant, unpleasant). For more information see this answer. Also mentioned the basic principles in this answer and this answer.

(one being to note very fast and the other one at a moderate speed)

If you still choose to do this. It should be fast enough to stop other thoughts arising. This depends on the situation and metal state. More distractions and more restless you mind is do it faster and less distractions and more composed you are do it slower.

Depend on the individual's concentration. One should focus on either tip of the nose noting "breathe in, know it, breathe out, know it", not too fast, not too slow, just like normal breathing one get used to do. If mind is wandering about just a little faster, but just to note "wandering, wandering", then focus on tip of nose breathing. Mind used to get astray, just note "know it" without any wishing to grasp it. It is Anatta. Yogi wish is to grasp it, but mind used to get wander and just know it once it get wander. Then focus on breathing.

From page 39 of Daniel Ingram's "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha":

The practice is this: make a quiet, mental one-word note of whatever
  you experience in each moment. Try to stay with the sensations of
  breathing, noting these quickly as “rising” (as many times as the
  sensations of the breath rising are experienced) and then “falling” in
  the same way. This could also be considered fundamental insight
  practice instructions. When the mind wanders, notes might include
  “thinking,” “feeling,” “pressure,” “tension,” “wandering,”
  “anticipating,” “seeing,” “hearing,” “cold,” “hot,” “pain,”
  “pleasure,” etc. Note these sensations one by one as they occur and
  then return to the sensations of breathing. Here are some valuable
  tips for successful noting. Don’t get too neurotic about whether or
  not you have exactly the correct word for what arises. The noting
  should be as consistent and continuous as possible, perhaps one to
  five times per second. Speed and an ability to keep noting no matter
  what arises are very important. Anything that derails your noting
  practice deserves aggressive and fearless noting the next time it
  arises. Note honestly and precisely. So long as you note whatever
  arises, you know that you were mindful of it. Noticing each sensation
  and those that follow, you will see their true nature. Seeing their
  true nature, you will gain profound insights.

Judging from the language of your question, I thought you were referring to this book. If you have not already, read the whole thing.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The buddhist dillema on lesser evil
Imagine this scenario: A serial killer is pointing his gun at an innocent person John and wants to kill John. An arahant is near the killer and knows that the killer will kill 5 more innocent people after he kills the innocent person John. The arahant can choose to kill the killer before the killer kills John and the other 5 innocent persons. Would the arahant kill the killer? Would a Buddha kill the killer? If yes, why? If no, why?

"Would the arahant kill the killer? Would a Buddha kill the killer?"

'Yes, Sutavā, you heard correctly [...]. A bhikkhu who is an arahant [...] is incapable of transgression in nine cases. (1) He is incapable of intentionally depriving a living being of life"
--  AN 9.7 (Bodhi trans.)

"Here, Visakha, a noble disciple considers thus: 'For all their lives the arahants dwell having abandoned killing living beings, refrain from killing living beings, they have laid down their staffs, laid down their weapons, they are conscientious, sympathetic, compassionate for the good of all living beings; so today I dwell, for this night and day, having abandoned killing living beings, refraining from killing living beings, I am one who has laid down my staff, laid down my weapon, I am conscientious, sympathetic, compassionate for the good of all living beings. By this practice, following after the arahants, the Uposatha will be entered on by me.'"
-- AN 8.43

"If no, why?"

Through greed a covetous man kills breathing things [...]. Through hate a malevolent man kills breathing things[...]. Through ignorance a deluded man kills breathing things... Will that be long for his harm and suffering?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
  [...]
  Through non-greed an uncovetous man does not kill breathing things [...]. Through non ill-will an unmalevolent man does not kill breathing things. [...] Through non-delusion a man with true knowledge does not kill breathing things... Will that be long for his welfare and happiness?" — "Yes, venerable sir."
  -- AN 3.66

Summarizing, it's wrong action:

And what is wrong action? Killing, taking what is not given, illicit sex. This is wrong action.
-- MN 17

Such a question assumes death is the cessation of existence. This is not the Buddhist view. Killing the murderer won't solve anything, it merely brushes the dirt under the carpet. Since violent thoughts will reemerge in the killer's next life, and grow once more because they weren't ever eradicated, nothing is achieved by killing.
Killing someone is passing the buck, and an attempt to make it someone else's problem in the next lifetime. It is wrong view to believe there is an "I" to preserve and that there is a someone else out there to load our burdens on. Karma takes care of such problems by presenting us with the same problems we ran away from in our subsequent lives until we learn to handle it with enlightened wisdom.
A lotus isn't born by waging a war on dirt, it is a transformation of dirt that produces the lotus.
The only solution for ignorance is wisdom. Even before the murderer was pushed to the brink of action, there was deep suffering in him or her, and it was permitted to grow. Thus the well meaning Buddhist is constantly working to heal the suffering in others around them, to eradicate pain and suffering everywhere so that such deep suffering leading to murderous thoughts don't manifest.
What would an arhat or Buddha do is immaterial. What would each of us do is more pertinent.

Also known at the Trolley Problem from Game Theory. My answer is that this kind of question is a red herring. Ethics is about how you wrestle with experience to try to minimise suffering. Hypothetical questions like this one are pointless because they will never occur as real dilemmas. Buddhist ethics is focussed on how one actually behaves in every day life. This kind of scenario has never happened in anyone's life. The fact is that presently there is no Buddha and as far as I know, no arahants. So the answer to the question can make no possible different to how you or I conduct ourselves. And what's worse is that while we spend time on such problems we are being distracted from what is actually going on right now.
This kind of thing comes under the heading of samphapalāpa - frivolous speech. And as such is something to be avoided.

that presently there is no Buddha and as far as I know, no arahants." ???>.. Every day we face Mosquito bites. course to dengue.<<<>>>...Are arahants Kill moskitos??....If someone not killing how do you say he is not arahant???

I use the word in the PTSD definition: "Adopted by the Buddhisṭs as title for one who has attained the Summum Bonum of religious aspiration (Nibbāna)."

[As above (in SN 22.109):] "And when, monks, a monk, having seen as they really are the arising and the passing away, the attractiveness and the danger, and the deliverance from the five groups of clinging, is released without clinging, he, monks, is called a monk in whom the cankers are destroyed, who has lived the life to perfection, done what had to be done, put down the burden, gained the highest goal, worn through the fetters of rebirth, and is liberated by perfect insight."[1]
Notes
1.
The whole phrase is a standard description of the Arahant found at many places in the Canon.

This quote only proves my point and disproves yours.

How can we decide there is no Arahants today? or else is there any Arahants ever lived?

We're only talking about the present. So where are they?

within yourself.

See you own quote. This exchange seems a bit pointless.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

MN 1.3.1 Kakachupama sutta
Majjhima Nikāya 21 - Kakacūpamasutta
The Parable of the Saw

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with
  a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at
  heart would not be upholding my Teaching.
Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus:
'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil
  words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of
  love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall
  live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons,
  making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of
  universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and
  measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of
  hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should
  train yourselves.

Kakachupama Sutta

An arahant would certainly have perfected the 5 precepts at the least and would abstain from harming anyone. I also belive that the Buddha might have said that an arahant was even incapable of killing. Any enlightened being would certainly try and find another option even if doing so resulted in failure.

