text:
What are Bhavanga and Javana?
Will someone explain Bhavanga and Javana in simple way?
At times, they seem non-comprehensible.

According to the Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's book A Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma, Chapter 3 Guide to §8 :

The word bhavanga means “factor (anga) of  existence (bhava),” that
  is, “the indispensable condition of existence.”  Bhavanga is the
  function of consciousness by which the continuity of the individual is
  preserved through  the duration of any single existence, from
  conception to death.  After the paṭisandhicitta  has arisen and fallen
  away, it is then followed by the bhavangacitta, which is a resultant
  consciousness  of  the  same  type  as  the  paṭisandhicitta  but
  which  performs  a  different function,  namely,  the  function  of
  preserving  the  continuity  of  individual  existence. Bhavangacittas
  arise  and  pass  away  every  moment  during  life  whenever  there
  is  no active cognitive process taking place.  This type of
  consciousness is most evident during deep dreamless sleep, but it also
  occurs momentarily during waking life countless times  between
  occasions of active cognition.

In other words the Bhavanga-Citta is a mindstate that has all the necessary features of consciousness but is otherwise blank. It occurs in between all other mindstates and also during what we would now call being unconscious.
In the same section the Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi explains Javana thus:

“Javana” is a technical term of Abhidhamma usage that is best left
  untranslated. The  literal  meaning  of  the  word  is  “running
  swiftly.”    As  a  function  of consciousness, it applies to the
  stage of the cognitive process that immediately follows  the
  determining stage 76  and consists of series of cittas (normally
  seven, all identical in kind) which “run swiftly” over the object in
  the act of apprehending it.  The javana stage is the most important
  from an ethical standpoint, for it is at this point that wholesome or
  unwholesome cittas originate.

The Javana is one step in a series of things that occur after having a sense experience. A sense experience starts with the Bhavanga vibrating for one moment and in the next moment is cut off. Then a mindstate arises which turns towards the sense object; This turning is called āvajjana, or adverting. Then you have the appropriate sense consciousness arise that is aware of the sense object. If the sense object is one of the physical senses then you also have a mindstate of receiving, then a mindstate of investigating, and then a mindstate of determining that follow the sense consciousness. For a mental consciousness these three mindstates don't happen.
After this happens there arises a series of seven mindstates called the Javana. I think the best way to think of it is that in the earlier phases the mind is becoming aware of an object, and in the Javana phase the mind is actually reacting to the object. After the Javana you have some other phases, but they aren't that relavent to this discussion.

Bhavaṅga
The bhavaṅga citta, mentioned earlier, is the primary form of mind. It flows from conception to death except when interrupted by a stimulus through one of the sense doors. When a stimulus enters, consciousness becomes active, launching into a thought process (citta vīthi). Thought processes have been analysed in great detail in the Abhidhamma.
A complete thought process, occurring through the physical sense doors, is made up of seventeen thought moments (citta khaṇa). These are:
1) A bhavaṅga that flows by in a passive state when one of the five
physical sense organs comes in contact with its object (atīta bhavaṅga).
2) A bhavaṅga that vibrates for one thought moment (bhavaṅga calana).
3) A bhavaṅga that cuts off the flow (bhavaṅga upaccheda).
4) A citta that turns towards the object through the sense door that has been stimulated (pañcadvāra-vajjana).
5) The appropriate sense consciousness; in the case of the eye, for example, eye consciousness (cakkhu viññāṇa).
6) Next a thought moment—the sampaṭicchana citta—which has the function of receiving the object.
7) When the object has been received another thought moment, called the santīraṇa citta, arises, performing the function of investigating the object.
8) The act (kamma) itself, especially if it was a weighty one.
9–15) The object having been determined, the most important stage from an ethical standpoint follows. This stage, called javana, consists of seven consecutive thought moments all having an identical nature. It is at this stage that good or evil is done, depending on whether the cittas have wholesome or unwholesome roots. Therefore, these javana thought moments have roots and also produce new kamma.
17) Following the seventh javana the registering stage occurs, composed of two thought moments called tadālambana. When the second registering citta has perished, the bhavaṅga follows, flowing on until interrupted by another thought process.
Source, Dr. N.K.G. Mendis, The Abhidhamma in Practice

It's impossible because the practitioner can see Bhavanga and Javana when he has strong enough concentration meditation to look back to his past lives in advice of the Tipitaka Memorizer who is Jhana Mastery. Bhavanga and Javana are very quick arising and vanishing trillion times per second, the fastest and smallest element of all. It's not that easy to see them, the truth.
So, reading is imagination, you can get them as only blur imagination by reading.
Bhavaṅga is UpattiBhavaPaticcaSamuppada (Keeping Arising) + Aṅga (Element [of Keeping Arising]).
The origin of Bhava is SankharaPaticcasamuppada  (Past origin of present resultant life) and UpadanaPaticcasamuppada (present origin of future resultant life).
What is UpattiBhavaPaticcaSamuppada?
UpattiBhavaPaticcaSamuppada (Present life/past origin's resultant) is NamaRupaPaticcaSamuppada (Present life/past origin's resultant) in the name about base of present arising and vanishing [element of each other resultants also itself is resultant as well].
It's something like I am a person [Aṅga] of the community [bhava]. I am not a famous person, but it's called community because I am in it.
Bhavanga is only resultant. It's unable to create next life like Javana's Karma. However, The dependent origination's called Paticcasamuppada (origin) and Paticcasamuppanna (dependent) because Bhavanga is in it as the resultant (dependent).
Javana is when we are doing new karma. We are doing karma mor than million times per second. It's impossible to avoid new karma until enlightenment. That's why enlightenment is the most important.


text:
Money to monasteries
Is it right for a monastery or a temple to take money donations, having donation boxes and selling a lot of different things to worship or get luck from?
Or shouldn't a monastery use money just like the monks?
I feel if I want to give to a monastery is better to give food to the monks, give the things they need not the money so they can get it themself.

Yes it is OK for monastics to sell things. Sư Trưởng (Head Nun) Như Thanh started the Huế Làm Nunnery and nine other nunneries by selling food and in a few cases businesses like rice sales, making soy sauce, printing sutras and a tailor shop. (1) She was in many ways the Mother Teresa of Vietnam but refused to travel saying she would just give the money to the nunneries thus she remains unknown. In her life she raised over 5000 nuns and 13 Dharma masters including Sư Cô Thích Nữ Như Nguyệt, PhD sited above. A large reason 90% of the monastics in Vietnam are now nuns can be traced back to her works. I do not know of another person that made such a big change to Buddhism in one country (and by extension the US because her disciples are here) in the scant span of 100 years like Sư Trưởng Như Thanh.
Her book "Path of the Bodhisattva" (Vietnamese only 1989) might be the crowning achievement out of her extensive literary works. Without a doubt she was one of the most stunning people of this world and few know her name. But those that do she is seen as a true bodhisattva.
"Looking up, I seek enlightenment. Looking down, I liberate sentient beings." - Sư Trưởng Như Thanh.
So when you go to a Vietnamese-American temple run by nuns and see food being sold you'll know who started it [so please buy some]. Also any temple named "Huế Làm" will quite likely have her picture hanging around somewhere. She is that important.

Eminent Buddhist Women, p. 88 "Fostering Self-sufficiency" written by her Dharma daughter and personal care attendant of the last 22 years of her life Pháp sư và Sư cô Thích Nữ Như Nguyệt ("moon"), PhD. http://goo.gl/TKNxns.  She is the apex between intelligence and compassion. Her pháp danh should've been Minh.

Also http://giacngo.vn/lichsu/2009/01/15/7FC650/
As for giving just food I'm someone who's office duties includes cutting checks to pay the electricity, heat, Internet, phone and the myriad of other bills and can say at our nunnery (note: I'm laity and a white guy) money is always accepted with gratitude and is needed. Gratitude was something Sư Trưởng Như Thanh taught should always been shown.
Edit: In hindsight I would recommended making donations for specific needs. If a monastic needs a car fixed you show pay the mechanic. If they need to pay a bill you should it the company directly. Advice I received from a very good monk.

http://www.buddhismtoday.com/viet/pgvn/nguoi/nhuthanh/0-MucLuc.htm

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Buddhist "code of ethics" on talking about other religions
I took a friend interested in Buddhism to a centre. This person is Catholic and doesn't want to change that; she is very satisfied with her religion. However she was curious about Buddhism and specially meditation.
At the end she was a bit disappointed because there were 2 mentions of other religions (catholics and other buddhist schools) that she thought were driven by a big "pride", for example: "Here we don't do this...in other centres they do"; "We value this, catholics don't".
I didn't have the same interpretation, however I agree one should be very careful on talking to an open public about other religions and traditions, as it can be very easily misunderstood. We don't need to use other religions to make a point.
So, the question is: Is there any Buddhist code of ethics on that? In the Vinaya maybe?

What you've described is probably very common in meditation centres, unfortunately.
This isn't from the Vinaya proper, but in the Brahmajāla Sutta, the Buddha goes over many views, starting with superficial views his followers have of him. Here's an excerpt from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation:

"It is, bhikkhus, only to trifling and insignificant matters, to the minor details of mere moral virtue, that a worldling would refer when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata. And what are those trifling and insignificant matters, those minor details of mere moral virtue, to which he would refer?
"'Having abandoned the destruction of life, [omitted for brevity]' It is in this way, bhikkhus, that the worldling would speak when speaking in praise of the Tathāgata.
"Or he might say: 'Having abandoned taking what is not given, [omitted]'
"Or he might say: 'Having abandoned unchaste living, [omitted]'
"Or he might say: 'Having abandoned false speech, the recluse Gotama abstains from falsehood. He speaks only the truth, he lives devoted to truth; trustworthy and reliable, he does not deceive anyone in the world.'
"Or he might say: 'Having abandoned slander, the recluse Gotama abstains from slander. He does not repeat elsewhere what he has heard here in order to divide others from the people here, nor does he repeat here what he has heard elsewhere in order to divide these from the people there. Thus he is a reconciler of those who are divided and a promoter of friendships. Rejoicing, delighting, and exulting in concord, he speaks only words that are conducive to concord.'
"Or he might say: 'Having abandoned harsh speech, the recluse Gotama abstains from harsh speech. He speaks only such words as are gentle, pleasing to the ear, endearing, going to the heart, urbane, amiable, and agreeable to many people.'

