text:
Are there communities of practicing secular Buddhists?
Religious groups are typically comprised of communities of practitioners who visit the temple/church a couple of times a week and practice together.  Is this true of secular Buddhism?  If so, Where are the largest communities?

Secular Buddhism is expressing itself in ways beyond the imagination. There are people in the virtual world Second Life that are practicing Buddhism virtually.
Secular Buddhist Association -- Supportive Virtual Buddhist Communities
There is talk of secular Buddhism all over the world.
(search for communities of secular Buddhists)
What seems significant is that secular Buddhism is taking off. I would say that people hunger for the Buddhist experience and practice without the masks of religion that various sects require its monks to wear. This is not the end to Buddhism but a glorious new beginning that is sustainable in modern culture.

The  Secular Buddhist Association web site also a page at http://secularbuddhism.org/practice-centers/ which lists some geographical (non-virtual) places.

I love your optimism but it seems pretty nascent to me.  I live in an area of over 8 million people in the US and we didn't make it onto @ChrisW list. If anyone knows of a group near north dallas it'd be great to know about it.

In America
The largest group near you, depending on the size of the city (large metropolises usually have more specific options), will most likely be implicitly though a weekly meditation group. The experience of these groups, and the individuals in them, very widely. For other countries, it may be different.
How to actually find a meditation group near you? Well you're already online, why not start there? Then, paper bulletins of the group could be at the local public library, organic grocery store/shop, etc. Gold is only as good as the one digging.

This isn't an answer, is it? It's telling the OP to search online.

I'm not telling the OP to look at the sun. I said where to look, specifically, at the stars. Additionally, I stated this is common in America--not France.

Technically the SGI (Soka Gakkai International) is a lay Buddhist group, but there aren't any priests or nuns, so it may also be considered a secular form of Buddhism also. It is an orginization, but in my experience, I have never fealt like they were just trying to get my money or anything like that. There are many meetings that one can attend and there is a strong community emphasis, so you get to know a lot of people. Once a month, there is a big city-wide meeting which people often attend, but there is also a monthly district meeting, which usually comprises a small number of people (~5-20). In addition to that, there are many other meetings which one can attend (many do) outside of these two meetings. Usually at a meeting, there is a part where everyone medetates, and then after that, we often times talk and discuss the certain literary works of Nichiren Daishonin, a buddhist monk from the 1200's. That is where the meeting is more philosophical. After that, there may be food or something like that and people usually just talk with eachother. There are some meetings where there is only medetation (toso), and meetings where there is only philosophical discussion  (study meetings). I'm not sure if that's what you're looking for, but that is probably one of the more common sects of Buddhism, so depending on that country you live in and the size of your city, there probably is at least a group of people there who practice.
Here's a link to the SGI website if you're interested.


text:
What language did the Buddha speak?
Do we know, or have a good idea, what language the historical Buddha (Siddhārtha Gautama) spoke. I've just assumed it is Pali but a moment's thought tells me this is probably wrong since the Pali canon was written hundreds of years after the Buddha died. If we know what language he spoke do we know if this language had a wide geographical area and if it is likely that he would have preached in this language or would he have used one more associated with religious practice.

Modern Magahi, ancient Ardhamagadhi aka Magadhi Prakrit, and Pali are much more similar to each other than e.g. Russian to Ukrainian, or Spanish to Portuguese. All basically sound like mumbled/corrupted dialects of Sanskrit. So whichever vernacular Buddha spoke was more or less the same language as his students spoke, especially considering that his wanderings were pretty much limited  to western Bihar / eastern Uttar Pradesh area.

The Pali Canon was compiled hundreds of years after the Buddha, but we know from comparative studies that the bulk of the material contained in it (and for that matter, the Suttas of the other schools) does go back quite a ways.
As for the language, that's a hard thing to answer. From a linguistic standpoint, Pali seems to be a blend of several eastern and western dialects together with some Sanskrit. Some have hypothesized that it is some form of an old trade language, something that people in different parts of northern India would have known how to speak in order to talk with people from other regions, and others think that this mixture of dialects was done later to harmonize the texts. In any case, it's a rather tricky question and rather unclear if it would have really been commonly spoken in that region of India in the time of the Buddha due to the presence of western features in Pali.
Whatever the Buddha spoke it was probably closely related either to the language of Kosala or something related to Magadhi.

The Buddha is believed to have spoken Magahi. The relationship to Pali is discussed articles relating to Prakrit and Magadhi Prakrit.

The answer for this seems debatable, this is what I found in Vinaya, The Khandaka rules translated by Thanissaro Bhikku page 89,

Cv.V.33.1 reports the efforts of two brahman bhikkhus who set the
  Buddha’s  teachings to meter after objecting to the fact that bhikkhus
  who had gone forth from  different clans, different nationalities,
  different families were spoiling the Buddha’s  words by putting it in
  “own dialect.” The Buddha however forbade that his teachings  be set
  to meter, and allowed that they be learned by each in “own dialect.”
  There are two controversies surrounding these two rules. The first is
  over the  meaning of own dialect. The Commentary insists that it means
  the Buddha’s own dialect, and that therefore the Dhamma must be
  memorized in Pali.

According to the commentary it seems Buddha's dialect is Pali. But Thanissaro Bhikku argues that epigraphic evidence suggests Pali is not Buddha's dialect. It is said to be the dialect of Ven. Mahinda, king Asoka's son, who came to Sri Lanka. So it must be either Magadhi or Pali which are said to have many similarities.