Here is an alternate perspective from the Mahayana tradition. (I'm not equating arahant & bodhisattva, but if you are asking what a Buddha would do it is perfectly legitimate in my mind to consider also what a bodhisattva would do.)  In 'Words of My Perfect Teacher,' Patrul Rinpoche says:
"For all good or bad actions, the intention is by far the most important factor that determines whether they are positive or negative, heavy or light. It is like a tree: if the root is medicinal, the trunk and leaves will also be medicinal. If the root is poisonous, the trunk and leaves will be poisonous too. Medicinal leaves cannot grow from a poisonous root. In the same way, if an intention develops from aggression or attachment and is thus not entirely pure, the action that follows is bound to be negative, however positive it might seem. On the other hand, if the intention is pure, even acts that appear negative will in fact be positive."
He then tells a story (also found in Gampopa's 'Jewel Ornament of Liberation' I believe) to illustrate the point:
"Once in a previous life, the Buddha was a captain called Compassionate Heart. He was sailing upon the ocean with five hundred merchants when the evil pirate called Black Spearman appeared, threatening to kill them all. The captain realized that these merchants were all non-returning Bodhisattvas, and that if one man killed them all he would have to suffer in the hells for an incalculable number of kalpas. Moved by an intense feeling of compassion, he thought: "If I kill him, he will not have to go to hell. So I have no choice, even if it means that I have to go to hell myself." With this great courage he killed the pirate, and in so doing gained as much merit as would normally take seventy thousand kalpas to achieve. On the face of it, the act was a harmful one, since the Bodhisattva was committing the physical act of murder. But it was done without the least selfish motivation. In the short term, it saved the lives of the five hundred merchants. And in the long term it saved Black Spearman from the sufferings of hell. In reality, therefore, it was a very powerful positive act."
Of course, I will not pretend to have even a shadow of this level of insight and freedom from the poisons of afflictive emotions; and therefore I try my best to abide by the precept of not killing. But it is important for us no matter where we are on the path to remember that motivation is essential in determining karmic consequences, not mere outward acts. It reminds us to look deeply into our own hearts in order to skillfully respond to such ethical quandaries when they actually arise in our lives.

I see, the intention is what determines the action, not the action. Most people lack the wisdom to do what the captain on that boat did, that's why the Buddha teaches "no killing".

It's impossible for an Arahant to kill intentionally as he has no aversion. An Arahant might try to bring the killer into his senses if he thought it's possible. Just like how the Buddha distracted Angulimala when he was trying to kill his mother.

The arahant would not kill the killer. A Buddha would not kill the killer.
Even if by killing the killer, lives would be saved in thousands, the arahant or a Buddha would not kill the killer. Even if by killing the killer, lives would be saved in millions, the arahant or a Buddha would not kill the killer. Even if by killing the killer, lives would be saved in billions, the arahant or a Buddha would not kill the killer.
Why is that so? Because the action of the arahant or a Buddha killing the killer would lead to more suffering.
Why is that so?
If by killing the killer, one life would be saved, what would the consequence of killing the killer be? The thought "It's ok to kill killers" would sprinkle in people's minds.
If by killing the killer, thousand lives would be saved, what would the consequence of killing the killer be? The thought "It's ok to kill crazy people" would sprinkle in people's minds.
If by killing the killer, millions lives would be saved, what would the consequence of killing the killer be? The thought "It's ok to kill evil people" would sprinkle in people's minds.
If by killing the killer, billions lives would be saved, what would the consequence of killing the killer be? The thought "It's ok to kill destructive people" would sprinkle in people's minds.
And what does a delusioned mind, seeking liberation from pain, permeated with pain and the thought "It's ok to kill killers, crazy people, evil people and destructive people" think? "It's ok to do evil for lesser evil"
When a delusioned mind, seeking liberation from pain, permeated with pain, thinks "It's ok to do evil for lesser evil", that mind, to liberate from this same pain, because of its delusion, will do evil for more evil. And the seed of suffering would spread.
Thus, the action of "justifying killings", leads to more suffering.
When an arahant or a Buddha abstains from killing any living creature in any way, what would the consequence of such action be? The thought "It's not ok to kill no matter what, even if it needs to be for lesser evil" would sprinkle in people's minds.
When a delusioned mind, seeking liberation from pain, permeated with pain, thinks "It's not ok to kill no matter what, even if it needs to be for lesser evil", that mind, even though he is delusional, because of that same thought, to liberate from pain, will not do evil for more evil. And the seed of wisdom would be spread.
Thus, the action of "always abstaining from killing no matter what", leads to less suffering.

Volitionally taking the life of another living being is only possible if one has defilements left. Killing is rooted in hatred (dosa).
An enlightened being such as an Arahant or a Buddha has eradicated all defilements and fetters and are therefore not capable of killing since the unwholesome root is simply not there.

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


text:
What are the 3 recollection chants?
What are the 3 recollection (protection) chants of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha?
It's told that they can be used to dispel fear.
Thank you for your time.

Text and Chanting by Bhante Khemakumara

Here's the chant with translation:

Itipiso Bhagava (He is indeed the Exalted One)
  Araham (far from
  defilements)
  Samma Sambuddho (perfectly enlightened by Himself)
  Vijjacaranasampanno (fully possessed of wisdom and excellent conduct)
  Sugato Lokavidu (knower of the worlds)
  Anutaro Purisadhammasarathi
  Sattha (unexcelled Trainer of tamable men)
  Devamanussanam (teacher of
  deities and men)
  Buddho (the Awakened One)
  Bhagavati (the Lord skilled
  in teaching Dhamma)
Svakkato Bhagavata Dhammo (well expounded is the Exalted One’s Dhamma)
  Sanditthiko (to be seen here and now)
  Akaliko (not delayed in time)
  Ehipassiko ( (inviting one to) come and see)
  Opanayiko (leading
  inwards)
  Paccatam Veditabbo Vinnuhiti (to be seen by each wise man for
  himself)
Supatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho (that which is the Sangha of the
  Exalted One’s disciple who have practiced well)
  Ujupatipanno Bhagavato
  Savakasangho (that which is the Sangha of the Exalted One’s disciple
  who have practiced straightly)
  Nayapatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho
  (that which is the Sangha of the Exalted One’s disciple who have
  practiced rightly)
  Samicipatipanno Bhagavato Savakasangho (that which
  is the Sangha of the Exalted One’s disciple who have practiced
  properly)
  Yadittam (that is to say)  Cattari Purisayugani (the four
  pairs of men- those who are in the four pairs of Noble Path and
  Fruition)
  Attha Purisapuggala (the eight types of individual persons-
  those who are with the mind of a Stream Winner up to Fruition of
  Arahantship)
  Esa Bhagavato Savakasangho (that is the Sangha of the
  Exalted One’s disciples)
  Ahuneyyo (worthy of gifts)
  Pahuneyyo (worthy
  of hospitality)
  Dakkkhineyyo (worthy of offerings)
  Anjalikaraniyo (who
  should be respected)
  Anuttaram Punakkhetam Lokassati (incomparable
  field of merit to the world)

(source http://methika.com/pali-chanting/itipiso-chant/)

Actually now that I look at the formatting of it, I think it is much easier to read at the source page btw.

Before the Itipiso chant, there are some shorter chants. Should i chant them first before going to the quoted ones?

This translation is full of extra little interpolations that exaggerate the words of the text. E.g. samma-sambuddho 'perfectly enlightened by Himself' where by himself is added. Bhagavati (the Lord skilled in teaching Dhamma) typo here bhagavā ti ("ti" is a separate word), it is usually translated "Blessed One". In the next line the same word is translated "Exalted One" which is a mistake.
And so on. I also looks rather naked without the proper diacritics. There's a much better version here: http://www.oxfordbuddhavihara.org.uk/books/OBV%20Morning%20Chanting.pdf

Sādhu for pointing that out. I just picked the first convenient page off of google. I will update to a better translation asap.