Also, in the Theragatha (found in the ) we have the verses by Vangisa Bhikkhu (according to ATI, the bhikkhu whom the Buddha designated as his foremost disciple in the composition of spontaneous verse):

One should speak only that word by which one would not torment oneself nor harm others. That word is indeed well spoken.
One should speak only pleasant words, words which are acceptable (to others). What one speaks without bringing evils to others is pleasant.
Truth is indeed the undying word; this is an ancient verity. Upon truth, the good say, the goal and the teaching are founded.[19]
The sure word the Awakened One speaks for the attainment of nibbana, for making an end of suffering, is truly the best of words.

Unfortunately your friend bristled at the religious aspects that some Buddhist practitioners pile on to the simplicity of Buddhism.
If your friend has not been burned, show her the simplicity and innocence of the flower sermon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon
Or show her the simplicity of following the breath meditation
https://thebuddhistcentre.com/text/mindfulness-breathing
You could mention the Dalai Lama and his warm relationship with Christians
http://www.wccm.org/content/interview-laurence-freeman-comments-friendship-dalai-lama
I would hesitate myself to go to any organization, whether they call themselves Buddhists or not, if they say derisive or critical comments about any religion.
Do no harm. Or do nothing. But don't hide behind a religion and sow seeds of discord - I am ashamed that this could happen to your friend. Please offer her my sincere and humble apologies.

Thanks for your lovely answer, I think one of the main issues with this place is that it has no monk, only lay people, so it is easier to fall into the trap of "pride" when there is no senior monk to lead and be seen as the leader.

Thank you for your feedback. I am not sure if lay or monk matters as much as the attitude of openness of who is leading the group event. It may be less a matter of pride as one of lack of confidence that leads someone to disparage others in order to elevate their own order. Nothing is perfect so wherever you find refuge in the sangha is fine.

It may not be meant as disparaging. Buddhists might say, "Christians believe X, but we believe Y." konrad said, "I didn't have the same interpretation" which I thought meant, "I didn't think the statement was driven by big pride: I think my friend found it easy to misunderstand, and maybe the Buddhist should have described themselves without any comparison/contrast to other, non-Buddhist beliefs."

Agreed, no need to compare or exclude. Am highly impressed how Dalai Lama finds a way to include other religions, scientists, psychologists, social scientists and others too numerous to mention.

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


text:
Experiencing physical pain
What advice (or techniques e.g. of meditation) does Buddhism (of any tradition) have for people who experience physical pain (caused by an illness and treated by a doctor)? Or for the people (friends, family, even nurses) of such people?
That (physical pain) is what the word "suffering" implies or means to most people.
Is "see the doctor, get better analgesics" the best or only real answer? What if analgesics have an effect on the mind -- e.g. opioids -- is that 'bad'? What if analgesics don't work, e.g. neuropathic pain, or if the medicines are not available?
Sorry for asking. This isn't a "real problem" for me at the moment, so it may be an example of unnecessary worry -- but I'm able to ask now, and in case this problem happens to me or someone else in the future, I want to have prepared/studied some appropriate advice in advance.
And/or what advice do you have for people now, before they experience pain, to prepare.

I agree that 'pain' is meant to send some kind of warning message, so temporary/new pain and a trip to the doctor might be the first thing.
For the sake of this question, please assume that the underlying problem has already been medically diagnosed: that it is chronic pain, from an illness like diabetic neuropathy or terminal cancer, or something like that.

Commenting since this isn't wort a full answer. Shinzen Young is a very experienced meditation teacher, and has a lot to say about pain. In particular he has sympathy with your point, ChrisW, That although your pain might not be an issue right now, it could become one, and so better to learn how to manage it now while you have the chance! Here's a starting point: http://www.shinzen.org/Articles/artPain.pdf

One other comment-not-worth-an-answer: opiate pain killers are probably second only to terrorism in that they needlessly scare the bejeezus out of too many people. The vast majority of people use them properly, don't end up with addiction issues, and could learn meditation and meditation-related pain control synergistically with (careful) opiate use. In that respect, they are no more "bad" (nor good) than chocolate.

@tkp Thank you for the reference etc. It is a good answer and needn't be 'merely' a comment.

I would recommend watching this discourse by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on Pain : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BldDclolLCg

@Monk I would not: its subject is, what you can learn from the pain of getting stiff legs during meditation. It would be IMO a desperately inappropriate/cruel set of messages to give to someone who is seriously ill and in pain, unless perhaps they have already bought into (internalized) the philosophy: in summary in says, "the universe doesn't care about your pain; suffering is part of life; the fire of attachment is suffering, happiness doesn't come from clinging to impermanent things; it's not a big deal it's not going to kill me; whatever you do isn't going to solve the problem so give up".

@ChrisW Yes, I know. My reply was based on this part of your question "what advice do you have for people now, before they experience pain, to prepare."

There's a guided meditation on that subject here: Using Meditation to Deal with Pain, Illness & Death
The author (Thanissaro Bikkhu) says that he used it to "help get me through the worst bouts of pain and disorientation" when he had malaria, suggests that it's useful to practice before it's "too late to get fully prepared", and recommends it for care-givers as well as for the patients who are in pain.
It's "breath meditation" without 'so-called' Buddhist doctrine: apparently it's a speech he gave to people at an AIDS conference; so it could be useful also for people with non-Buddhist relatives or friends.
It begins,

Close your eyes and say to yourself, 'May I be truly happy and free from suffering.' [etc.]

It continues,

You should be very clear on one point: The purpose of meditation is to find happiness and well-being within the mind, independent of the body or other things going on outside. Your aim is to find something solid within that you can depend on no matter what happens to the body.

Some specific techniques or ideas begin with the paragraph which starts with,

So now I would like to focus on how to use meditation to face these things and transcend them. First, pain. When it happens, you first have to accept that it's there.

According to my teacher, the enlightened attitude is to see pain is information. (For comparison, the non-enlightened attitude is to block/avoid/suppress pain by all means.) Because pain is information, we should evaluate it, see what message it carries and what it means for us, and then act.
Some physical pain is a symptom of a deeper-lying problem, and instead of suppressing the symptom a wiser approach would be to take care of the causes (often, bad lifestyle habits).
Some physical pain accompanies exercises that help one get stronger physically and emotionally. The right attitude to such pain is to accept the physical component and by accepting it eliminate the emotional component that comes from resistance and self-pity (so called "pain of pain").
Obviously, some physical pain is a sign of damage being done to the body right now, like the pain that accompanies tearing of ligaments. There is also residual pain that accompanies recovery process etc. -- these fall in the realm of regular medicine.
So the rule of thumb is to not worry about the pain itself, but the message behind it.
However, if pain is so overwhelmingly strong that it obscures the mind, I would imagine the Buddhist approach would not disagree with using anesthetics temporarily.

I assume, perhaps unskillfully, that accepting medicine is part of the Middle Way. I read that medicine is permitted to monks.

I'm sorry i can't see a relationship between my answer and your comment. I see you edited your question now. You're asking about techniques for dealing with pain. Yes, the technique is to see pain directly as energy or information. Then it is no longer painful.

Your last sentence "would imagine the Buddhist approach would not disagree with anesthetics": I tried to confirm that.

Are you equating anesthesia with medicine? Cuz for me these are two different things. One treats causes and the other suppresses symptoms.

"Properly considering medicinal requisites for curing the sick, I use them: simply to ward off any pains of illness that have arisen, and for the maximum freedom from disease" -- anesthetics are included in, are a subset of, medicine.

And specifically I thought that 'unnecessary' pain (e.g. from refusing anaesthetics) might be asceticism and therefore no middle way.

Nah, I bet they just meant pain caused by illness. BTW apparently the main anesthetic back in the day was distilled alcohol. Marijuana is hardly an anesthetic in my experience.

Anyway, thank you for the theory that "Then it is no longer painful.