The short answer is we don't know and there is debate on the topic. However, it is likely that, as the Buddha taught in various locations to various audiences, he spoke in local dialects or languages (or perhaps had interpreters). Some believe that there was mutual intelligibility to some of the dialects or languages. Also, the Buddha clearly had different audiences, some more literate or educated than others. Languages used by the educated might have been used for some audiences, but not for others.
In reality, it doesn't matter as what we do have is Pali language written in Sinhala script some 500 years after the Buddha died.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Was the Buddha an arahant?
According to Theravadan Buddhism would the Buddha have been considered an arahant? Is this word synonymous with the title 'the Buddha' or does being the Buddha mean something over and above being an arahant? If the terms 'the Buddha' and arahant are synonymous then why don't we call all enlightened beings Buddhas?
My understanding was that once someone was an arahant then that was it, they had done what needed to be done. He/she was enlightened and therefore at the exact same level of attainment as the Buddha. Is that correct?

"According to Theravadan Buddhism would the Buddha have been considered an arahant?"
IN SN 22:58 we read the Buddha saying:

"The Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One [...]"

Describing himself as an Arahant, he proceeds:

"What is the distinction, what is the disparity, what is the difference between the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, and a bhikkhu liberated by wisdom? [...] The Tathagata, bhikkhus, is the originator of the path unarisen before, the producer of the path unproduced before, the declarer of the path undeclared before. He is the knower of the path, the discoverer of the path, the one skilled in the path"

There are other characteristics of a Buddha. In MN 115 (*) he declares:

It is impossible that two rightfully Enlightened Ones should be born in the same world element at one and same time. [...] It is impossible that a woman should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One. [...] It is possible that a man should be the perfect rightfully Enlightened One.

Also, MN 12 describes the ten powers of a Buddha (I don't believe these always apply to arahants):

(1) "Here, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the possible as possible and the impossible as impossible."
(2) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future, and present, by way of possibilities and causes."
(3) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the ways leading to all destinations."
(4) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements."
(5) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations."
(6) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons."
(7) "Again, the Tathāgata understands as it actually is the defilement, the cleansing, and the emergence in regard to the jhānas, liberations, concentrations, and attainments."
(8) "Again, the Tathāgata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births... Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives."
(9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathāgata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate... and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions."
(10) "Again, by realizing for himself with direct knowledge, the Tathāgata here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints."

"My understanding was that once someone was an arahant then that was it, they had done what needed to be done. He/she was enlightened and therefore at the exact same level of attainment as the Buddha. Is that correct?"
Yes. The difference, it seems, is not of attainment, but of role and skills. Many suttas depict the different skills of arahants, sometimes in contrast with Bhudda's skills.
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi develops this further on:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

(*) While this excerpt exemplifies distinct characteristics of Buddhas, its important to note that the portion about the impossibility of a woman to become a Buddha is absent in the agama version of this sutta. See Analayo's paper The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels On Women’s Inabilities and related Q&A here

The definition of an Arahant in the Theravada school is someone who has totally destroyed the three unholesome roots of greed, hatred, and delusion. The definition of a Sammasambuddha is someone who attains enlightenment without a teacher and teaches the Dhamma to others. By these definitions, the Buddha was the first Arahant of the current Buddha era.

BTW, Ari in Sanskrit means enemy (greed,hatred delusion) and hant or hanth means killer or destroyer.

My understanding based on the teachings I have read is that an Arhant is one who walks the path in order to seek enlightenment for their self and does not attempt to help others to do this. Buddha was not the only one to achieve enlightenment but he was unique in the sense that he spent his life showing others the way to enlightenment so that all of us, even now may benefit from his teachings. I think he was the one who encouraged people to become Buddhas by way of the Bodhisattva path rather than the Arhant path.

Anybody who reaches Nirvana is considered Enlightened / Arahat. The Buddha is Enlightened. An Arahat is a word for an Enlightened being. Hence Buddha is also an Arahat.
Since the Nirvana for any person is the same the attainment of Arahatship is the same, though on other aspects the Buddha's faculties, powers, attainments, insights and knowledges are far superior due to his Paramis.

Yes, the Buddha is considered the first Arahant (Arahath) in this Buddha Kalpa era. The difference is that a Buddha (Sammā Sambuddha is the more accurate term) achieves enlightenment without anyone's teaching, and the term Sammā Sambuddha means he can teach his findings to others. There are three ways to become an Arahant:

Sammā Sambuddha (The Buddha) - One who attains Nibbāna (Nirvana) by himself but can also show the path of Nibbāna to others.

Paccekabuddha (Paccēka Buddha) - One who attains Nibbāna (Nirvana) by himself without anyone else's teaching. However, he cannot teach the path to Nirvana to others. It's like someone mute having a dream; he cannot share what he saw with others. Only he knows what he experienced.

Sāvaka Buddha (Arahant) - Yes, an Arahant is also called a Buddha. The term means he attained Nibbāna (Nirvana) by hearing the path of Nibbāna from the Sammā Sambuddha Sasana (Sammā Sambuddha or one of his followers).