@JayaravaAttwood. Thanks for sharing your knowledge about that.

itipi so bhagavā
arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇa-sampanno sugato lokavidū
anuttaro purisadamma-sārathi satthā deva-manussānaṃ buddho bhagavā ti
svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo,
sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opanayiko,
paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti.
supaṭipanno bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
uju-paṭipanno bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
ñāya-paṭipanno bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
sāmīci-paṭipanno bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
yadidaṃ cattāri purisayugāni aṭṭha purisapuggalā
esa bhagavato sāvakasaṅgho
āhuṇeyyo pāhuṇeyyo dakkhiṇeyyo añjali-karaṇīyo
anuttaraṃ puññakkhettaṃ lokassā ti.

Never mind the interpolations.
This "works":

Itipiso Bhagava (He is indeed the Exalted One)
  Araham (far from defilements)
  Samma Sambuddho (perfectly enlightened by Himself)

But accuracy and orthodoxy after 2750 years are important, my revered friends.
Buddha "vachana" brings serenity peace and above all progress.

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


text:
What are the Buddhist teachings on how best to live a married life?
Does Buddhism describe how best to live a married life? Please provide some short excerpts. Thank you.

Are you asking about the marriage ceremony itself? Or how to choose a marriage partner before marrying them? Or what to do after you marry i.e. during married life?

@ChrisW: I am asking about how best to live a married life, as described by Buddhism. Ceremonies don't mean much to me, and choosing a partner, no matter how discerning you are, is basically a gamble. But what I actually DO I have some control over.

I would recommend reading the book "The Buddha's teachings on Prosperity" by Ven. Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula. There is a large chapter on "Establishing a marital partnership". I would have quoted from it but i have it only in physical edition and it's not possible to quote pieces of it since it will not do the content right. Here he goes into details about how to manage a marriage and what kind of obligations both the man and the woman has to each other. It's a great book and highly recommended for laypeople. The original price on Amazon.Uk is £13, i bought it used for £0,69 + £3 in postage.

The Access to Insight website has a number of related translations and essays;
Suttas

How to ensure that you'll be with your spouse in future lives: AN 4.55
Spouses' duties to each other: DN 31

Essays

"A Single Mind" (Fuang)
A Happy Married Life: A Buddhist Perspective (Dhammananda)
Nothing Higher to Live For (Nyanasobhano)
Buddhism and Sex (Walshe)

It all seems to boil down to "be ethical". Although on the other hand ideally one would not get married, but would take up celibacy and reject family life. For example in the Cūḷahatthipadopama Sutta the Buddha says:

so tena saddhāpaṭilābhena samannāgato iti paṭisañcikkhati — ‘sambādho gharāvāso rajopatho, abbhokāso pabbajjā. nayidaṃ sukaraṃ agāraṃ ajjhāvasatā ekantaparipuṇṇaṃ ekantaparisuddhaṃ saṅkhalikhitaṃ brahmacariyaṃ carituṃ. [MN 27; i.179
And having become possessed of faith [from hearing the dhamma] he thinks: household life is crowed and dirty; having gone forth one is wide open. It is not easy to live the religious life, so perfect and pure like a polished shell, while living in a home.

In short the best way to do marriage, is not to do it all, but to dedicate yourself to practising the Dharma.
This question is similar to a previous one:
What does a traditional Buddhist wedding look like?

I recall an incident where Buddha is chiding Ven. Upali for ordaining someone who'd already been a monk in several past lives, and was now a Bodhisattva whose work was in samsara not in the monastery. I'd be grateful if someone can find the sutta that contains this episode. It might be the Mahāratnakūṭa Sūtra, I'll need to verify.

The problem I have with such views as stated in the quote above is that we cannot tell how contextual they are. Society has changed a lot, and I'd argue there's a lot less difference between lifestyle of a married practitioner and a celibate one now than there would have been in the Buddha's day. As lifestyles, they each convey different advantages (and disadvantages) - we would do well to discuss and debate those so that people can best make up their own minds on such important life decisions.

The "similar question" has answers from some traditional Buddhists. But the question is phrased so vaguely that it's hard to answer except in the most general terms. And any answer to any "Buddhist" question is likely to be partial anyway. As I understand the purpose of Stack Exchange it is not for discussion and debate. One solicits answers and perhaps hopes to get range that are representative. If you have your own answer then please do offer it.

@JayaravaAttwood It's true. Comments aren't for extended discussion - any issues arising from the answer should be either formulated in it's own answer or moved to chat or meta if there is a general point. These are interesting points but it deviates from the Q and A format to much in my opinion. I'm going to delete some of these comments. Please post on meta if you think i'm doing the wrong thing. Thanks

In DN 31 the Buddha saw a young householder "with palms together held up in reverence, [...] paying respect towards the six directions: that is east, south, west, north, lower and upper."
The Buddha, after asking what he was doing, said:

"But, young man, that is not how the six directions should be worshipped according to the discipline of the noble ones."

...and then, proceeded to explain it. At some point, he said:

"And how, young man, does the noble disciple protect the six directions? These six directions should be known: mother and father as the east, teachers as the south, spouse and family as the west, friends and colleagues as the north, workers and servants as the lower direction, and ascetics and Brahmans as the upper direction.
[...]
"In five ways should a wife as the western direction be respected by a husband: by honoring, not disrespecting, being faithful, sharing authority, and by giving gifts.
"And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways: by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods, and being skillful and diligent in all duties.
In this way, the western direction is protected and made peaceful and secure.

If we did all those things and it didn't work, then what?

it "works" if by "work" it's understood that one is leading a virtuous life, that one is blameless in the aforementioned attitudes and enjoy their fruits   -- despite of fortunate or unfortunate things happening, which are the natural course of life: anicca. A marriage is not something that "should work [happily ever after]" in buddhism, nor have I seen romantic issues dealt in detail in the suttas (I think it would be a major digression otherwise). From  what I see, people get married and the Buddha just advised them to be good towards each other, but wasn't really focused on making it work

Here is a quote from the Anguttara Nikaya where the Buddha explains how to live together in a marriage.

53 (3) Living Together (1)
On one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the high- way between Madhurā and Verañjā. A number of male and female householders were also traveling along the same high- way. Then the Blessed One left the highway and sat down at the foot of a tree. The male and female householders saw the Blessed One sitting there and approached him, paid homage to him, and sat down to one side. The Blessed One then said to them:
“Householders, there are these four ways of living together. What four? A wretch lives together with a wretch;739 a wretch lives together with a female deva; a deva lives together with a wretch; a deva lives together with a female deva.
(1) “And how, householders, does a wretch live together with a wretch? [58] Here, the husband is one who destroys life, takes what is not given, engages in sexual misconduct, speaks falsely, and indulges in liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness; he is immoral, of bad character; he dwells at home with a heart obsessed by the stain of miserli- ness; he insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins. And his wife is also one who destroys life . . . she insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins. It is in such a way that a wretch lives together with a wretch.
(2) “And how does a wretch live together with a female deva? Here, the husband is one who destroys life . . . he insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins. But his wife is one who abstains from the destruction of life, from taking what is not given, from sexual misconduct, from false speech, and from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness; she is virtuous, of good character; she dwells at home with a heart free from the stain of miserliness; she does not insult or revile ascetics and
  brahmins. It is in such a way that a wretch lives together with a female deva.
(3) “And how does a deva live together with a wretch? Here, the husband is one who abstains from the destruction of life . . . he does not insult or revile ascetics and brahmins. But his wife is one who destroys life . . . she insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins. It is in such a way that a deva lives together with a wretch.
(4) “And how does a deva live together with a female deva? Here, the husband is one who abstains from the destruction of life . . . he does not insult or revile ascetics and brahmins. And his wife is also one who abstains from the destruction of life . . . she does not insult or revile ascetics and brahmins. It is in such a way that a deva lives together with a female deva. [59]
  “These are the four ways of living together.”
When both are immoral, miserly and abusive, husband and wife
  live together as wretches.
The husband is immoral, miserly and abusive,
  but his wife is virtuous, charitable, generous.
  She is a female deva living with a wretched husband.
The husband is virtuous, charitable, generous,
  but his wife is immoral, miserly and abusive. She is a wretch living with a deva husband.
Both husband and wife are endowed with faith, charitable and self-controlled,
  living their lives righteously,
  addressing each other with pleasant words.
Then many benefits accrue to them and they dwell at ease.
  Their enemies are saddened
  when both are the same in virtue.
Having practiced the Dhamma here,
  the same in virtuous behavior and observances, delighting [after death] in a deva world,
  they rejoice, enjoying sensual pleasures.
-- AN: 53, p. 443-445, Bodhi translation

Our enemies were sad, but so were we. The last part didn't happen.