Yeah, i have some experience of watching strong throbbing pain for days. With time it becomes a 3D scene. Plus, my current mentor has us do pain tolerance exercises every week. Once you switch, pain feels more like heat, not like pain pain. (It's not a damaging pain, just static muscle exercise)

This is not a proper answer about the ethics but my personal experience.
Four years ago I was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer of the jaw and was given two months to live. I prepared my final plans, said goodbye to my family and gave up everything to my wife (who's a MD so truly understood the score). While I've almost died more than a few times (USCG MK on a 44' MLB in the North Atlantic) this sucked because I had children. Even with surgery it was unlikely they would get everything. I was most likely going to die.
After aggressive, life altering surgery (12 hours on the table and three days in a coma but with clean margins), major chemo and 39 radiation sessions to the head in an eight month span that nearly killed me the cancer was gone. As I healed I slowly and systematically in a six month span weaned myself off of a >200mg daily dose of oxycodone. I'd like to say it was tough but it wasn't. Uncomfortable? Yes but I knew that the discomfort was not of being sick but of healing so I welcomed it. For three months after that I went with no pain medications, prescription, OTC or other.
What was left was major neuropathic pain around the surgical site where facial injuries are very sensitive and right leg where the bone graft [implanted in my jaw] was taken. My MDs have no problem having me on opiates until I die but to me that was a death. For me any opiates were not acceptable. So what did I do? My state has a medical cannabis law and I got a caretaker that in many ways is a true bodhisattva. Is it worse than alcohol and opiates? IMO and those of my MDs: no. My IM MD (a medical school professor and addiction specialist) of >15y is happy with my choice. With tinnitus from the chemo I can't even take a NSAID. Medical cannabis has made a difference in my life. It's not perfect but it is IMO relatively benign and my best choice.
So IMO in the end it has to be your choice. If you need medications then take them. If you don't then don't. Also IMO the fact that you're even asking the question clearly shows you understand this and would embrace it. You're "ahead of the curve" on this one.
I hope you find an answer that works for you.
Today I find myself as the personal secretary to a Vietnamese-American Dharma master (her master was the "Mother Teresa of Vietnam" and only in a handful of Dharma heirs from her) and abbess of the local nunnery who is the most compassionate person I will ever meet. She truly understands the lesson of Avalokiteśvara and lives that life to the betterment of our sangha. To sit at the same desk with a such a person is humbling.
Life does go on.
Nam mô A Di Đà Phật.

There are multiple "pain clearing" techniques, that have a meditative and Buddhist foundation.
First, I'll summarize a few high points (see (1) thru (3) below), then I'll give abbreviated steps for the technique I most often use (see (a) thru (i) below). For whatever understanding is worth (sometimes understanding is the booby prize ;) here's the few high points:

Play with the point of view, that pain and suffering are distinct, and that suffering is all about resistance.  (You can see the Buddhist roots of this.)  So... for this:  EMBRACE your right-now experience (if you have resistance, embrace that too), the "suffering" aspect decreases... and as you continue to embrace, not only can the suffering decrease... you can even see the pain disappear.

Pain may initially be a natural response, but very quickly (seconds), you can end up experiencing the memory of a pain, as much or more than the actual right-now sensations.  So, for this:  BE PRESENT.  For example be aware, and then notice who is the one being aware.
(Afternote:  also, suffering can be our emotional recoil from the pain... which the "welcoming" steps below will help with.)

Also helpful:  bring something that is "present energy" for you, to the pain.  Examples:  spaciousness, love, presence, relatedness.

Ok, an example of using the technique below:  the day after I learned the below Sedona Method's pain-clearing technique (from a group phone conference, facilitated by Hale Dwoskin)... I slammed my fingers, while closing a window using one hand... so hard, that I had to drop what I had in my free hand, so I could pound the window, to get it open.  Long story short:  about 5-10 minutes later, I still had bloody fingers, but no pain... using that technique.
The technique:  (a) experience the right-now sensations (not just the pain -- ALL sensations); (b) experience the spaciousness, that surrounds and inter-penetrates that; (c) go back to the right-now sensations; (d) spaciousness again; (e) back and forth -- sensations, spaciousness... maybe 10 times... (f) ask yourself:  would I be open to seeing this experience as a memory?; (g) COULD I let that memory go?; (h) WOULD i let that memory go?; (i) and When?
Repeat (a) - (i) above if helpful.
Note the Buddhist elements:  the now, the non-resistance, and the spaciousness.
I've taken probably 10 people thru that technique, and consistently had them report pain decrease... sometimes complete disappearance.

Another modality with a good pain-clearing meditation is Brandon Bays' modality "The Journey"... but while a lot she does includes a Buddhist flavor, her pain-clearing technique is more NLP / visualization.

Another example that is very Buddhist is from a tape (I think it was "The Art of Happiness") that I heard, by Ken Keyes Jr., who wrote "The Handbook to Higher Consciousness" (again, some very Buddhist roots), and who himself was a Polio victim confined to a wheelchair.  He had an entire group raise their hands if they had chronic pain (it sounded like some did), then TRACE IN THE AIR an outline of their pain, going around and around the outline, constantly updating it as he continued to lecture... then at his next break in his train of thought, he asked them to share if their pain had decreased... and for some, their chronic pain had actually disappeared.  Again, notice the Buddhist elements:  being present, staying where we are, welcoming what's here... or simply "being with" it in a way that has us get related to how it really is, right now.
Of course, it also helps to have someone else take us thru steps like this, especially the first time we're doing it... but I disappeared that window-slam pain facilitating myself.
Hope that helps.

I think that for pain one ought to take pain medication if the pain is enough to interfere with normal functioning. Even if it has an effect on the mind I think it is a legitimate reason. For example, in the Vinaya Pitika the Buddha went so far as to recommend the use of marijuana placed in boiling water as pain relief for arthritis, and the mind altering effects of marijuana is more than that of opiate pain meds taken at a proper dose, so pain meds should be fine.
In terms of other ways to have pain relief I have found in my own experience that practicing mindfulness of the body is an effective method. Even if it can't get rid of the pain mindfulness of the body can greatly reduce the mental reaction to the physical pain making it quite bearable. I wouldn't try to use it in place of medication, but using it along side it should help.
For information on practicing mindfulness of the body I recommend reading the Kayagatasati Sutta particularly the instructions on discerning the body in terms of the four properties.

The "proper dose" of opiate pain meds can become high: in some situations/countries a doctor may eventually become willing to prescribe a dose that's high enough to have a sedative effect: in this Buddhist perspectives article, see e.g. "the need for alertness in the dying Buddhist" to avoid having too much, conversely "cognitive impairment (e.g. delirium)" about having too little.

My own approach toward pain is to meditate. If I have pain sitting up I lay down. If I fall asleep I must need sleep.
What is meditation? "a state of consciousness in which the observer detaches from several qualities of the mind." One of these qualities is pain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhy%C4%81na_in_Buddhism

Dhyāna (Sanskrit; Devanagari: ध्यान) or Jhāna (झान) (Pāli) means
  meditation in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. It refers to various
  states of samadhi,[1] a state of consciousness in which the observer
  detaches from several qualities of the mind.[2] In this state one has
  become firm and stable and everything that is appearing is noticed but
  not identified to.[3]
Dhyana is the awareness of the observer (witness) yet inclusive of
  mind, body, senses and surroundings, however not identified with it,
  deepening of which leads to samadhi. The Sutta Pitaka describes four
  levels of dhyana, called jhana, each of increasing depth. The Jhanas
  are described many times in the Pāli canon, and a great deal of the
  post-canonical Theravāda Buddhist and Mahayana literature have been
  devoted to its elucidation.

Rather than tell you how to meditate (follow the breath, concentrate, have compassion for all people, and other Buddhist meditation techniques) let me just say expand your meditation practice or add new elements to it.
Of course this is not a recommendation to opt out of medical treatment if you feel that is your path, but it is to say that relief can be found, or at least a distancing and non-identification with the body sensations. Of course if you are bleeding, stop the bleeding, then meditate. Do all you can like accupressure, yoga or whatever gives you relief, then meditate. Start your day with meditation and end it with meditation. Distance yourself from the pain as you count the breaths. The pain may not disappear but the identification with the pain may disappear. This is the Buddhist concept of cessation. A pain is still a pain, but it is no longer my pain. It is a merely an electrical impulse in the aggregates that form the body.

I have tried this myself when i was sick and this is not my personal opinion,This was advised by lord Buddha to the monks (Theravada).It is a meditation called "Vidarshana".It focus on the temporariness of what we feel and can numb mild pains within minutes.This is one of the two meditations mentioned in Theravada Buddhism to unlock enlightenment.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-Vidarshana-meditation-in-Buddhism suggests it's a synonym of "vipassana"; http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=43,6194,0,0,1,0#.WqFYeOjwZhE says that it's "vipassana" in Pali and "vidarshana" in Sanskrit.


text:
What are the Core Teachings of Buddhism?
I asked, What is the core teachings of the Buddha, ( As I do Know ) There was no modern traditions then. I know that there has been a Buddhist Council gathered to try an reach the core understandings. I Hoped that some may know this, an may even have insight on what they reached an what has been decided on.
I find that some traditions and methods tend to confuse and distract away from what little teachings I could find.
You can find the core teachings of Jesus by reading the Bible, There is no Buddhist Bible. Im so far unable to find a english Pali Canon to read.
To me when people say I must have a tradition to know what the teacher says its like saying you can't explain jesus's teachings cause its to hard with out traditions. You dont have to be catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelicalism, or even Baptist to simply look up the text an see for your self what he taught, without the dogmas and doctrines to keep you ensnared into a rigid form of the faith an blind to what it means. This examples shows how some traditions an customs keep you from the truth an keep you distracted away from the teachings.
So that is why Im asking with out traditions. What Texts can I find that are in english to read, that would help me. Or if a tradition must be needed, then what is the closest to exactly how Siddartha taught would help me get started in that direction.
Hopefuly This time I can say what I intended on my own question.

Every tradition is going to express their understanding of the fundamentals a little bit differently so to answer your question we need to narrow it down to a specific tradition. There just isn't any other way about it.

Well What is Siddhartha's Tradition?

The traditions didn't exist in the time of the Buddha himself. They developed later.

LOL you asked what tradition. So there is no Core Teachings of Buddha that all Traditions can tie them selves together with? I mean I can name one Four Noble Truths/Eight Fold Path. So there has to be a longer list then that he taught like what 40 years? Theres nothing to a core in that time? Or does no one here Know the core teachings?