Here's an analogy.
The Buddha is like Einstein who discovered the Theory of Relativity. He's the only one, and there's no one else like him.
The stream enterer is the physics bachelor's degree graduate who studied relativity and passed. He has proven understanding of the breadth of physics, but not the depth. He has entered the physics academic stream.
The once returner is the physics master's degree graduate. He needs to return to university one more time to do his doctorate.
The never returner is the physics doctorate graduate. He doesn't have to return to university again to do a degree, but he still needs to build up his research portfolio and experience.
The Arahant is the tenured physics professor. He has reached the peak of his career.
Einstein obviously never studied relativity for his degrees because he is the one who discovered it and instantly became the first professor of it.

no an arahant learns from a buddha, a buddha discovers the path on his own.
ive also heard that buddhahood has additional powers, its not just nibbana attainment and thats it. i coukd be wrong on that.

At the Nirvana, all are same. Even the Buddha.
What makes Buddha different?
1)
Buddha is the one with most concentrated mind. Which means most powerful Dayana.
2)
Buddha is the only one with some special visions / wisdoms about the nature of the world. (which has some definitive names) which no other person, (ever who's reached Nirvana) has.

Yes, according to Buddhist tradition, Siddhartha Gautama, who later became known as the Buddha, is considered an arahant. The term "arahant" is often translated as "worthy one" or "perfected one" and refers to someone who has attained enlightenment and liberation from the cycle of birth and death (samsara).
The Buddha achieved enlightenment under the Bodhi tree in Bodh Gaya, India, around 2,500 years ago. He gained profound insights into the nature of suffering, the causes of suffering, and the path to liberation. After attaining enlightenment, the Buddha spent the rest of his life teaching the Dharma (the path to liberation) to others.
In Buddhist terminology, the Buddha is often referred to as a Samyaksaṃbuddha, which means a "fully self-awakened one" or "perfectly enlightened one." An arahant, in general, is someone who has reached the same level of enlightenment but may have done so through the teachings of a Buddha. The Buddha is considered the supreme teacher and the one who rediscovers and articulates the path to enlightenment for others to follow.

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

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


text:
Nuns and ordination
I see that in some theravdan traditions woman cannot fully ordain (some thai traditions). But in some burmese and tibetan traditions they can.  From what I understand it is because of the break in  lineage but how do these other traditions justify it?

I wasn't aware of any Burmese traditions allowing for female ordination; in Burma it has always been seen as a terrible heresy, afaik, with one bhikkhuni actually being thrown in jail.
The gist of the main argument against goes as follows:

premise: whatever it says in the vinaya pitaka has to be followed to the letter.
premise: the vinaya pitaka says that female bhikkhuni ordination requires both bhikkhunis and bhikkhus to succeed
premise: the bhikkhuni lineage is extinct.

conclusion: bhikkhuni ordination is impossible. Q.E.D.

The proponents of bhikkhuni ordination challenge each of the three above premises in various ways, as follows:

They advocate breaking certain rules in the bhikkhuni vinaya by ordaining more bhikkhunis than allowed, etc., hence they challenge the idea that the vinaya must be followed to the letter.

They deny that the vinaya pitaka requires bhikkhunis in order to ordain bhikkhunis, hence they claim there is no textual backing to the argument against ordination of bhikkhunis by bhikkhus only.

They deny that the bhikkhuni lineage is extinct, citing existing bhikkhunis in Taiwan, I think.

I dislike the first of these challenges; it seems dangerous to pick and choose rules, and the broken rules have more to do with the specifics of ordination, rather than the actual ordination itself.
The second challenge is what finally turned me around to supporting bhikkhuni ordination; there really is nowhere in the vinaya pitika where bhikkhunis are explicitly required for ordination. Here's how it actually goes:
1. The Buddha tells the first potential bhikkhuni that in order to ordain she would have to agree to the rule (among others) that:

When, as a probationer, a bhikkhuni has trained in the six rules [ cha dhamma ] for two years, she should seek higher ordination from both orders.

2. When other applicants arise, the Buddha says:

Bhikkhus, I allow bhikkhunis to be ordained by bhikkhus.

3. When applicants for bhikkhuni ordination become too shy to answer questions posed by bhikkhus about their physical health, the Buddha says:

Bhikkhus, I allow for one who has been ordained to one side, found to be pure in front of the bhikkhuni sangha, to ordain in front of the bhikkhu sangha.

The question is whether this new allowance supersedes the first allowance. I don't think the original rule agreed upon by Mahapajapati can be taken as law, since it was subsequently broken with the first allowance. Further, the eight rules are worded to be simply a warning of the severity of the rules they would have to follow. Finally, the emphasis in the one quoted above is on the two year probation, not the dual ordination.
As to precedence in regards to alternative allowances, we find two distinct patterns in the vinaya pitika:

Where a certain allowance is given, then rescinded and a new allowance given.

Where a certain allowance is given, then a new allowance is given without rescinding the old allowance.