A few other selections from the Pāḷi texts, since they seem to be what people respond to (I'm not bothering to offer my own translations this evening, these are by Thanissaro and can be taken with a pinch of salt). From the Rhinoceros Horn Sutta:

For a sociable person
  there are allurements;
  on the heels of allurement, this pain.
  Seeing allurement's drawback,
  wander alone
  like a rhinoceros.
One whose mind
  is enmeshed in sympathy
  for friends & companions,
  neglects the true goal.
  Seeing this danger in intimacy,
  wander alone
  like a rhinoceros.

From the Piyajātika Sutta:

"That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear, come springing from one who is dear."

From the Ariyapariyesana Sutta:

"And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.

And I could go on and on, citing dozens of texts which emphasise that, although there are some concessions to lay people in some places, they are not really taken seriously as Buddhist practitioners, nor expected to make much progress in the spiritual life. Certainly they are not expected to be liberated - the conditions are simply not in place for lay people. The best they can hope for, according to this point of view, is to generate enough merit to obtain a better rebirth.
Mahāyāna sects were more accommodating of lay people, but the extent of this is often over-stated. For example the idea that Mahāyāna was primarily a lay movement is now thoroughly discredited. It was essentially an offshoot of mainstream monastic Buddhism. For an overview of recent research on Mahāyāna history see: David Drewes, Early Indian Mahayana Buddhism I: Recent scholarship.
Of course one is free to pursue what the Buddha calls the "ignoble search" (i.e. marriage, relationships, socialising, career, and all that lay oriented stuff). But it is ignoble and it does not lead to liberation. Of course because supporting monks is the principle source of merit for laypeople, the monks have made a few concessions over the years to keep the lay people onside. But the basic message of Buddhism has not changed in many centuries, "Seeing this danger in intimacy, wander alone like a rhinoceros."
The exception is the kalyāṇa mitta one who is able to guide and support one in the spiritual life. But it's pretty clear who this might be - the Buddha is the template, so it really refers to arahants and other members of the ariyasaṅgha.
The phenomenon of modern lay people redefining the Buddha's message to fit the preconceptions of a modern world, with undigested lumps of popular psychology, so that more or less any lifestyle is seen as conducive to religious practice, is at best unfortunate. It is a serious misrepresentation of the Buddha's message as far as it is represented in the Pāḷi texts. In Buddhism one cannot have one's cake and eat it.

So, if one IS a Spiritual Friend, is it then noble to care for others rather than withdrawing?


text:
Is there another term than "Mahayana"?
Though my practice is "Mahayana" (in quotes), I have a great and abiding respect for the Theravada school and consider (as many do) the term "Hinayana" (Sanskrit for Smaller Vehicle) disrespectful of that tradition.  My question is, using the term "Mahayana" (Sanskrit for Great Vehicle) has a built-in comparison and seeming insult to that other tradition.  Therefore, is there another term for "Mahayana" that can be used to discuss that remarkable tradition without bringing in that un-needed and negative comparison to another school? Thanks, greatly.

See also Is there a better term than Hinayana?

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

As a fellow 'Mahayana' practitioner, I share your great respect for Theravadin buddhism and appreciate your sensitivity to the polemical origins of the term 'Mahayana' (I've used it many times myself, hopefully without causing offense; but try not to ever use the term 'Hinayana'). Because the term 'Mahayana'covers an extraordinary diversity of paths, you may want to just name your specific  tradition if the implication of this general term troubles you.
Another possible approach: 'bodhisattva-yana' is sometimes suggested as a general substitute term. In historical terms (according to Buswell's Encyclopedia of Buddhism), it apparently refers to a development in India that preceded Mahayana. However, it seems that for practical purposes, referring to yourself as a follower of the bodhisattva way would give fellow practitioners in any school of buddhism enough context to understand where you were coming from, without any derogatory implications.

Thank you, Alan.  I agree that mentioning your specific tradition (within Mahayana) is the best way.

Hīnayāna means "a defective vehicle". Hīna does not mean "lesser". The reason we think it might is because of Kumārajīva's influential Chinese translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarikā Sūtra which translates hīna as 小 xiǎo 'small'. But this is misleading.
For example in the Saddharmapuṇḍarikā Sūtra we find the following stanza:

ekaṁ hi kāryaṁ dvitiyaṁ na vidyate
na hīnayānena nayanti buddhāḥ ||55||
There is only one method, not a second,
The Buddhas do not lead by a defective way.

Give that this text is often cited as a locus classicus for prejudice against the so-called Hīnayāna, a supposedly lesser Buddhist teaching, this verse shows that it might need to be reconsidered. The Buddha's do not teach defective ways to awakening.
Part of the reason the pejorative sense was lost was that Buddhists outside India stopped using Sanskrit and didn't really understand the history of the Sanskrit words they retained.
Up to about the 4th century one can use the term "Mainstream" to refer to Buddhism that is not Mahāyāna. Around this time Mahāyāna itself was becoming the Mainstream in India (for the first time). Indeed in medieval India non-Mahāyāna Buddhism is almost irrelevant, except that all ordinations are still done according to Vinaya rules that stretch back to early Buddhism (which is still true of Vinaya ordinations). Perhaps the first non-Vinaya ordination was conducted in Japan in 822 CE by Saichō, founder of the Tendai School. Far more relevant in Indian at this time are distinctions such as Madhyamaka and Yogācāra.
The sectarian divides of India were not necessarily reproduced outside India.  The Mahāyāna/Hīnayāna distinction never really meant anything in Tibet for example because there never were any Buddhists who might have worn the latter label. Tibetans use the word entirely differently. China did at least receive a substantial number of Mainstream Buddhist texts, but not until the very end of the Mainstream period (ca. 4th-5th century). But from the first Mahāyāna texts were important in China.
So the terms to use depends to some extent whether one is referring to ordination or to doctrinal differences. And what time period and place one is referring to.
In the present day there is only one school that might have been traditionally associated with Mainstream Buddhism (by this definition). This is Theravāda. They are not part of a broader category on any doctrinal basis and mostly based on early medieval interpretations of early Buddhist teachings, so not Mainstream doctrinally anyway. So the term Theravāda is adequate for most purposes. However they share with Vinaya monks everywhere the same kind of ordinations (albeit with substantial differences from sect to sect).
But I see no reason not to use the term Mahāyāna. It's a bit vague, considering how much internal disputing goes on between Mahāyāna sects, but it is the right word to use. Though modern scholarship has substantially changed the view of Mahāyāna recently.