Also helpful might be a look at how The Buddha as a shramana differed from other shramanas at the time (e.g. Jains, Samkhyas and other lesser-known shramana traditions)

@Oswulf Of course there is a common core of teachings accepted by all schools. However, the way in which these core teachings are understood is different in different traditions. For example, the Theravada tradition looks at most of these teachings held in common as being the Buddhas definitive teaching, but in East Asian Mahayana these teachings are seen as provisional teachings with certain Mahayana Sutras being seen as definitive (precisely which ones depends again on what tradition).

Can I say that I'd find it difficult to "specify the core teachings of Christianity?". There's the Greatest Commandment ("love god and your neighbour"), there's the Last Supper ("do this in remembrance of me"), there's faith ("we are justified by faith alone"), hope (e.g. of going to heaven), the Holy Sacraments which must be administered by priests (if not Baptism then Communion, Confession, Last Rites); there's the whole Nicene Creed, there are sects which have more and less ceremony; sects whose liturgy is older (more original, but not absolutely original), and/or newer and more modern.

@Oswulf There's already a similar question. See the following: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1487/what-teachings-do-all-schools-of-buddhism-share

I'm not sure what the "Core Teachings" are from the Theravada tradition are, IMO they must include the 4 noble truths and 8-fold way; but this answer says that sutta may not be the "most important", presumably because there are "many" important. Then there's this answer which says that, in about 1200 CE, i.e. 1600 years after Siddhartha's life, in a country more than 5500 km away as the crow flies, someone tried to "demystify Buddhism in Japan from a religion of beliefs to a practice of realization"

If you specify a specific tradition the question may become more answerable; it might include the Five Precepts, the Triple Jewel, the Three Marks of Existence; self-reliance with salvation depending on your own efforts. Non-Theravada traditions might introduce concepts which have counter-part in the Theravada scriptures but which might not be considered/taught among the most "core teachings" there, e.g. the notion of a Boddhisattva, helping others, becomes part of the important "core".

Reading about Upaya suggests that, according to some people and/or according to some definition, there is no core: that (per the "burning house" parable) the teaching varies varies with the wisdom of the teacher and the ability/aspiration/capacity of the student; but that (per the "empty fist" parable) any specific teaching is empty.

So arguably any teaching is empty. But, the teaching is meant to be practical. The parable of the elephant and the blind men, and the sutta which includes unbroken transmission, both seem to me to warn than to ask about a "core" might be a wrong question, and saying that Buddhism is "this but not that" might be a wrong answer. Buddhism is often represented as a wheel.

To me, what a person will do with the answer is just as important as the answer itself. Again your question is too broad. A good book describing the basics of Buddhism would be a good start. Then if you did not understand a specific practice or concept, that would be a question that could be answered in a 1000 words or less.

Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.

You can find the core teachings of Jesus by reading the Bible The more effort I've made to do this, the more impressed I've been with the difficulty of the task. In the gospels, you're getting Jesus filtered through the agendas of a later generation. Jesus taught using parables, which are often difficult to understand.

There is in fact a Pali Canon translated from the Pali to English. https://suttacentral.net and http://www.accesstoinsight.org are great websites to get you started. In Amazon.com you can find Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, and Anguttara Nikaya. The Digha Nikaya is translated by Maurice Walshe on Amazon. @Oswulf

Im so far unable to find a english Pali Canon to read. There are several, see English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon

I want to know what Siddhartha taught.
Well yes, don't we all want to know that. :-)
Though it may seem a bitter pill to swallow. :-/
Some Wikipedia articles FYI:

Early Buddhism includes a timeline showing the "where and when" of the various schools
Pre-sectarian Buddhism is an article about "the Buddhism of the Buddha himself". You might not find it interesting/satisfying, but that's life! :-) It says,

The information on Buddhism in the period before the rise of the early Buddhist schools is based on accounts of Buddha's life and teachings in the scriptures of the Theravadin Pali Canon, and the surviving portions of the scriptures of Sarvastivada, Mulasarvastivada, Mahisasaka, Dharmaguptaka and other schools, most of which are only available in a Chinese translation. Some individual scriptures found in Nepal, however, are composed in Sanskrit. Recently the Gandhāran Buddhist Texts were recovered from Afghanistan. The central body of sutras in these texts is so similar that they are considered to be different recensions of the same text.[15] The accounts in these individual scriptures might be tainted by the particular philosophies of those schools or by translation issues. However, since various recensions of these texts (from various schools) are available, comparisons can be made, and conclusions drawn, to filter out the most obvious of these taints.[16]

So perhaps you can see why people are interested in the "Pāli Canon":

The Pāli Canon (Pali: Tipitaka) is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravadan Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pāli language.[1] It is the first known and most complete extant early Buddhist canon.[2][3]
It was composed in North India, and preserved orally until it was committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in Sri Lanka in 29 BCE, approximately four hundred and fifty four years after the death of Gautama Buddha.[a]

Re. the comment saying that "comparisons can be made, and conclusions drawn" about "different recensions of the same text ... (from various schools)", one example of people trying to do that is this document (which I tried to summarize in this answer): to do that they read and compare several 2000-year-old documents written in antique languages and scripts, and that document's bibliography references 50 other papers. And all that is just to analyze one sutta, and even then it's not "canonical".
So, inferring what pre-sectarian Buddhism was, using the current (sectarian) literature is a complicated job, for scholars of Buddhism.
It (i.e. the Buddha's dhamma) is a question which also interests practitioners of Buddhism: who are perhaps meant to discover an answer for themselves, by practice, and via teachers.
Early Buddhist schools seems to be a more detailed history of "early Buddhism", from the time Siddhartha died until their Legacy which includes "the Theravāda school" and "various Mahāyāna traditions".

All the above is to say that it's difficult to be sure of exactly what the historical Buddha taught: especially if you try to disregard Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana because they didn't exist in his time.
I hope the above helps to begin to explain some history about why/how/when/where there are different schools.
Your question about the "core teachings" is partially answered by the answers to this other question, What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? Apparently (or allegedly) those are teachings which all the schools agree on.

@Oswulf You're welcome. Re. "What Texts can I find that are in english to read", the answers to this and this suggest that some of those texts Bhikkhu Bodhi's paper books, and (online) Dharmafarer and Access to Insight.

As Buddha himself said many times, his teaching culminates in Liberation By Wisdom. What does this mean?
Our conceptual mind can hardly go beyond the boxes of the concepts  it learns. Whatever concepts the mind has, that's how it sees the world, that's the reality for the mind. Usually, our concepts are very coarse, primitive, approximate, simplistic, and sometimes outright mistaken. If the mind thinks there is birth and death, then there is birth and death for the mind. This is what's known as Ignorance.
By training our mind to go beyond such coarse, simplistic, and mistaken concepts (preconceptions), we can liberate our mind from their boundaries, as well as from the suffering they generate, including the suffering of looming death. This means acquiring a more sophisticated view of the world (=wisdom or prajna), including the view of how the concepts are formed, and to what extent can they ever be right (=transcendental wisdom or prajna-paramita).
The main technique for abandoning the coarse preconceptions is relinquishment of attachments, accompanied by analysis. We relinquish emotional and conceptual attachments to preconceptions, biases, and assumptions. We analyze elements of the situation in question until we get a nuanced view going beyond our primitive dualities. Then we no longer get stuck, we become very flexible, very dynamic, very robust. Then we no longer get in trouble ourselves, and can act skilfully for the benefit of all.

Some great answers here. I think that the core of Buddhism is expressed wonderfully by the doctrine of the three poisons and their corresponding antidotes. As has been mentioned though, you're going to want to read the 4NT sutra. The foundation of buddhist thought series volume 1 covers what you want in a very accessible way.

Here is the Tipitaka or Pali Canon in English:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/
From Wikipedia:

The Pāli Canon (Pali: Tipitaka) is the standard collection of scriptures in the Theravadan Buddhist tradition, as preserved in the Pāli language.[1] It is the first known and most complete extant early Buddhist canon.[2][3]

There are also scripture collections for the Chinese and Tibetan traditions which is why folks were asking which tradition you were interested in. But as noted above, the Pali Canon is considered the earlier canon.

Many people's first introduction to the Pali Canon is through the Dhammapada, short verses with profound wisdom from the Sutta Pitaka. The Sutta Pitaka section in general is of most interest to a newer lay Buddhist. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/index.html

To do good deeds, avoid bad deeds and purify the mind.
And the practice to attain that is through Sila (morality), Samadhi (Meditation) and Panna (Wisdom).

For further information: that first sentence comes from verse 183 of the Dhammapada; and the second sentence is a reference to the threefold training (which is a summary of the "eightfold way", which is the fourth of the "four noble truths").

An idea of the core teachings of Buddha can be derived from the Maha Parinibbana Sutta...the teachings before his final nibbana.
In the sutta, the Blessed One says,

"Now, O bhikkhus, I say to you that these teachings of which I have direct knowledge and which I have made known to you — these you should thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop, and frequently practice, that the life of purity may be established and may long endure, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men.
"And what, bhikkhus, are these teachings? They are the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right efforts, the four constituents of psychic power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven factors of enlightenment, and the Noble Eightfold Path. These, bhikkhus, are the teachings of which I have direct knowledge, which I have made known to you, and which you should thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop, and frequently practice, that the life of purity may be established and may long endure, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men."

Thus, one sees that Buddha directly exhorts the Sangha to thoroughly learn, cultivate, develop and frequently practice the following teachings for the benefit of oneself and many:

The Four Foundations of Mindfulness
The Four Right Exertions
The Four Bases of Power
The Five Faculties
The Five Powers
The Seven Factors of Enlightenment
The Noble Eightfold Path

These 37 factors are together called as the BodhiPakkhiyaDhamma or 37 factors of Enlightenment.
Now coming to this comment,

You can find the core teachings of Jesus by reading the Bible, There is no Buddhist Bible. Im so far unable to find a english Pali Canon to read.
To me when people say I must have a tradition to know what the teacher says its like saying you can't explain jesus's teachings cause its to hard with out traditions. You dont have to be catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Evangelicalism, or even Baptist to simply look up the text an see for your self what he taught, without the dogmas and doctrines to keep you ensnared into a rigid form of the faith an blind to what it means. This examples shows how some traditions an customs keep you from the truth an keep you distracted away from the teachings.