Examples of the latter include first allowing clear broth for a sick monk, then allowing thick broth later when the clear broth didn't solve the problem. This seems analogous to the bhikkhuni ordination, in that both cases were brought about not by some danger in the original allowance, but by circumstances where the first allowance was insufficient. It seems therefore reasonable to suggest that just as there is no reason to forbid clear broth now that thick broth is allowed, there doesn't either seem to be any good reason for forbidding bhikkhu-only ordination of bhikkhunis just because dual ordination is now allowed (remembering that it was enacted for the sole reason of allowing shy applicants to answer embarrassing questions)
More telling, perhaps, is the best example of the former pattern, where the original allowance is rescinded: the case of bhikkhu ordination. Originally, the Buddha allowed bhikkhus to ordain under him by saying ehi bhikkhu - "come bhikkhu". Once it became apparent that this wouldn't be sufficient to meet the demand, he allowed other monks to give ordination using the tisaranagamana (going to three refuges).
Eventually, it became apparent that greater oversight would be required in the ordination process - i.e. there was an inherent flaw or danger in single bhikkhus ordaining bhikkhus. So, he says:

yā sā, bhikkhave, mayā tīhi saraṇagamanehi upasampadā anuññātā, taṃ ajjatagge paṭikkhipāmi. anujānāmi, bhikkhave, ñatticatutthena kammena upasampādetuṃ.
Bhikkhus, that tisaranagamana ordination which was allowed by me, that I revoke from this day forward. Bhikkhus, I allow one to be ordained by an act with the announcement as it's fourth.

Meaning, a quorum of monks had to hear the announcement and three declarations, giving them all a chance to reject the ordination.
The key passage here, missing from the second bhikkhuni ordination allowance, is in bold above. The fact that it is missing makes the bhikkhuni case categorically different from the bhikkhu case, and no textual based argument can suggest otherwise.
tl;dr: the Buddha never revoked the permission for bhikkhus to ordain bhikkhunis, therefore bhikkhus can still ordain bhikkhunis. Q.E.D.
As for the third challenge above (that there are still bhikkhunis in an unbroken lineage), I'm somewhat non-committal. They bhikkhunis in question are certainly not Theravada, so it's a bit of a stretch to suggest they "count". But there are arguments in favour of allowing them to "convert" to Theravada in order to perform the ordination. The best argument against this challenge is that, like the first challenge, it is unlikely to be accepted by the Theravada at large.

To add to Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's comment, Tibetan nuns who seek full ordination receive vows in the Dharmaguptaka linage, and not in the Mūlasarvāstivāda (Tibetan) linage, since Dharmaguptaka is the only women's transmission linage that is not broken.

The issue is that the Theravada vinaya instructs that Bhikkhunis (Fully ordained Nuns) must be ordained by other Nuns and then the ordination is ratified by an act of a group of Monks. When the lineage of Nuns ended then (or so it seemed) there would be no way to ordain Bhikkhunis.
At least that's the argument that some Theravadins give. In reality, the Theravada line of ordination for Bhikkhunis never totally died out, but was transplanted to China where it was maintained as a lineage of Mahayana Nuns following the Theravada Vinaya. In 1997, this ordination lineage was transplanted back into the Theravada school making fully ordained Bhikkhunis a possibility again.
There has also been a theory laid out by the Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, the great translator, that because the original form of Bhikkhuni ordination was done by Monks and was never formally abolished, the Bhikkhuni order could also simply be restored by having Monks ordain the Nuns if there were no Bhikkhunis.
In East Asian Buddhism, they follow (with the exception of most Monks in Japan and some in Korea who follow a non-Vinaya form of ordination) the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya and lineage, and the Dharmaguptaka order of Bhikkhunis never died out. As for Tibetan Buddhism, I think they just used the Dharmaguptaka line of Bhikkhunis to restore it but I'm not sure.


text:
Can the Buddha ever be a woman?
Is it true that the Buddha will never be a woman? If so, why is this?
To be specific, I am particularly asking whether or not the Buddha itself can be female. I am not asking whether a woman can become a Buddha in her future life.

It might help if you clarify whether you are asking a) if a Buddha cannot be female, or b) if a female cannot ever hope to become a Buddha in a future lifetime. Also, answers to this question vary from tradition to tradition, so you might want to make it clearer which tradition you are asking about.

You may also read it as 'Can a woman become a Buddha in her current life?'

Look up: Guanyin/Kwan Yin/Kuan Yin,,, various spellings; also Avelokitesvara. Clearly a female manifestation of Buddha since ancient days.

@yuttadhammo Current answers to this question reference the Pali canon's quoting the Buddha as saying that the answer is "no". Are you able/willing to mention what other traditions have a different viewpoint, and summarize why or how their answer can vary from the Pali canon's?

Great idea, it would be really helpful to summarize the viewpoint of different traditions in an answer instead of asking for one as it brings more clarity to the overall perspective as well as it prevents users from asking similar questions for each tradition.

There are many Buddhas, not just one “the Buddha.”

Beside saying that a woman cannot be a SammaSamBuddha,  MN 115 (http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Bahudhatuka_Sutta) also says that a woman cannot be Mara the Evil One. What's really interesting is that all Buddhist internet forums only inquire about the former statement but never the latter one..

So it might be the yin-yang principle afterall. If there's a man named Siddartha Gautama, there's gotta be a another man named Genghis Khan. No female version of Genghis? then it's unlikely there'd be a female version of Siddhartha..

In the (translated into English) Pali text that I have, there's a section titled "The Admission of Women to the Order" within a chapter titled "Stability of Societies". This section describes Ananda's asking the Buddha whether Maha-Pajapati could join the order.
When Ananda asks for the third time, he asks,

"Lord, are women capable, after going forth from the home unto the homeless life under the Norm-Discipline set forth by the Tathagata, -- are they capable of realizing the Fruit of Stream-winning, of Once-returning, of Never-returning, of Arahantship?

And the Buddha's reply to that question,

"Women are capable ... of doing so, Ananda."

(Which is why and how Ananda persuaded the Buddha to allow women to be ordained.)