You don't have to abandon the term Mahayana if the term Hinayana makes you uncomfortable. You could replace Hinayana with something like Shravakayana, or something. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has proposed using the term Mula-yana, meaning root vehicle, or fundamental vehicle also.

Hmm, funny, when I read the question I understood that the problem is not the term Hinayana (it is only the "contrast" here to give a hint), but the comparision-aspect in the term "Mahayana" itself. Why not try to join the discussion with a focus on this...

I've also heard it said that the term Hinayana was mostly referring to traditions that are long since dead. To identify the term "Hinayana" with the Theravadin tradition would be mixing up history.
Sorry that I can't provide references other than an ages old recollection :-(


text:
Desire without attachment
The MahaNidana Sutta says

“Ānanda, if one is asked: ‘Is clinging due to a specific condition?’ one should say: ‘It is.’ If one is asked: ‘Through what condition is there clinging?’ one should say: ‘With craving as condition there is clinging.’’

So the cause of attachment is desire. However, my question is
Can desire without the attachment still lead to suffering?

Desire without attachment arises only when the mind is in one of the four bramha viharas. Such desire is obviously not going to lead to suffering. Of course with wisdom ordinary desires with attachment can be greatly attenuated, so relief is easy, but it will still be a slightly sticky mind.

@Buddho Short though that is, I think that's an answer and not just a comment.

Anagami (no returner?) has no Attachment. ("Kamaraga"). Although  he can gain "Niroda Samapaththi",  he left delusion. Not Perceive "Sunnata" yet. He feels "things are". so some sort of suffering can be, when not in samadi.(Jana).

@chrisw I added it as a comment because I couldn't give a substantial answer from my phone. I would like to add as answers only those I spend time to develop into a well researched piece.

Can desire without the attachment still lead to suffering?

When attachment is ceased desire is ceased. When desire is ceased, suffering is ceased.
This should be understood correctly. The statement "When attachment is ceased desire is ceased" does not mean that a person devoid of attachment, has no desires. Desire is still present, but the person can freely choose what he wishes to desire. His desires are not conditioned by past kamma anymore. So, when he notices "oh this is suffering", he simply frees himself from these desires which cause this same suffering, to the point when he is completely liberated from suffering.
Desire without attachment can still lead to suffering, but this suffering is short lived, because a person with non-attachment can easily free himself from this same desire. That's how a person free from attachment identifies desires that cause him suffering. By seeing and knowing desires that lead to suffering, he acquires wisdom about his own suffering and stops it completely.
An enlightened being is free from all desires that cause him suffering. He could choose to be unwise and desire to suffer, but he chooses not to because he knows "suffering creates more suffering". Thus, because he doesn't want to create more suffering, he chooses to completely stop suffering. By seeing and knowing "suffering creates more suffering", he acquires wisdom about his own suffering and the suffering of other beings and minimizes it as much as he can.

Can desire without the attachment still lead to suffering?  . .   YES
The MahaNidana Sutta says
Ānanda, if one is asked: ‘Are aging and death due to a specific condition?’ one should say: ‘They are.’ If one is asked: ‘Through what condition is there aging and death?’ one should say: ‘With birth as condition there is aging and death.’
“Ānanda, if one is asked: ‘Is birth due to a specific condition?’ one should say: ‘It is.’ If one is asked: ‘Through what condition is there birth?’ one should say: ‘With existence as condition there is birth.’

So   aging and death(Suffering) <-- birth <--existence <--clinging (attachment) <--craving (desire) <--feeling <-- contact <-- mentality-materiality <-- consciousness <--mentality-materiality
“Ānanda, if one is asked: ‘Is consciousness due to a specific condition?’ one should say: ‘It is.’ If one is asked: ‘Through what condition is there consciousness?’ one should say: ‘With mentality-materiality as condition there is consciousness.’

Hence consciousness << == >>  mentality-materiality (FORM)
“Thus, Ānanda, with mentality-materiality as condition there is
consciousness; with consciousness as condition there is
mentality-materiality; with mentality-materiality as condition there
is contact; with contact as condition there is feeling; with feeling
as condition there is craving; with craving as condition there is
clinging; with clinging as condition there is existence; with
existence as condition there is birth; and with birth as condition,
aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to
be. Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

This is interdependent state.
Now,
Q1). What is desire without the attachment mean?
Q2). In what situations this happen?
Q3). If the interdependency exist that situation?
Q4). Whit are the situations the interdependency not exist?
Anyway if interdependency is, then the suffering may arise.
for example infant child (without attachment-"kama") will suffer future..

Does this answer say, "yes desire without attachment leads to suffering" or does it say "there is no desire without attachment because they're interdependent"? Also I'm not sure what you mean by "interdependent": is your explanation of "interdependent" different from this answer which says, "the twelve links of dependent origination are talking about necessary causation, not sufficient causation"?

I used "Interdependent" for Patichchasamuthpada. their is no equality.

The question is

Can desire without the attachment still lead to suffering?

We have at least one concrete example of a negative answer to this question, from the Theravāda tradition which is the case of dhammachanda - desire for the Dhamma. This kind of desire, does not result in attachment or suffering. Quite the opposite. There is also the desire for the well-being of others that is such a vital part of Mahāyāna Buddhist practice.
It is certainly possible for someone to experience the attractive aspect of a sense experience without trying to grasp it. We do not noticeably grasp after every single pleasant experience we have for example. Some simply come and go. But the tendency which associates happiness with pleasant sense experience runs very deep and in practice we are usually grasping after some pleasant experience - trying to prevent it ceasing, or trying to recapture it through repetition. So desire without attachment is in fact extremely rare.
In the Theravāda model of the fetters, desire for sense experience (kāmarāga) is the 4th of the ten fetters (saṃyojana), but more subtle kinds of desire also exist, 6th is desire for material existence (rūparāga) and 7th is desire for immaterial existence (arūparāga). A once returner has weakened the 4th and 5th fetters; a non-returner has broken them, but is still subject to the more subtle forms of craving. Only the Arahant is entirely free from craving.
Mahāyāna Buddhists use a different model - the ten bodhisatva bhūmis. As one progresses through the bhūmis or "levels". The first bhūmi involves a very strong desire to help all beings to be liberated (bodhicitta). Since bodhicitta involves a direct experience of śūnyatā or emptiness, even the beginning bodhisatva is already free from the grosser aspects of desire. Through success stages the bodhisatva purifies their mind and their karma, through the practice of the six perfections, until they are completely free of any negative mental events.
Note that the two models are almost complete unrelated. Sometimes answers to questions like this are given in strongly sectarian terms - as though, for example, the Theravāda model is the only possible way of seeing the answer. For Buddhism as a whole this is always a distortion - sectarian views are seldom representative of Buddhists as a whole.
What we find in practice, however, is that these models are highly hypothetical and theoretical and can be entirely unrelated to one's experience of progress in the spiritual life. If I may be permitted an anecdote from my own life, I used to eat meat. I even worked in a butchers shop when I was a student (mostly cleaning, but also making small goods like sausages). I loved eating meat. But later when I discovered Buddhism I took on being a vegetarian, at first for ideological reasons, then later because I came to love animals. More than 20 years later I now never crave meat. I am entirely cured of any desire or attachment to eating the stuff. I find the very idea disgusting. I never knowingly eat anything that has or had neurons. Even if I was to cease being a Buddhist, I cannot imagine ever eating meat, except perhaps in the direst emergency (I feel about meat the way most people feel about cannibalism). So it is entirely possible to break some attachments, while still operating in a mode which is underpinned by patterns of desire and attachment.
One can gradually reduce the amount of desire one experiences - especially, I think, as one gets older and the blood cools. And as far as I know, there is no discussion of this phenomenon in any Buddhist text. Buddhists tend to present desire in terms of idealised models involving desire being an all or nothing proposition. I think we need to be wary of any kind of absolute, or any opinion stated as "Truth". We Buddhists all too often seem to fall for our own propaganda.


text:
Is a Ghatika an ideal minimum meditation duration?
I've been reading books written by, or associated with Alan Wallace, that describe a period of time that is new to me - Ghatika (24 minute period).