I think, in general when people urge somebody to adopt a tradition, it is because there is a great deal of emphasis on meditation in Buddhism. Without meditation one might know things intellectually but not experientially. For meditation, one might attend a retreat nearby. Dhamma.org - link for 10 day course registration at one of many centres in the world is a great option.
As regards the right teacher and right tradition for oneself, the Kalama Sutta provides great guidance. Herein the Enlightened One says,

'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.'
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

The core teaching is summarized by the words:

Not to do evil, (Unwholesome deed/action will lead to bad karma/suffering)
To cultivate merit, (Wholesome deeds will lead to a better self)
To purify one's mind, (It will help us to view the world as what it really is)
This is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Above is from Dhammapada verse 183, the one in brackets are my understandings. Below is the original words in Pali followed by Mandarin/Chinese.

sabbapapassa akaranam   諸惡莫作
kusalassa upasampada    眾善奉行
sacittapariyodapanam    自淨其意
etam buddhana sasanam   是諸佛教

Are verses 184 and 185 equally "core teaching"?

But there is a Buddhist bible.  It is the Tipitika (Three Baskets).  It was recited by monks three months after the Buddha's parinibbana. The Suttas were recited by the Ven. Ananda, the Buddha's attendant monk.  The Vinaya was recited by the Ven. Upali.  There is some scholarly dispute as to whether the third part of the Tipitika, the Abhidhamma, was recited at the same time, or if it is a later addition.

The ATI website has a Path to Freedom series which provides a "A Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings" based on the Pali Canon.
Of these, there is an overview of The Dhamma, which are the teachings of the Buddha. Inside each sub-page, there are quotes from the Pali Canon.
If you want to buy a book, I recommend "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. This is an anthology of the Buddha's teachings from the Pali Canon.


text:
Mindfulness Vs Void
On researching meditations I find several different aspects.
One side tells me to be aware of all my actions ( Breath, Stepping, Thinking )
Then I see another type where basically you remove all Mindfullness like entering a void, Blankness and without thought but yet still sort of There.
What is the type a Buddhist should practice? Or the benefit of the two?

I don't think any school of Buddhism teaches one to "remove all Mindfullness like entering a void". There are some that teach one to not take up any particular object with the mind, but that is quite different.

Maybe you're talking about Samatha or Tranquility meditation. Do you have any examples?

It was something in passing, I came across. I wasn't sure what it meant so I wanted to ask an see if there was any weight to it.

There are an almost countless array of meditations within Buddhism.  The Visuddhimagga alone outlines 40 different practices for calming the mind.  It covers even more practices for developing mindfulness.  Zen teaches "just sitting" and koan meditation among others.  I can't even begin to count the amount of practices used in Tantra/vajrayana.  Needless to say, it's exceedingly easy to get confused.  It's easier still to not see how one practice might lead into another, when one might practice might be appropriate over another, or when to avoid a given practice altogether.
My best advice is to find a teacher and practice with him or her.  I'd further add that it's important that you find just one teacher and stick with whatever practice they give you. Eating at the Buddhist Buffet is only going to divide your attention and limit your progress.

"One side tells me to be aware of all my actions ( Breath, Stepping, Thinking )"
The above is satipatthana / vipassana / sama-sati ("right mindfulness" in the Noble Eightfold Path) practice.
Then I see another type where basically you remove all Mindfullness like entering a void, Blankness and without thought but yet still sort of There.
Two things about the above remark:

I suspect you may have heard or read about someone trying to describe samatha, but just to be perfectly clear, in samatha -- actually in any of Buddha's instructions I know of -- there should not be a lack of "mindfulness" (sati, presence, awareness).
The term "mindfulness" above could have been used to refer to satipatthana which is popularly known as "mindfulness meditation".

Satipatthana and samatha present distinct practices, and the Buddha taught both. Though one does not do both simultaneously -- they are known to get in the way of each other -- they may be practiced in conjunction. So, "remove all mindfullness [...]" meaning "not doing satipatthana to do samatha" could start to make more sense, as the descriptions of mental states above suggests an attempt of describing jhanas, which is an array of special "states of mind" often referred to as "absorption states", developed through samatha practice.
What is the type a Buddhist should practice? Or the benefit of the two?
First, there are many kinds of meditations preserved by many buddhist traditions as pointed out in this answer.
Having said that, and speaking of only samatha and satipatthana, popular saying is that one either practices both, or just satiphattana -- it has been brought to attention that there is some ground on the sutras for this position.
The benefit of samatha are manyfold, but the prominent characteristics are of calming the mind and sharpening concentration. It's a practice of samadhi, and as such, it has direct correspondence to "right concentration" in the Noble Eightfold Path: samma-samadhi.
Sathipatthana is often considered to be the "actual work" that drives one to the understanding, to directing the mind to reality, to "directly see" (vipassanā). It also has a correspondence with "right mindfulness" (sammā-sati) in the Noble Eightfold Path.

One type of mindfulness is expanded.(Being aware of sensations, thoughts, walking etc)
The other type of mindfulness is narrowed.( Being aware of the sensation of the breath at one point).
Both are mindfulness.The second one narrow mindfulness can lead to concentration then absorbtion which may or may not lead to a voidlike experience.But Awareness will always be present within the void or any other experience that may arise during meditation.You may not be aware of who is being aware,what your being aware of but you have to be aware of awareness itself. The moment you go blank even when you are absorbed that is wrong concentration.

There are trillions of places meditating on concepts can bring you. The  void sounds like one of these places if I'm not mistaken. It might lead to some peace and concentration but most likely it would be nothing permanent and no real wisdom would be realized.
 Mindfulness, putting one's awareness on one's experience or one's reality, in the present moment, can only help one see through the many delusions in front of true reality. These delusions are such that most people don't even realize they are there. Mindfulness can bring one to only one place: "Reality". Mindfulness or the  meditation to see clearly, is a meditation that leads one to transcend suffering permanently. Meditations to see concepts can only aid with one's attempt to  attain enlightenment.


text:
Sutta pitaka in plain English
Where can I find sutta pitaka translations in plain English preferably from an author that has practised meditation. If the English is relevant to today's problems and sufferings, even better. Word to word translations are a bit boring to read and understand.
I am hoping to gain inspiration for my practice by reading and memorising short suttas. I really like pariyatti publications but there only a handful I could find.
Maybe someone knows if I can read the entire sutta pitaka online along with sub commentaries. That would help.

This is exactly what I was looking for. Sorry for not doing research. The mods can close this question if they wish.


text:
Is this an accurate introduction to different paths and traditions?
The accepted answer to What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? includes Compassion, the Triple Jewel, the Four Noble Truths, the Eight-fold Way, Dependent Origination, the Three Marks of Existence, the 37 Factors of Enlightenment, and more.
It also implies that Mahayana acknowledges one Path of Purification (visuddhi-marga):

Is that one Path the same (or basically the same) as The Visuddhimagga which Wikipedia says is "the 'great treatise' on Theravada Buddhist doctrine written by Buddhaghosa approximately in 430 CE in Sri Lanka"?

Furthermore, accepting that there's one "Path of Purification", the Wikipedia article titled "Buddhist Paths to liberation" seems to suggest that there's almost a different Path for each tradition.

Is this a reliable article?
Does it properly list the various schools/tradition and accurately summarize their paths?

When I've read elementary/contemporary/English-language introductions to various schools (e.g. Zen Flesh Zen Bones for zen), or visited a Chinese-in-Canada Mahayana temple, or dimly remember a Westerner writing a century or more ago about Tibetan/Mongolian beliefs and practices, they seem to have little in common with each other: e.g. Zen seems to be about being spontaneous or 'original', Chinese about things being better in the Pure Land, Tibetan about the cycle of rebirth.

Is it true, as stated in these Notes, that for all Buddhist traditions, the "Noble Eightfold Path is considered to be the essence of Buddhist practice"?

The article on Tibetan Buddhism begins, "Tibetan Buddhism comprises the teachings of the three vehicles of Buddhism: the Foundational Vehicle, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna" where 'Foundational Vehicle' links to the article on "Hinayana".

Do the practioners of various schools know, are they taught, what the Hinayana doctrine is, and do they accept it a "foundational"?

How many questions are you asking here? Can't you separate these into distinct posts?

I'm asking two questions (perhaps one coin with two sides). 1) Is it true to imagine that the Buddhist students of all traditions, including the laity, are told sometime in their lives about the Buddha, his Noble Truths, and the Eightfold way? 2) Is the cited Wikipedia article a fair introduction to each of the several paths? And returning to question 1) is it fair to describe the Hinayana as a "foundational" teaching in another/subsequent tradition such as the Tibetan?

Those are really three distinct questions...

Is that one Path the same (or basically the same) as The Visuddhimagga
  which Wikipedia says is "the 'great treatise' on Theravada Buddhist
  doctrine written by Buddhaghosa approximately in 430 CE in Sri Lanka"?

The Visuddhimagga is the name of a book, and when traditions talk about a path of purification, they aren't using the term to refer to the title of this book, but just as a general term meaning a means of purification. I don't think that the other traditions even had access to the Visuddhimagga prior to modern times.