FYI I did a Google search for Bahudhātuka Sutta -- because that seems to be the one/only basis on which other answers claim that a woman's being a Buddha is impossible.
The first search result is this paper, The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels
On Women’s Inabilities.
The Abstract for this paper says,

The present article offers a comparative study of the
  Bahudhātuka-sutta, based on a translation of one of its parallels
  found in the Madhyama-āgama preserved in Chinese translation.
  The study focuses in particular on the dictum that a woman cannot
   be a Buddha, which is absent from the Madhyama-āgama version.

Its conclusions is (page 166),

the inability of a woman to be a Buddha can still be seen as an expression of leadership conceptions held in ancient Indian patriarchal society

and (page 166)

This tendency can safely be assumed to stand in contrast to the original teachings of early Buddhism, where -- as far as the texts allow us to judge -- gender was not considered to have an impact on spiritual abilities.

and (page 185)

Kajiyama (58) concludes that, regarding the listing of inabilities of
  women, “it is most likely that the dictum did not exist when the Buddhist
  Order maintained one and the same tradition, but that it was created
  after the Order was divided into many schools and was inserted into
  sūtras of various schools.” However, the suggestion by Kajiyama (70) that
  “the dictum that a woman is incapable of becoming a Buddha arose
  probably in the first century B.C.” may be putting things at too late a
  time.

The arguments for why is this is a late addition start in the section titled Comparison of the Parallel Versions of the Bahudhātuka Bahudhātuka-sutta on page 151 and can be summarized as:

Evidence that other parts were added:

"Aggregates" seems to be new
Items were added to the "elements" topic

Therefore it's possible that an item (the item regarding women) was added to the "impossibilities" section.
The difference between versions could be explained as a later addition (into some versions), or as a later loss (from the other versions); but an addition is more likely.
There are various other differences in the "impossibilities" section.
The "impossibilities for women" doesn't exist in all versions
In the versions which do include the "impossibilities for women" section, there are differences between versions.
Buddha's being a woman, or low-caste, would be incompatible with contemporary society (because they wouldn't be respected when alive), which was the reason for the argument that a woman would have to be reborn as a man before she could be the Buddha
Some versions (not the Pali) say that a woman cannot even be a Paccekabuddha, which is proof that more and more degradation of women's abilities were added over time. (page 164)
It's therefore significant that one of the versions doesn't mention it at all (i.e. it implies that it wasn't original)
The addition doesn't fit, wasn't useful in the context of other information which was intended to be practical (page 166)

Maybe could better link the transition of the context? (from arahantship being possible to women, to the question at hand)
I think you're asking why my first quote (the Buddha's reply to Ananda's question, which was about "Arahantship") is relevant to this question, which is about the Buddha.
The paper I linked to above says that, at that time, no-one had the ambition of becoming the future Buddha: perhaps Arahant was synonymous with the highest feasible spiritual attainment, and that women were able no less than men to achieve it (page 163):

Here it needs also to be taken into account that the presentation
  in the Bahudhātuka-sutta and its parallels still stems from a period in the
  development of Buddhist thought when the idea of aspiring to Buddhahood
   had not yet become a general option. As pointed out by Kajiyama
  (64), “the dictum that a woman cannot become a Buddha ... did not have
  a target to which it could have been directed,” since at that time “no
  one, neither man nor woman, aspired to Buddhahood.”53 In sum, then,
  the inability of a woman to assume the position of a ruler on earth, a ruler
  in various heavenly realms, or a ruler in the field of Dharma reflects
  leadership conceptions in ancient India.

The footnote says,

53 Romberg (164) notes that once “the aim was no longer to become an
  Arhat, but to become Buddha ... this shift made, in fact, the situation for
  women worse, because a doctrinal foundation was laid for the necessity
  of changing the sex before being able to become enlightened.” In fact the
  Bodhisattvabhūmi explains that a woman will not realize the awakening of
  a Buddha because already an advanced bodhisattva has left behind womanhood
  for good and will not be reborn again as a female, Wogihara
  (94,3): na ca strī anuttarāṃ samyaksaṃbodhim abhisaṃbudhyate. tat kasya
  hetoḥ? tathā hi bodhisattvaḥ prathamasyaiva kalpāsaṃkhyeyasyātyayāt strībhāvaṃ vijahāti bodhimaṇḍaniṣadanam upādāya na punar jātu strī bhavati; cf.
  also Paul (212 note 7). Harrison (78) concludes that “women ... are generally represented in such an unfavourable light as to vitiate any notion of
  the Mahāyāna as a movement for sexual equality. Compared with the
  situation in the Pāli Canon, in which women are at least as capable as
  men of attaining the highest goal, arhatship, the position of women in
  Mahāyāna has hardly changed for the better.”

This is great info!

Yes indeed, well found.

+2 - you've hit the nail with the hammer with those comments! great kudos!

Women being able to attain Arahantship is common knowledge and well supported by the Suttas. But it is not related to this question. Becoming a Buddha is not the same as becoming an Arahath.

Maybe could better link the transition of the context? (from arahantship being possible to women, to the question at hand).

@ThiagoSilva I added to the answer to try to link the transition. Notwhithstanding your answer on that subject it says (something like) it wasn't useful/relevant to distinguish between "Arahant" and "the Buddha".