A session of twenty-four minutes is a good starting interval; for most people, it is neither too short nor too long ... and this is the session duration that the eighth-century Indian Buddhist contemplative Kamalashila recommended for begining meditators. (Minding Closely: The Four Applications of Mindfulness
   By B. Alan Wallace p.33)

Wallace goes on to claim that in the Vajrayana tradition a Ghatika is also considered an ideal meditation time because it is the time it takes for the subtle energies to do a full body circuit. Longer duration sits will of course be multiples of a Ghatika.
Some poking around on the internet reveals it is a Vedic measure of time - Vedic calculations of time and creation and was measured using a Ghatika Yantra, an ancient Indian water clock. I can find no reference to meditation apart from Alan Wallace references. Can anyone else perhaps shed more light on this?

This would certainly be true for the meditator that has advanced beyond the initial hurdles and can meditate for 20 minute periods. I have noticed from the past that when I did 20+ minute meditation session I have gained much more powerful progress, felt on a physical, energetic level as well as increased awareness... All because I  remember my tantra teacher saying that we have to do more than 20 minutes, preferably 40 minutes, to gain any progress.. I gotta get back on this habit! my meditations are much too short these days.

Ahmed ... Wallace does emphasize quality over quantity though :)

You find references in:

Tsongkhapa's Middle-Length Lam Rim
Kamalshila's Stages of Meditation
The Abhidharma.

Je Tsongkhapa. Middle-Length Lam Rim:

Indicating the length of sessions
Is there an established length of
  meditation sessions, specified in terms of “The mind is tied to the
  object and placed for just this long?” The major texts such as Śrāvaka
  Levels do not seem to clearly uphold an established length. However,
  in Stages of Meditation III it says:

Like that, gradually, you should sit for twenty-four minutes, one and
    a half hours, three hours, or as long as you can.

Apparently this was set forth in the context of the established length
  of meditation sessions for special insight meditation after calm
  abiding has already been accomplished, but in the context of initially
  practicing calm abiding it is evidently similar.

In the Lam Rim bring ba, Philip Quarcoo's footnotes specify:

Twenty-four minutes is one chu tshod, a unit based on traditional
  Indian time measurement and used in the Abhidharma. It is equivalent
  to one out of 60 parts of a day
One and a half hours, in Tibetan thun phyed, literally “half a night
  watch.”
Three hours, in Tibetan thun gcig, literally “one night
  watch”—common measure for a full meditation session.

Very interesting about the one and a half hour increment.  In Zen, the tradition is to sit the time it takes for a stick of incense to burn down.  That comes to about 45 minutes.  We usually light two - one after the other - which tada! comes to about one and a half hours.  :-)

I don't think I would claim that 24-minute increments are 'ideal', but they've worked in my experience. Perhaps this is simply because I feel tremendous confidence and respect toward Alan Wallace, and am used to working with 24-minute increments in following his instructions.
I encourage you to experiment (perhaps taking the gathika as a working hypothesis) and find out what works for your mindstream in light of your aspirations and the specific forms of meditation you wish to pursue. There are many variables to explore!
Finally, here's some interesting food for thought, which I think highlights how the appropriate length of a meditation period corresponds to the condition of one's mind, and requires introspective assessment of one's own meditative experience. Padmasambhava has been quoted as saying:

It is better to persevere with meditation at short intervals, than to meditate for a long period of time without any results.

Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche explains in the context of teaching shamatha:

When one meditates, do it for a short time; but do it again and again and again. The whole point is to develop a habit of meditation. If one meditates at first for too long, the mind just becomes more and more agitated and difficult to control. If one meditates for a short time and renews the session many times, then each time the mind will be fresh and clear and able to settle down more easily. So meditate again and again until the habit of meditation grows stronger.

Thanks Alan ... have been using Insight Timer on Android. Those 24min increments are proving to be quite useful for my practice as well - especially when you set the app to sound the bell every Ghatika :) Each cycle definitely has a distinct character for me.

That's a great idea, Devindra! Will incorporate that into my practice.

Most teachers I have heard and read seems to think a Ghatika is ideal. Then a little break and back to it. At least unless you are advanced.
But it should also be noticed that AW says it's vitally important to stay fresh while meditating. And be inspired, so that you want to go back to the cushion again.
Here is a nice schedule based on Ghatikas.

You will find the history of Ghatika here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Hindu_Chronology


text:
Significance of Bhikkhus uncovering their right shoulder
Often in the suttas one finds Bhikkhus who approach the Buddha reverentially uncover their right shoulder as a mark of respect. What is the significance of this practice? Is it cultural or is there a deeper significance?
One example from the Ratnakuta sutra

At that time, Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana then arose from his seat, bared his right shoulder, and bowed with his head at the Buddha’s feet.

Elsewhere in the sutra,

Perceiving Sumati Bodhisattva’s extraordinary intention, good roots, and sovereign authority, each bhikṣu uncovered his upper robe. They gave an offering to the Tathāgata by developing a great vow, saying...

In Pāḷi texts, the right shoulder is not specified. The standard description of a monk meeting the Buddha says

ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karoti (Vin 1.46)
he arranged his robe over one shoulder.

However the right side of the body is generally emphasised, e.g.

Atha kho so, bhikkhave, mahābrahmā ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karitvā dakkhiṇaṃ jāṇumaṇḍalaṃ pathaviyaṃ nihantvā... (DN ii.36; cf. MN i.168, i.177 etc.)
Then indeed, monks, the Great God, having arranged his robe over one shoulder, placing his right (dakkhiṇaṃ) knee-cap on the earth...

and

Atha kho rājā māgadho ajātasattu vedehiputto ... uṭṭhāyāsanā bhagavantaṃ abhivādetvā padakkhiṇaṃ katvā pakkāmi.
Then indeed Ajātasattu Son of Vedehi, King of Māgadha... rose from his seat, saluted the Bhagavan, and keeping to the right (padakkhiṇaṃ katvā), he left.

The verb many of these is √kṛ - "doing, making". So ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ karoti literally means "he makes his upper-robe one-shouldered" and  padakkhiṇaṃ katvā means something like "making right-handed".
The connotation of auspiciousness with the right side of the body is something shared with the Romans from whom we get words like "dextrous" from dexter "right, right hand side, south (facing the the rising sun)"; and it's opposite "sinister" (literally "left). In fact the Pāḷi word dakkhina is cognate with Latin "dexterous" (they both come from the same Proto-Indo-European root). And just like it, it can mean "skilful, clever, and quick to learn", but also "lucky, auspicious, etc".
One explanation might be deduced from the modern day Indian practice of using the left hand to wash the backside after defecating. If this is an ancient practice, which it may well be, then the left hand was ritually (and factually)  polluted and the right hand ritual pure.
However, I cannot find a single reference to the robe going over the right shoulder in either the Nikāyas or the Vinaya. It is always simply ekaṃsa "one shoulder". So this is apparently a later tradition.
NOTE Apparently Stack Exchange doesn't allow me to post Chinese characters! So I'm having to give Romanji instead which is much less satisfactory!
I tried to check the Lapis Lazuli citation, but he doesn't give enough information to locate the particular sūtra in the massive “Dàbǎojī jīng” or Mahāratnakuṭa - it runs to 120 fascicles in the CBETA version of the Chinese Tripiṭaka. But plenty of other Mahāyāna texts use this kind of phrase.
eg.