When I've read elementary/contemporary/English-language introductions
  to various schools (e.g. Zen Flesh Zen Bones for zen), or visited a
  Chinese-in-Canada Mahayana temple, or dimly remember a Westerner
  writing a century or more ago about Tibetan/Mongolian beliefs and
  practices, they seem to have little in common with each other: e.g.
  Zen seems to be about being spontaneous or 'original', Chinese about
  things being better in the Pure Land, Tibetan about the cycle of
  rebirth.

All of these traditions are very vast systems of teaching and practice, and they all use very different terminology, and some traditions emphasize certain points while others might not emphasize a particular point, but that doesn't mean that they reject them. Just because these teachings are held in common between all traditions doesn't mean that they describe them using the same terms, or even teach them in an explicit manner. Take Zen Buddhism for example. For the past 1000 years, the main slogan of the Zen school has been "See mind, become Buddha" meaning that the practice is to see the nature of the mind and as a result one becomes enlightened. This terminology is very different from how the Theravada tradition would describe it, as the Theravada school would give a quote like this:

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to
  change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
...
Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
  disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the
  knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
  holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
  world.

But this difference of expression doesn't preclude the existence of things in common. Both of these explanations present enlightenment as the result of seeing the nature of something, even though the language and style may be very different. Tibetan Buddhism holds to the same position as well, saying that enlightenment results from gaining a non-conceptual realization of the emptiness of all phenomena. Pureland Buddhism hold on to these teachings as well, but sees the appropriate time for actually practicing such things to be after one is reborn into the Pureland, and even that is only one interpretation of Pureland Buddhism. Chinese Buddhism fuses Zen and Pureland practices together for example.
There are real differences between the traditions, I'm not saying that there aren't. However, all schools of Buddhism hold on to this set of common teachings, even though they differ in their interpretations and their importance.

People claim similarity or difference from their favorite school of Buddhism based on their goals. E.g. is one trying to create harmony among near-co-religionists? Or are you trying to be hardnosed and objective about what the inventory of one school of Buddhism is versus another? In the former case, we make more friends by ignoring differences. If we are trying to reach enlightenment, or just decide how to practice, then I would imagine few people sincerely think all paths are just as effective. But even if they did think so, it's bad Buddhist manners to say so aloud. It's on the list of rules in the precepts and the vinaya-- no disparaging & no inciting schism.
Most schools of Buddhism do not have a orthodoxy comparable to, say the Catholic one. So what counts as an authentic Zen text or a Tibetan terma could vary. The Theravada canon is bound and established, but very large.  So what is orthodox for one school isn't clear. If we can't establish that, how can we establish that two schools hold the same or similar doctrine?
At best, you can find commonly re-occurring themes. "recognizable Buddhism" maybe a more useful concept than "universal Buddhist beliefs". Recognizable Buddhism will included a little bit of everything you mentioned on your list.

I find it possible to imagine a (single) Christian text which mentions neither Christ nor his words from the gospels: but not a (entire) Christian teaching/tradition. Can you say whether, for example, medieval zen practitioners would each ever have been told at least once the 'sermon of setting the wheel of dharma in motion'?

In the set of world religions normally listed when someone says "world religion", (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinudism. etc) Buddhism is an odd one out. If fact there was/is a tradition that takes the Lotus Sutra as it's main text and ignores the rest. And for Nichiren Sects, they just use the title. Later Buddhist, esp. Mahayanists, were aware that was a historical Buddha sometimes they liked the other Buddhas much better. Buddhism is a religion of the Dharma, which can be independently redescovered (pratekyabuddhas) & not a founder-worship religion.


text:
What is Death? What did Buddha say regarding the experience of Death?
What is death according to Buddhism? When does it occur? Why do so many people die simultaneously in natural calamities? What did Buddha say about death? Please give references of Buddha's teachings.

What is death acoording to Buddhism? Here is one definition
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/viewdeath.html

Death and the impermanence of life
In the teaching of the Buddha, all of us will pass away eventually as
  a part in the natural process of birth, old-age and death and that we
  should always keep in mind the impermanence of life.  The life that we
  all cherish and wish to hold on.
To Buddhism, however, death is not the end of life, it is merely the
  end of the body we inhabit in this life, but our spirit will still
  remain and seek out through the need of attachment, attachment to a
  new body and new life. Where they will be born is a result of the past
  and the accumulation of positive and negative action, and the
  resultant karma (cause and effect) is a result of ones past actions.
This would lead to the person to be reborn in one of 6 realms which
  are; heaven, human beings, Asura, hungry ghost, animal and hell.
  Realms, according to the severity of ones karmic actions, Buddhists
  believe however, none of these places are permanent and one does not
  remain in any place indefinitely. So we can say that in Buddhism, life
  does not end, merely goes on in other forms that are the result of
  accumulated karma. Buddhism is a belief that emphasizes the
  impermanence of lives, including all those beyond the present life.
  With this in mind we should not fear death as it will lead to rebirth.
The question about when death occurs is even more important, because to a practitioner of Buddhism, death is not an eventuality that will arrive someday. Death and meeting death is part of our daily practice of meditation. We don't think of the body dying but day by day we face and face again the temporal nature of life and ask ourselves if we are making the most of life for spiritual advancement by learning to come to terms with death.

Here is an illustrative story from a PBS special on Buddhism
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tibet/understand/dying.html

An example of this attitude can be found in the bioraphy of Milarepa,
  who began his meditative practice after having killed a number of
  people through black magic. The realization of his impending death and
  the sufferings he would experience in his next lifetime prompted him
  to find a lama who could show him a way to avert his fate. His concern
  with death was so great that when he was medititing in a cave his
  tattered clothes fell apart, but he decided not to mend them, saying,
  "If I were to die this evening, it would be wiser to meditate than to
  do this useless sewing."1
This attitude epitomizes the ideal for a Buddhist practitioner,
  according to many teachers. Atisha is said to have told his students
  that for a person who is unaware of death, meditation has little
  power, but a person who is mindful of death and impermanence
  progresses steadily and makes the most of every precious moment. A
  famous saying of the school he founded, the Kadampa, holds that if one
  does not meditate on death in the morning, the whole morning is
  wasted, if one does not meditate on death at noon, the afternoon is
  wasted, and if one does not meditate on death at night, the evening is
  wasted.

Here are a couple quotes attributed to the Buddha that imply what Buddha thought most important, cessation of suffering and Nibbana.
http://www.life-changing-inspirational-quotes.com/buddha-quotes.html#Death

Buddha Quotes on Death
"Even death is not to be feared by one who has lived wisely."
"It is better to travel well than to arrive."

This trend of thinking beyond life and death continues here
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Even death is not to be feared by one who has lived wisely. As quoted in Wisdom for the Soul: Five Millennia of Prescriptions for Spiritual Healing (2006) edited by Larry Chang, p. 193 This is actually a pithy modern-day 'summary' of the "Abhaya Sutta" (AN 4.184). It appears in "Buddha’s Little Instruction Book" by Jack Kornfield (p88).

Another example that Shakyamuni Buddha reveals his lack of concern about death is under the Bodhi tree before his realization.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Let my skin and sinews and bones dry up, together with all the flesh
  and blood of my body! I welcome it! But I will not move from this spot
  until I have attained the supreme and final wisdom. The Jatka (From
  the Attainment of the Buddhaship. Also is in the Nirvana Sutta.)

The essence of the Buddha's teaching is not to cling to physical existence and in the same line do not fear death. What dies is the life we conceptualize in our mind. What is untouched by death is the consciousness that the Buddha invites us to develop in our practice.

Just for the record: http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/even-death-is-not-to-be-feared-by-one-who-has-lived-wisely/ and http://www.fakebuddhaquotes.com/fake-buddha-quote-it-is-better-to-travel-well-than-to-arrive/

Here is a link to the Abhaya Sutta: Fearless

Death is unsatisfactory:

Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha

Some questions about death (or about the Tathagata) are unanswered:

So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.
And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.
And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.
So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared.

People die because they are born.
I think that the purpose of Buddhism or the Buddha is not to teach what death is. I think its/his intention is to teach how to be in the face of death, how to respond to the fact/existence of death:

Death
The Buddha's Last Days

The latter reference describes some of the states of (the Tathagata's) death:

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, if it's out of respect for the Teacher that you don't ask, let a friend inform a friend."

and,

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, then, monks, I exhort
you: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by
means of heedfulness." Those were the Tathagata's last words.
Then the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Emerging from that he
entered the second jhana. Emerging from that, he entered the third...
the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the
dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of
nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.
Emerging from that, he entered the cessation of perception & feeling.
Then Ven. Ananda said to Ven. Anuruddha, "Ven. Anuruddha, the Blessed
One is totally unbound."
"No, friend Ananda. The Blessed One isn't totally unbound. He has
entered the cessation of perception & feeling."
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.

Note that Nirvana is described as unbinding.

Ven. Yuttadhammo has made some great videos about this topic:
Here is a video called "Preparing for Death" and "Ask A Monk: What Do Buddhists Do When Someone Dies?"
Regarding mass casualties there is this video "Ask A Monk: Karma in a Holocaust". In here Ven. Yuttadhammo discusses a holocaust, a tsunami and the planes crashing into World Trade Center.


text:
Is turning off a patient's life support system encouraging to kill?
If a person is on a life support system due to the failure of one or more organs and not able to return to normal life without them again, if the family consents to the doctors' recommendation to turn off the artificial life support, can this be considered encouraging to kill, violating the first precept?

I feel this is off-topic, and adding "in the Buddhist point of view" does not automatically make it on-topic.

@AndreiVolkov Is asking if a certain action violates a precept off topic? Some people like me are concerned about their sila and the precepts and would want to know if they are doing a mistake or not.