@ChrisW thank you! About my answer, I didn't conclude from the texts the distinction wasn't useful/relevant, as I collected a few places were distinctions were brought to attention (using the sutta in question as well). I do think its useful/relevant. However, my understanding agrees with the questioner when he says the attainment reached by arahants and buddhas are the same.

Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu! The analysis of the parallel sutta in the Madhyama Agama is wonderful! That puts my heart at ease.

MN 115 is not referring to an arahant. MN 115 is referring to a Samma Sambuddha, which is the arahant/Buddha that gains enlightenment without a teacher & commences the Buddhist religion. A woman can be an arahant but a woman cannot be a Samma Sambuddha. Thus MN 115 does not contradict any other scriptures & also shows Bhikkhu Analayo did not argue his case correctly. This is a very straightforward matter.

@Dhammadhatu I think that part of the argument was that in Early Buddhism the intention/ambition was to become an arhat; and the idea that people generally might aspire to Buddhahood happened a few centuries later (at which, later, time it was mixed with contemporary "leadership conceptions in ancient India") -- page 163 and footnote 53.

I think the main issue/confusion is the terms arahant & buddha. Originally, the term "buddha" was not used generically/interchangeably with "arahant". But later it was. My point it is a ordinary later-day distinction that there are 4 kinds of buddha: (i) self-enlightened that teaches (eg Gotama); (ii) self-enlightened that is silent (eg, unknown); (iii) taught-enlightened that teaches (eg. Sariputta); (iv) taught-enlightened that does not teach (eg. Rahula). Thus there is only one Sammasambuddha,namely, Gotama. MN 115 states a woman cannot be the 1st kind of buddha. Regards

@Dhammadhatu Yes and I think that part of the "argument" is that that kind of distinction is late (though probably earlier than the first century AD). I think that the whole of the article examines reasons for believing that that one line is a late addition to the sutta: e.g. that it's anachronistic, and that it's not found in other versions (e.g. the Chinese translation) of the sutta.

Respectfully, what is "late" is anything Chinese. Where as the term "Sammasamuddha" is found everywhere in the Pali suttas. Everyday, Buddhists chant: "Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammasumbuddhasa". Bhikkhu Analayo is obviously incorrect. The Chinese parallels to suttas are generally extremely poor transmissions of dhamma. The Sutta Central rationale/methodology of parallel studies is weak. I have read the article previously. Bhikkhu Analayo's arguments, to me, are based on poor definitions.

This reminds me of a Zen story. A North-American female student approaches her Zen master and asks: "Is it true that a woman can never become a Buddha?" Zen master says "yup". The student gets into a long rant about women discrimination, equal rights, and how deluded the Zen master must be in his culturally-inherited biases. Zen master waits until she runs out of steam and says: "Wait. Are you [=still identifying yourself with] a woman?!"
The moral of the story, obviously, is that the serious student must abandon any and all identification, both personal- and group-based, including identification with gender. Identification is a form of attachment that leads to passions, taking sides, arguments, and a whole gamut of problems.
In AN 7.48 Buddha clearly explains that the person must transcend their gender biases, both masculine and feminine:

"And how is there lack of bondage? A woman does not attend inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires, feminine voice, feminine charms. She is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a woman transcends her femininity.
"A man does not attend inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires, masculine voice, masculine charms. He is not excited by that, not delighted by that [...] This is how a man transcends his masculinity.

In SN 5.2 a nun named Soma says:

What
      difference
  does being a woman make
  when the mind's well-centered,
  when knowledge is progressing,
  seeing clearly, rightly,
      into the Dhamma.
Anyone who thinks
      'I'm a woman'
      or 'a man'
  or 'Am I anything at all?' —
      that's who Mara's
      fit to address.

I cannot comment on the orthodoxy of this but at least it makes complete sense.

Can the Buddha never be a woman? If it is true, why can't they?
According to MN 115, a woman cannot be a Buddha and, as far as I know, the reason is not explained anywhere in the canon.

He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a woman could
  be an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One ― there is no such
  possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that a man might be
  an Accomplished One, a Fully Enlightened One ― there is such a
  possibility.’
-MN 115, The Many Kinds of Elements

A woman cannot be a Sammasabuddha, Pacceka Buddha, Maha Brahma, Devaputta Māra , god Sakka or a Cakkavatti. Even if a woman aspires to become a Buddha in the future, she won't get the Niyatha Vivarana(confirmation) by another Buddha until she's born as a man. - MN 115.
This might not sit well with the modern social standards which are big on gender equality. But that's how it is when it comes to laws of nature.
As a side note, Theravada tradition does not drop/add or change Suttas to fit well with the social standards of the time. That's one reason why it is still the tradition that is closest to the original teachings of the Buddha.

"This might not sit well with the modern social standards which are big on gender equality. But that's how it is when it comes to laws of nature." - well, I'd say you overdid it, mate... in my opinion, you're not a person to tell other people "how it is when it comes to laws of nature" - it's rather unwise to claim such wisdom.

your opinion supports my point about it not sitting well with modern social views. :)

I'm not a gender person myself - and it's not about modern times nor my opinion, mind me; I'm a patriarchist myself. It's about you claiming you know the laws of nature better than other people, having a biased POV and failing to comply with Noble Eightfold Path; claiming to have wisdom is the highest proof of lacking it. Wise people seek wisdom, because they know they lack it. Unwise people claim wisdom, because they think they have it. If you desire truth, you want to be criticized and you want to be wrong. If you don't desire truth, you seek only to be right.