Ěr shí ānán cóng zuò ér qǐ, piān tǎn yòu jiān, yòu xī zhuó dì, (T232 729.b17)
Then Ānanda rose from his seat, bared his right shoulder (yòu jiān), and knelt on his right knee.

Now we can search for the phrase "yòu jiān" and see when it started appearing in Chinese translations. It turns up in some early translations, e.g. T156 which is an Avadāna Sūtra translated during the Wei Dynasty (220-265 CE); in T1428 and  T1432 some of the Chinese Vinaya Texts. It also turns up in the Āgama texts. So this suggests that the introduction of specifying the right shoulder occurred after the closing of the Pāḷi Canon (which occurred quite early), but still fairly early.

Th non-support for Chinese is a deliberate anti-spam measure. We could if we wanted to (and were willing to delete Chinese-language spam) ask that restriction be removed from this site, or we can believe them when they say the restriction is temporary.

I prefer to use characters when citing Chinese texts which I do from time to time - after all Chinese is one of the major Canonical languages for Buddhism. But I have no idea of the scale of the spam problem, so will leave it to those who do.

This comment suggests a work-around, i.e. use this site with the dropdown set to "HTML Code" to convert the unicode to HTML entities.

Thanks. This works well for small numbers of characters which is all I need.

Am I right in thinking that at least in the time of the original pali canon the namaste wasn't yet in common use? Though I do recall mentions of folded palms in texts.

Not sure what you mean by "the namaste". People in early Budhdist texts bowed to revered figures, sometimes with folded hands, sometimes with their head at the feet.

Thank you for this informative answer! I wondered about this myself. One small clarification, when you said "However, I cannot find a single reference to the robe going over the right shoulder " did you mean the robe going over the left shoulder? Or the robe not going over the right shoulder?

There's not mention of the robe going over either shoulder, but, yes the question was about uncovering the right shoulder and thus the robe would go over the left shoulder.


text:
Does Theravadin analysis distinguish between implicative and absolute negations?
In Beacon of Certainty (tr. Pettit), Mipham Rinpoche addresses key questions about how to practice based on Madhyamaka philosophy. The first question has to do with distinguishing absolute negation from implicative negation.

An affirming negative (or “implicative negation”) “expresses the absence of one predicate while implying some other.” (Pettit 109)
In short, this is not a good way to conceive how appearances are empty of any true and inherent existence: because the implied object has to somehow stand apart and have some kind of inherent existence that is immune from further analysis.

A non-affirming negative (or “absolute negation”) “simply excludes something, without implying anything else.” (Pettit 109)
This is a much more fruitful stance because it does not hold some kind of appearance as standing separate from emptiness; and therefore it can serve as a conceptual segue to meditative experience of the coalescence of emptiness and appearance.

I think this distinction is a very powerful tool in overcoming the tendency to take appearances as concrete realities that somehow have emptiness within them; and to understand how appearance and emptiness coalesce. Is there a similar distinction within Theravadin buddhism? It seems like this would be a useful distinction when exploring the 3 Dharma seals, particularly that of not-self (sabbe dhammā anattā). But I've never encountered such an analysis when reading in the Pali Canon or Theravadin commentaries.

I don't recall any discussion of this nature in any early Buddhist texts or books about early Buddhist philosophy. Mind you I think the early Buddhists were much clearer that their ideas applied only to experience, and were thus far less likely to stumble into the kind of ontological speculation about existence and non-existence that plagues Buddhist thought from Nāgārjuna onwards. They were not bogged down in the Two Truths debacle for example. In other words they probably had less need for this kind of distinction.
An important touchstone of this view on what Buddhist analysis applies to is the Kaccānagotta Sutta (SN 12.15) which says that neither existence (astitā) nor non-existence (nāstitā) apply to the world of experience (loka). Famously Nāgārjuna cites a version of this text by name, but he is still stuck with Two truth style arguments that insist on the language of astitā/nāstitā and are thus completely misleading about the nature of experience.
I'm sure that if one is mistakenly trying apply the idea of pratītyasamutpāda outside the domain of experience, then major philosophical problems do ensue that require ad hoc solutions. But if one is clear from the outset that there are no ontological implications to the Buddhist analysis of experience then one is much less likely to start drawing ontological conclusions and be in need of some kind of corrective.
I think this is an interesting example of the kind of difficulty that crops up in later Buddhism due to losing sight of scope of the early Buddhist texts.

Thank you for your response. Let me clarify - I am not interested for speculative reasons, but rather in order to inform meditative experience. It may well be that early Buddhism lacks this analysis, but given the complex intellectual framework of Abhidharma your rejection of 'ontological speculation' seems somewhat extreme.

I'm also interested in informing meditative progress. The Abhidharma was a mistake that Nāgārjuna tried, but ultimately failed, to put right. The Prajñāpāramitā authors also rejected the incipient Realism of the Abhidharma. How extreme it is seems to me irrelevant. As far as meditation goes, all it means is that we are only talking about mental states. Which really isn't extreme at all. It's not my view btw, it's the view of early Buddhism.

@AlanW I've deleted the later comments as they deviate from the Q and A format. For extended discussion please use the chat facility - it may help you dig into these issues future should you wish to do so. Many Thanks

From a practicing (non-academic) Theravada perspective philosophical analysis/speculation of this form would be simply considered playing with vaci-sankhara (verbal formations). Realization of anattā for a Theravadin comes from meditative practice alone. No amount of fiddling around with words or expertise in the written Pali scriptures or associated philosophical intricacies brings one any closer to the goal. Any and all thoughts one has about anattā are merely formations based on craving (tanha) which must be let go before one can actually realize anattā. There is a feeling associated with every sense object that comes in contact with the senses. Based on this feeling one perceives the object as good, bad, or neither and then one's intellect explores this object as a source of happiness, unhappiness, or neither respectively. In this case one's mind comes into contact with an idea about anattā and it evokes some feeling. If this feeling is positive then one will be attracted to the idea (as a source of happiness) and will attempt to further justify this idea with the intellect. Similarly, if the idea evokes a negative feeling then the intellect will attempt to refute this idea as it perceived the idea as a source of unhappiness. The irony is that both of these explorations about anattā (really intellectual exploration about any subject) are psychologically based on self-view (sakkaya-ditti). The intellect is always biased by the fundamental perceptions one has about the object that are based on nothing more than feelings. In order to realize the truth about anything these thoughts (explorations of the intellect) must be abandoned.

The Theravada school doesn't use what the Tibetans would call analytical meditation, so the question doesn't even come up as to whether or not the object of negation is to be negated through an implicative or non-implicative negation.
Instead of the rational analysis type of meditation, the Theravada school relies on a more experiential process of setting one's mindfulness on the objects of experience as they arise and simply watching them, and then the three characteristics appear not through rational analysis, but through direct experience.
If you want a good freely available book on how this is done in the Theravada school, I would recommend the Ven. Nyanaponika Thera's book The Heart of Buddhist Meditation. You can find it freely available legally just by googling "the Heart of Buddhist Meditation" PDF.