Are you sure you phrased the question accurately/carefully? For example, perhaps it's not "the family decides to turn them off", it might be "the family consents to the doctors' recommendation to turn off the artificial life support."

Also FWIW item 13 of this list says that Theravada includes, relatively, "Very little research and knowledge on the process of dying and death."

@ChrisW Thanks for pointing out the mistake in the question.

@dmsp if something is a well-known evergreen ethical controversy (like this one, or the one about saving the drowning son vs. wife, or the one about killing 100 people to save 1000000) then throwing Buddhism into the mix does not necessarily make it a Buddhism problem. Perhaps if you explicitly mentioned the first precept...

No it is not killing. Because there's no intention of killing. You just stopped doing things to sustain his life. It doesn't even have to be a relative. So many people die due to famine all over the world. So many animals are being slaughtered every day. You could stop everything you are doing right now and go and try to save them with all your time and money. But by not doing that, are you killing those whom you might have saved? No! Not doing a good deed isn't necessarily doing a bad deed.
But if there's the intention of killing, turning off the switch breaks the 1st precept.

Here's an article (found using Google) about that, Letting-Go or Killing: Thai Buddhist Perspectives on Euthanasia which (being Thai) I presume is Theravada.
It mentions several real considerations, including,

[...] They also recognize that sometimes in real life human choices are only between two evils. Yet even in this tragic life situation one still has responsibility to choose the lesser evil. But for such agonizing decisions there has been little guidance culled so far from Buddhist sources to help Buddhists and to ease their conscience. As generally known, Buddhism encourages each person to face the troubles by relying on oneself alone, without expecting any divine power to intercede and help. [...]

It warns that,

To these lay Buddhists, questions are raised if when asked whether economic factor, the age of the patient and the quality of life would make any important difference in their decisions regarding the use of life-support systems, none could give a definite Buddhist answer. Some say yes and some no, but they could not find grounds in Buddhism to support their answers.
The reality is that some forms of euthanasia are currently being practiced in some hospitals by doctors who make life and death and decisions alone without any directives whether these be ethical, religious, moral or legal.

It suggests,

Perhaps the Buddhist concept of mutual dependency and interrelatedness (paticcasamuppada) should be applied to the field of medicine. This concept affirms the interdependence of all beings.
Apart from this, while keeping their primary image as healers, dedicated to preserving and prolonging the life of all patients under their care, they have to develop a new approach to death and dying, so that when death becomes imminent they would become graceful acceptors of the inevitable, without considering the hopeless condition of the dying patient as representing the failure of their skills and knowledge. They should instead turn their full attention now to the compassionate care of the dying. Their main concern of course is to relieve the suffering of patients and families and ensure a "good death".

FWIW, in the cases where my family has died (or been allowed to die) in hospital, I viewed that as their being killed by the disease/illness, and not as their being killed by their doctors.
It can also be helpful if they, who were dying, let you know in advance what/how much medical intervention they want.

First of all Buddhism is against killing and that includes so called "Mercy killing". As lord Buddha once said every being at any condition likes only to live. No matter whether it's killing, ordering to kill, approving killing, or advising killing, it is not approved in Buddhism, even when we are talking about a person in extreme pain or a bad condition/Coma.
Please refer "Meththanisansa sutra"

Metta (Mettanisamsa) Sutta (AN 11.16)


text:
Does morning and evening chanting follow a set pattern in the Theravada tradition?
I attended a meditation event that included morning and evening chanting at a Theravada monastery/temple. It was a wonderful event but I couldn't follow the chanting book as it was written in Lao characters. I recognized some basics like taking refuge and eight precepts, but other than that I was lost. Does morning and evening chanting follow a set pattern or does each monastery just pick out what they like? If it is a set pattern, what might it include? I'd like to print out some in Pali/English if possible. Thanks for any help.

I don't want to answer without good sources, but Lao chanting seems to follow the same tradition as Khmer and Sri Lankan chanting. Thai chanting contains modern and distinct alternatives to the basic formula.

@yuttadhammo, good to know, I'll see what I can find outside of Thai chanting. Thanks Bhante.

I don't know anything about the chanting services in Laos unfortunately. I do know about the general chanting services done in Thailand though, which might be similar although the Thai chanting I'm familiar with doesn't have the refuge and precepts as part of the chanting service itself.
If you want to check out a general Thai service book here's a good one. You can download the chanting book as a PDF and some sections have the Pali and English on seperate pages while some have the English underneath. I especially like this chanting book because it has the little arrows to indicate the chanting melody. You can also hear recordings of Monks chanting out of this particular book here if you go to the upper right and switch the category to chanting.

Pali Chanting by the monks of Metta Forest Monastery can be found as audio here. A text version incl.translation, corresponding, is also generously given.
Aside of chanting style, there are differents in regard of the set between Nikayas but even from monastery to monastery, also Nikayas from one country to another. In regard of the text within the single parts, there are also, but just small differences traceable. Generally the Dhammayut style most plain an undecorated is understood easy and from all others able to follow.
[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:
Ignorant mind and Buddha nature
I read in a Mahayana Buddhist book (insight into emptiness) 2 concepts that I find hard to reconcile:
1- Our minds used to be pure, only Buddha nature, and got contaminated with ignorance that led to attachment and it makes us cycle in this cyclic existence.
2- We all have and always had Buddha nature in our minds.
My question is: how could a pure mind with Buddha nature get contaminated in the first place? I can't understand how "Buddha nature" could let itself be tricked by ignorance, sounds strange, sounds like a "Big Buddha failure"!
Unless...Buddha nature means only a distant background on the mind, something weak, that has no power to act by itself, weaker than the aggregates, but it doesn't sound like that. (!?)
Can anyone help?

This is perhaps the crux of the (extensive and often heated) dispute between those who see Buddha Nature as the potential for enlightenment (like a seed) vs those who see it as you have it above (like a mirror to be cleaned). If we're not careful here, we will get into the heat of the dispute, which is not what stackexchange is for.

Thanks for the warning, I have no intention of creating or increasing disputes!

@DavidLewis I thought that Huineng's poem implies that the mirror doesn't need cleaning. There's also the "does a dog have Buddha-nature?" koan, part of which is allegedly that a dog doesn't enough mind/discipline to be a Buddha. So there's a whole gamut/spectrum of views: cannot be clean/cleaned (inherently dirty); can be cleaned (dirty but potentially clean); is being cleaned (clean but potentially dirty); needs no cleaning (inherently clean).

This problem  may interest all Buddhists, so kindly add other relevant  tags please.

It seems like you're viewing buddha nature as essence. Freedom from imputations, conceptions, conventions, perspective, etc is buddha nature. But don't view it as essence, which would be a perpetuation of imputation of self and precisely what we are trying to avoid. Hope this helps.

The best explanation of this I've seen is in Lamp of Mahamudra by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol.
Basically, if we consider everything at the abstract organizational layer underlying both the mind and the matter, the so called "ground of all" -- we will see that everything is inherently perfect. It is the fundamental "suchness" of things as they are (whether experienced by someone or not). Because the universe is already how it is, for perfectly natural and objective reasons, everything that exists or does not exist exists or does not exist for a reason. In this sense everything is complete, without a flaw. That's Buddha nature.
But part of this Buddha nature is natural tendency of the mind to grasp or cling, or in modern terms, to create flawed static models of reality, that are more like caricatures than models, and then get stuck on them. This gives rise to such natural phenomena as ego, the three poisons, and suffering. These two are part of suchness, and in this sense they are also Buddha nature. However, what they do to us, is they make us confused and we start seeking happiness in wrong ways, and the more we seek it in wrong ways the more confusion and suffering we generate. All this time the Buddha-nature stays perfect because all this confusion and suffering is included in it. Buddha-nature or natural suchness of things however they are, accommodates everything -- that's why it's unconditional and indestructible.
From this perspective, whether you are confused or enlightened does not make any difference -- anyway you are included in the Totality of the Vast Expanse. But subjectively, from sentient being's perspective, being confused or enlightened is a difference between suffering and cessation of suffering, so in that sense it makes a huge difference.
Makes sense? Confusion and enlightenment (or contamination vs. purification) exists only in one relative sense but in the ultimate sense all of those are a natural play of phenomena subsumed in the Buddha nature.

The traditional presentation is not that our minds used to be pure. Rather, our mind is defiled from beginningless time. 'Defilements' refer to the two obscurations: (1) afflictive obstructions, impediment to liberation and (2) knowledge obscurations (or 'obstruction to omniscience'), impediment to buddhahood.

Maitreya explains nine types of defilements (the first three being the three poisons, and so forth).

From Maitreiya's Great Vehicle Treatise on the Sublime Continuum differentiating the Lineage of the Three Jewels (mahayanottaratantra-ratnagotravibhanga), I know of three illustrations of 'buddha nature'. The one we usually speak of is the second: buddha nature as the suchness of the minds of sentient beings (i.e. non-buddhas), that is also called 'suchness with defilements'.

Suchness with defilement is pure by nature, yet it is 'with defilements'. There is no contradiction. It is because suchness is not the basis [of the quality of] being defiled. Maitreya asserts that buddha nature is 'inconceivable in the sense of being difficult to understand' because of being 'pure [by nature] and yet with defilements'.

Very important point: A Buddha does not have buddha nature. This is because buddha nature is the emptiness of the mind of sentient beings (i.e. non-buddhas). The emptiness of the mind of a buddha is suchness without defilements and is called Dharmakāya (or more accurately the 'nature truth body'-part of the Dharmakaya). In other words, Dharmakāya (suchness without defilement) is not Tathāgatagarbha (suchness with defilements, buddha nature).