Nope! I'm not claiming direct knowledge on this matter. I don't think anyone other than the Buddha could. I'm simply claiming "Thus have I heard" and I believe in what I have heard. :)

You haven't ever used the words "Thus have I heard" in your answer. You used words "cannot", "won't" and the phrase "that's how it is when it comes to laws of nature"; those are unwise words to use unless you are completely sure of something, by having highest possible confidence in the source and/or having verified it by your self, in an unbiased way. I agree that no-one other than the Buddha could know how the laws of nature work in their intricacy. As such, it's exactly what I stated before - you overdid it, using words too big and too confident for a mere assumption.

It's not a mere assumption. It's the confidence in the Buddha and the Dhamma to be the truth. According to you, almost every answer in this site should start with "thus have i heard" since it's not right to claim direct knowledge even if you do have it. It's implied for these type of questions by default. Anyway, I think your misunderstanding about me claiming direct knowledge is cleared by now. :)

You haven't quoted scriptures nowhere. You haven't provided any source nor verification. As such, your opinion is based on interpretation of rumours. Don't claim on Buddha what he haven't said. Also, questions imply the desire to gain knowledge, not opinions nor rumours. Some of the other authors of answers understand this. They either quote the scriptures or explicitly highlight that something is their opinion, view, understanding or interpretation. Sadly, you don't, and you claim the lack of wisdom on the reader. "Blame the writer, don't blame the reader"... look it up yourself.

"Don't claim on Buddha what he haven't said". This is your opinion. But I put my confidence in the sermons I have heard and the teachers I have learned from. I will update the answer with scripture references when I find them. My intention was never to make you sad or feel offended. So maybe you can try Metta meditation while I find a reference. :)

Yes, it is my opinion that you shouldn't put words into Buddha's mouth. I assume you disagree with it? Pity. Anyway, if you find a scripture saying "This might not sit well with the modern social standards which are big on gender equality. But that's how it is when it comes to laws of nature.", I'll be most enlightened. I wish you the best of luck on this search, hope you'll be able to prove to me and other people that is what Buddha's said.

The scripture reference is the same, verse 15 of MN 115 as referenced in other answers.

@ChrisW Please read my request before attempting to fullfil it. I'm not asking for scripture reference for his 1st paragraph; I'm asking reference for the second. I don't recall Buddha's discussing gender studies nor making political/sociological assumptions and converting them into "laws of nature"; yet I may be wrong - I'm open to proofs of that, as I consider my knowledge on this matter lacking.

@ChrisW: Thanks for saving me the trouble. :) vaxquis, I thought you are referring to the whole answer. The second paragraph needs no scripture references. "This might not" already implies that it's my opinion.

FYI I found a paper (referenced in my answer) which claims that was a later addition (I'm not enough of a scholar to assess the historicity of the texts myself).

People say similar things about the Abhidhamma too. But it is probably appease the modern day readers.

Are you claiming that the Pali canon is an (or is the) infallible record of what the Buddha said? The article Sources on Pre-sectarian Buddhism say it's worth comparing the Pali with the Chinese sources, and explains why. And, are you saying that this (sexism) is not your opinion at all, and that instead you're only repeating what you were told the Buddha said? If so, is that contradicted by the Kalama Sutta?

It doesn't contradict with Kalama sutta. Kalama sutta allows for accepting what is praised by the wise. You cannot know the answer to this question by direct knowledge, in any case. So I go by faith and yes, I do treat the Pali canon as the word of the Buddha. It's usually the practice of the Theravada tradition to preserve the Suttas and not to tamper with them to fit the attitude of the time. No, I don't see this as sexist. It is as sexist as saying that it is not fair for only women to have a menstrual cycle. I simply see it as a law of nature.

@Sankha I guess Śrāddha is at different levels among the people here. It takes time to grow as Śrāddha indriya once you enter the path right? Later I guess when people understand the suttas and realize them through their own experience, they will understand what the 'laws of nature' you are talking about is. :)

@dmsp, yes, it is important to have Saddha when you are studying the aspects of the Dhamma which you can't verify with direct knowledge. "I know everything that is possible" attitude will only strengthen the doubt in one's mind.

I apologize but "sexism" is man-made: sexism says that because women have a menstrual cycle, therefore they cannot be... (land-owner; politician; head of a family; head of a country; priest; judge; athlete; monk; doctor). It remains sexism whether it says so "because they have a menstrual cycle", or "because they are not allowed to go to boys' school", or "because that's what our fathers and great-grandfathers decided to teach". It seems to me possible, even plausible, that the verse was added to please contemporary society after the Buddha died: not a law of nature but a law of men / society.

The Sutta has survived so many Buddhist councils which were designed to eliminate tampering and alien elements. I'm not assuming myself to be a better judge of what the Buddha taught compared to the  learned Sangha who headed those councils, specially when I do not have direct knowledge on the matter. Also, I don't know if things like menstrual cycle, being physically weak, comparatively more emotional etc. have anything to do with women not being able to attain Buddhahood. But that is what the Sutta says and I'm not uncomfortable in accepting it.

Also, it's not just this Sutta. None of the Buddhas described in Buddhawamsa are female. There were many Buddhas in the past who appeared in virtuous societies. They had similar life spans to Buddha Maitreya who will appear in the future. None of them were female.

Guys, would you please kindly stop arguing?