Thanks - one of the first books on Buddhism I tried to put into practice, and I welcome the suggestion to look into it further!  In searching for it online I ran across an essay which is helping me to better understand the driving difference of perspective here and in other answers: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html. I greatly respect Bhikkhu Bodhi so I hope this is a fair statement of the differences in perspective.


text:
What are the reasons for and against studying other religions?
When I studied Spanish, I better understood my native English language. I wondered if the same kind of thing can happen in the realm of religion.
What are the pros and cons of studying other religions and their practices as a Buddhist?
To be clear, I do mean "studying" (and not "practising") another religion's practices... not that answers about the pros and cons of "practising" another practice wouldn't be most welcome, I just assume that practising another practice would be too confusing. Maybe someone will give an answer that challenges this assumption - Metta

I've added "as a Buddhist", to be clear how it relates to our site.

I'd attribute this phrase I ran into many years ago if I knew a true source: "The heat that melts the butter, hardens the steel." We might have more appropriate answers if we knew more about you. Studying other religions is helpful for some, potentially harmful for others.

In terms of general knowledge, it can be helpful to be familiar with the religions of the world on a basic level and there are many books which compare the world's religions in an easy format such as The Handy Religion Answer Book. Reading a book such as this gives an interesting glimpse into the vastness of the the world's religious traditions.
Studying all or many of the world's religious traditions on an in depth level however, would take large amounts of time and effort which could take away from Buddhist practice. As people familiar with Buddhism, we can probably easily appreciate that even within a single religion there can be vast difference in practice and beliefs and to study multiple religions in depth would be a major undertaking.
Intention is everything. An intention to add a bit of general knowledge about a subject or to confirm that your current religion and practice is right for you may be wholesome. An intention to compare your own religion and practice against others in a conceited way or to avoid a tough part of your own practice by busying yourself with endless study could be not-so-wholesome.
When preparing to leave the religious tradition I had been born into, I read a general book comparing religions and it was helpful for putting things into perspective. But, using the example of reading about meditation vs practicing meditation, one doesn't get a true sense of what a religion consists of by reading about it.

From my personal perspective I think it can be extremely beneficial and everyone should be encouraged to study the doctrine and practices of many religions. Even though I grew up in Sri Lanka for 17 years I was never a Buddhist and I dismissed Buddhism as just another religion. I used to be a very devout atheist, aspired to become a theoretical physicist, and had no interest in anything that even remotely resembled religion. While I was studying in Australia and the US I was exposed to a variety of different religious and philosophical traditions. It allowed me to gain an understanding of why different people believe what they believe, what impact these traditions have had on the cultures that adopted them, how different belief systems introduce bias not only at the level of the individual but also at the societal level, how certain biases extend across space and time, and ultimately gain an appreciation for the Dhamma that I otherwise wouldn't have been able to achieve. Now it's only a matter of time before I go forth from home into homelessness.

It depends on the individual. I've heard several people say it would be too confusing or wasteful. The analogy offered in Advaita Hinduism is that it is far better to dig one deep well than several shallow wells.
In my personal experience the opposite is true, much to the chagrin of some spiritual friends and family.
We must each obey whatever is our reality. My reality was to reject at an early age the style of Hinduism I was born into, mainly for its unthinking rituals and corruption, and explored Catholicism and then Communism, and Socialism, looking for a means to end human suffering. I settled on agnosticism and atheism-lite with an emphasis on science and technology before seeing that it was hollow too, and riddled with the same rites and rituals and corruption as every system I had encountered so far.
I finally broke into a true form of spirituality when experiencing the spirituality of mountains, rivers and forests. They allowed me to experience the reality of my own body, they allowed me to see that reality was dependant and conditioned. They opened my eyes to some of the same truths as the Buddha speaks of, which left me utterly confused or disillusioned with samsara and forced me to set out on a quest for unconditional freedom guided by philosophers like Thoreau, and Jiddu Krishnamurti.
Stumbling across Buddhism I found a lot of familiar patterns and was impressed with the unquestionable wisdom of the Buddha and decided to stay there a while. Soon enough I found such experiences were also to be found in other religions, like the Hinduism I had abandoned.
In time I saw that the labels didn't matter - whoever had experienced the true essence of reality, had expressed it in their religion, and I saw that the truest scientists like Einstein, and spiritual masters of various religions had experienced the same oneness of creation that I was being exposed to. I don't think Buddhism or Hinduism or any ism has all the answers. The answers are all around us and not within a book.
Any system will be laden with corruption and rites and rituals, it is inescapable. Thus the answers are not in systems, but in a direct dance with reality.
I've settled on Buddhism and Hinduism as the places today to dig my well, but I am not attached to them. It's just a vehicle - not my destination.

"(...) Thus the answers are not in systems, but in a direct dance with reality.(...)" - Your sentence reminds me to one chorus which I like very much: "the answers are blowing with the wind" (well - I adapted the official version a bit...). And meditating in a forest, on a meadow, in the wind, senses wide open, attention wide open, awareness wide open can be much informative ... :-)

I am not Buddhist, but from what I have heard from them, my experiences are sufficiently applicable to be worth voicing here.
I have found great value in studying religions that I do not necessarily believe in.  I find it to be a very powerful way to learn from a culture that is very different from my own.  In particular, I have found it very effective at highlighting causes of suffering in my own life.  The world is an amazing and beautifully diverse place.  We have found many ways to live.  Many things I was brought up to assume were simply "the way humanity acts" have been shown to be very culturally specific as I study how other cultures work.
As an example in my own life, I have been raised as an American and thus naturally raised to believe in the "equality" of the sexes.  Exploring other cultures, I found that the other cultures did not always have what I would call "equality."  Studying the religions of these cultures helped me understand how a society could be "good" without equality of the sexes.  At the end of the journey, I identified that it was not my fellow cultures that were wrong, it was that my personal definition of "equality of the sexes."   My concept of what that phrase could mean was too rigid.  Studying other cultures which have succeeded with different meanings helped me widen my opinions.  I now hold a wider belief (preferring the word "incomparable" over "equal") which helped me elevate above self-inflicted suffering caused by my overly rigid definitions.
However, there is a difficult counterpoint to this.  Studying other religions is an easy question.  However, some things cannot simply be studied in isolation.  They must be lived.  For these things, I recommend not seeking any carte blanche directive.  Your life is too important to sign a blank checque.  Seek those in your life that you respect for guidance on such things.  It is my belief that much of the richness of life is found by experiencing contrasting worlds, but it can be difficult to do.  It is easy to blur the worlds together, and miss out on the most important part of both worlds.  This is why I recommend seeking guidance from those you respect on such activities.  They may be able to help you set yourself on a path which gains as much as possible from the interaction without doing harm to either group, nor yourself.  However, there's no one way to do it.  Those in your life can help you find your way to do it.

I think it can definitely provide a better understanding of ones own field by studying other fields.
Let me give you an example from my own life. I work as a physiotherapist. Physiotherapists on e.g. clinics and hospitals work closely together with nurses, ergotherapists, doctors and other healthcare professionals. Working with other professions has taught me a lot about where the "lines" of my own profession go to. What my territory is. It's important to know so one does not cross a line and begin to do nurses work for example.
In the same way i experience that after having gained a better understanding of the Dhamma through study and practice that when reading or hearing about other religions that it serves to enhance my own understanding of the Dhamma by making the lines sharper and the doctrines stand out more clearly. (I'm not myself actively using this method of studying other fields. I just occasionally bump into other religions when watching debates or reading buddhist litterature where there are references or comparisons to other religions).
In a way one works "backwards" when using the method of studying other fields in order to make one's own territory more visible and understable. It can be a good method to use but i think it requires that one has a good understanding of whatever topic one wants to understand better (in our case, the Dhamma). Also it's time-consuming and might limit ones own time to practice.
When i first began with Buddhism i think it would have mudded the picture if i had also studied about other religions at the same time. So based on my own experience i think one should acquire some level of experience before using this method of studying other fields.