As the emptiness of a pillar (an instance of emptiness) is not the emptiness of a table, the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being is not the emptiness of the mind of a Buddha. This is because emptiness and its basis are one entity (yet mutually exclusive contradictory). In other words, emptiness is always emptiness of something, and so forth.  Thus, there is no way one can accurately say “we are buddhas but we just don't know it”.

Buddha nature is called a cause but is not an actual cause. It is called a cause because, if our afflicted minds were not empty of true existence (this emptiness being buddha nature), it would not be subject to purification, change, transformation, could not 'interact' or 'be pervaded' by the deeds of a Buddha, etc. It is not an actual cause because buddha nature is suchness with defilements, and a suchness is permanent, and whatever is permanent is unable to perform a function [of causing anything, etc].

I suggest you studying Maitreiya's 'Sublime Continuum...' which was commented upon by Asanga. Asanga's commentary was also commented by Gyaltsab-je.

I have never seen or read any Buddhist teachings that stated or implied that minds were ever in a pure state then became impure. The 3rd Noble Truth states that the mind can be purified and that, once pure or enlightened, never can it become impure again. All Buddhist (and Hindu) teachings that I have ever read (that I can remember) stated that the everyone's continuum has been continuously contaminated  (without beginning) So, that clears up your illogical conclusion. Buddhism says the contamination can be cleared then, in the 4th Noble Truth, illustrates the path to clear it.
Buddha-nature in Mahayana literature is quite interesting. (I will let you "google" the term.) The more one understands the concept, I think, the more one understands what one is working "towards". Indeed, the process seems to be more of an "unlearning" process, rather than something one is trying to become. Hope that helps.

That was surprising for me too, and Im not defending the author's position, it does sound strange

@konrad01 My belief , Theravada try to 'Get pure'. Mahayana try to 'Remove dirt. In Theravada after getting pure no fail. In Mahayana  No Buddha-hood alone.(possible with all being ) .These two are deferent approaches. Select what you like, but One.(Both end in correct Mid).

It's a Mahayana teaching. Mahayana teaches many things that comply with Taoism but not with the Canon.  There is no mention of a ground of being in the Canon, nor of any inherent quality that makes you good or bad either way.
So be advised that if you follow the early teachings, you don't have to writhe around this concept. The Buddha himself, in the entire Pali Canon, never mentioned Buddha Nature.

When 'Sanskrit canon' met Taoism it change to Mahayana Buddhisum. When It meet Greeks produce greco buddhisum.

The seeing of an ignorant mind and buddha nature are dependent of each other. If the ignorant mind is seen, the resulting sufferings, problems, issues of the world, caused by ignorance are spontaneously liberated. Thus the buddha nature depends on having seen that ignorant mind. Since one does have buddha nature from the beginning, ignorance can been seen and sufferings ended. How ignorance came about can be compared with a match starting a forest fire ie, In a blazing forest fire, one does not care about the match that started the fire. The priority is to stop the fire.

Every sentient being has buddha nature, therefore buddha nature is a necessary condition for being a sentient being

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


text:
Conflict between Brahmajala Sutta and current Buddhist practices
I'm very confused about this sutta ( http://suttacentral.net/en/dn1) specially in the part "Mahāsīla"
Many of what the Buddha stated as wrong livelihood is very common in some Buddhist centres these days, things like: Astrology, selling lucky gems, offerings to deities etc... if you read the list in the sutta you will see it.
Is this sutta not part of some Buddhist cultures? Am I interpreting it in the wrong way? Or is it simply being ignored??

I'll go with "ignored"

I've found a very impressing article about this problem by Ven. S. Dhammika, "The broken Buddha". Although it presents personal experiences and possibly often reports like this are made sensationalistic I like this specific one because I feel that Ven Dhammika didn't lock his heart and didn't make more about it than it should be done for the strengthening of a process of improvement in the situation. It's online available and has about 90 pages

You are correct. The Buddha spoke out against such things because it corrupts the right livelihood of Monks because people will support Monks to get them to preform fortune telling for them or other such things instead of supporting Monks for their virtue and practice.
Most laypeople in Theravada countries don't engage in study of the canonical texts to any significant degree and they simply don't know better, and perhaps the Monks involved don't know it either. If they do and continue to do such things, I think it is very unfortunate.

If you read on the rest of sutra, you will see other "wrong means of livelihood and debased arts" such as

astronomy (forecasting of eclipses and meteor showers)
weather forecasting
forecasting of earthquakes
political analysis and forecasting
surgery on body, as well as on eyes and ears
application of medicinal roots

Siddhartha Shakya was obviously a product of his times, and his understanding of natural and social phenomena was limited to the general knowledge available back at the time. As far as offerings to deities, clearly he did not see much value in religious rituals, something modern Symbolic Anthropology would disagree with.
That said, I'm not a big fan of Digha Nikaya, as of the entire Pali Canon it seems to be the furthest from actual Buddha words, and more like a later compilation.

But the list in the sutra is about wrong livelihood for a brahmin, a guru, a religious leader, right? It is not for lay people, where surgery, for instance, is very acceptable

Correct, the list in DN 1 is for "sramana-brahmana". This common phrase referring to a serious homeless follower of Buddha-Dharma is IMO characteristic of compilations composed after Buddha's death.

First, the Brahmajala Sutta is one of the greatest Suttas in Pali Canon. It was the foot print of Gautama Buddha's wisdom. Any possible mis-believes covered in this sutta. It is almost impossible another living being that can articulate this kind of Suttas. The section "Mahāsīla" was intended for the Buddhist monks who are trying to attain Nirvana and the part you are referring in section is concordant with Right Livelihood in Noble Eightfold Path. So it should be part of Buddhist cultures, it should be the Buddha's teaching that monks need to follow, it should be the Buddhists need to cherish the monks who follow this path. It is clearly seen that Right Livelihood make Sanga less tasks and errands where the tasks and errands are adverse to practicing Dhamma to attain the Nirvana. Sanga with Right Livelihood is more respectable and fruitful. You are interpreting it in the right way by agreeing "Mahasila" section in Brahmajala Sutta. Currently, in most countries Buddhists and Buddhist monks are taking Vinaya (the guidances/teachings of Buddha) loosely in general. Buddha said Dhamma will be loosely followed/practiced later and there will be no one like to followed/practiced Buddha's Dhamma and Vinaya eventually. So ignorance to Buddha's Dhamma (Suttas, teachings, practices) is expected. There will be time that the sunset/end of Buddhism in future.
The perspective of Right Livelihood for normal people is quite different from the Buddhist monks who are trying to attain Nirvana. For normal people who are not trying to attain Nirvana, five percepts and not harming to other living being (does not trade in weapons, living beings, meat, alcoholic drink or poison)seems enough for that person not to rebirth as an inferior life (other than human). So it is not appropriate to apply "Mahasila" to normal people and Buddha said "Mahasila" intended to apply Sanga (and person who joins Sanga) many times in Silakkhandha Vagga. Nowadays, with the people of varieties of desires, greeds, thirsts, angers and offenses, it is impractical to apply "Mahasila" in public but instead Buddhist monks should follow since they are maintaining Buddha's teachings.


text:
Self like a diamond
I read a parable once, a long time ago:

The Buddha meets someone else, some kind of yogi, who is maybe a supernatural being or has supernatural powers.
They have a duel, involving swords.
The yogi is proud, perhaps gleeful, because his body is invulnerable, hard, like diamond.
When the Buddha is struck with a sword, it passes through him without resistance and without effect, as if the Buddha were made of insubstantial smoke.
The yogi decides that the Buddha's way is superior, and becomes regretful: regretful that they had spent their effort on making their self more durable.

So, two questions:

Do you know this parable, is it famous, can you give a reference to it and/or to a commentary which explains its context?
In this article, Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes,

You should be very clear on one point: The purpose of meditation is to find happiness and well-being within the mind, independent of the body or other things going on outside. Your aim is to find something solid within that you can depend on no matter what happens to the body.
So an important function of meditation — in giving you a solid center that provides you a vantage point from which to view life in its true colors — is that it keeps you from feeling threatened or surprised when the body begins to reassert its independence.

Can you reconcile the sentences, quoted above, with the parable? Are they saying the same thing, saying opposite things, saying different things?

When the Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu says "solid center" he's not talking about literally having something inside your body that is physically solid, and he's definitely not saying about some sort of true self (His other writings make it clear that he accepts the orthodox position that there is no ultimately real true self).  What he means is that the goal of meditation is to find happiness which isn't dependent on causes and conditions, and therefore cannot be disturbed, so metaphorically you can say that it is solid or unbreakable.
I've never heard of this particular parable, but it sounds to me like it is a parable about the pointlessness of developing any kind of view of self.

Re. the parable, I wondered whether the diamond was meant to represent the Vajra, or something like that. Re. the purpose of meditation, "a solid ... vantage point from which to view life" sounds like talking about "right view". Leaving aside whether "view" implies that there's a "viewer", does attempting to establish a "solid view" seem unskillful or futile in in the face of "impermanence"? Perhaps I'm wondering whether it makes sense to try to establish a solid view, using dhamma as a mantra. Perhaps the answer is that I'm misconstruing what "right view" is, that my view of it is too narrow.

@ChrisW The Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu never said anything about a 'solid view' but 'solid center' which as I said seems to be a metaphor for the happiness that is free from attachment. I think you are reading too much into the language of what he said.

@ChrisW View can exist without a viewer. Think of a landscape with no one perceiving it. Taken properly, this is nonduality. Seeing goes on, without an explicit distinction between 'see-er' and seen, it is en entire event, not two separate things. Is there a difference between you seeing a landscape, and you not being there? What is the difference? When you are like smoke instead of a stone, then there is no difference. Silly words!