“This might not sit well with the modern social standards which are big on gender equality. But that's how it is when it comes to laws of nature.” So what you are saying is a) we cannot evolve, and b) we cannot relieve the suffering of women under gender discrimination?

a) No, we do evolve. But evolution doesn't change the word of the Buddha. It is for all times.
b) All kinds of sufferings are relieved when one becomes an Arahant. Women are perfectly capable of achieving that.
Do men need to be relieved of not being able to get pregnant? Is that gender discrimination too or is it the way nature works? :)

This is not an easy question because in one sense the Buddha can never be a man or a woman, because the Buddha is not a physical object. Yet every man and woman is within its core the essence of the Buddha nature.
The mask we wear is our human identity. What is behind the mask, meditation gives us glimpses of, yet who we really are is always a mystery or uncertain.
If you are asking can a woman realize the Buddha nature in this lifetime, perhaps we should look at all the nuns that Shakyamuni Buddha initiated. He did not discriminate but freely invited all to drink the wisdom of wonder.
Sometimes the questions are only answered in the depths of our own meditation.

excellent answer.  Would also like to refer the asker of this question to the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra (a Mahayana text)

Thank you sova for your kind words. I appreciate your comments. Sorry for my delayed response.

A woman can become a Buddha in a future birth. Gautama the Buddha was once a woman when 1st thought becoming a Buddha was planted in her mind. [p8 Practising the Dhamma with a View to Nibbana, Ch1 Eminent Buddhist Women by  Karma Lekshe Tsomo]
The Bodhisattva and Buddhas are always male so you have to be born in latter lives as a male to complete your Bodhisattva career and become a Buddha.
After the definite prediction of future Buddhahood you will always be male. Before that there is a chance Bodhisattva may change between male and female.
Though is modern times this might seem controversial Bahu Dhātuka Sutta mentions certain things a woman cannot achieve:

He understands that it is impossible, there is no chance, that a woman would become a worthy
  fully self awakened one—this is not possible.
And he understands that it is possible, there is the chance, that a man would become a worthy fully
  self-awakened—this is possible.
He understands that it is impossible, there is no chance, that a woman would become a universal
  monarch—this is not possible.
And he understands that it is possible, there is the chance, that only a man would become a universal
  monarch —this is possible.
He understands that it is impossible, there is no chance, that a woman would attain the state
  of Sakra—this is not possible
...

For more comparative discussion on this matter see: On Women’s Inabilities by Piya Tan and The Bahudhātuka-sutta and its Parallels On Women’s Inabilities by Ven. Anālayo

So if I don't misinterpret, a Buddha itself will never be female?

Yes. A Buddha is always male though a woman can aspire to be a Buddha.

I know a few women who are enlightened but being a buddha is more than being enlightened...it is about making others enlightened. Women have a drawback - they can follow well but cannot lead. It needs slight aggression a masculine quality. Its a difficult preposition but not an impossible one.

the above comments are rooted in human bias. who says that leading needs to be a quality of buddhahood? and who told you women cannot lead? who told you buddhahood needs aggression?

@frei Some explanation is already available in the comments of this answer

I suppose the misunderstanding about this comes from the fact that "man" can mean two different things, while a woman can mean only one. The problem is present in virtually all contemporary languages - man can mean "male" or "human being". As such, my interpretation of MN 115 is simple and consistent with both AN 7.48 and SN 5.2 - only a man (a human being by itself) can achieve higher; being only a man or a woman, limited by gender, means you're limited to Māyā.
Also, I agree 100% with Andrei on Realization.

MN 115 (Bahudhātuka Sutta) does not state a woman cannot be an arahant (fully enlightened being). MN 115 (Bahudhātuka Sutta) only states a woman cannot be the Sammasambuddha.
There is only one Sammasambuddha in a world system. In the current world system, the only Sammasambuddha is Gotama.
Importantly, a Sammasambuddha is the Buddha that:
(i) discovers enlightenment without a teacher, when Buddhism does not exist in the world; and
(ii) commences the Buddhist religion by teaching his discovery.
A Buddha that attains or discovers enlightenment without a teacher but does not teach & does not start the Buddhism religion is not a Sammasambuddha. Instead, they are a silent Buddha.
Thus, a woman cannot be a Sammasambuddha. This is not an unreasonable point of view since it is difficult for a woman to convince men who believe in God or Atman that all things are not-self.
In the future, if the Buddha-Dhamma disappears, it is unlikely (impossible) the new Sammasambuddha will be a woman for the same reasons.
Since woman are not particularly to partial to the teaching of anatta (not-self), it is unlikely a female Sammasambuddha would arise in a matriarchal society since women are less likely than men to accept the teaching of anatta because the majority of women have stronger reproductive instincts than men.
Thus, it is likely MN 115 is correct when it states it is impossible for a Sammasambuddha to be a woman. Modern ideas of "feminism" will not change this.

Just a small correction. Only one Buddha appear in all the world systems. As far as I know the Buddha can contact one billion fold world systems and preach Dhamma at once. So only one Buddha within that time. :)

The Pali texts are quite misogynistic and clearly state that a female can never become a Buddha due to the fact that she experiences several karmic disadvantages compared to males, especially menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth, but also including inferior social status (see Peter Harvey, Introduction to Buddhism, p. 285).
Moreover, females are the "door" through which rebirth occurs, and are thus identified with samsara. Since the bodhisattva in his final birth must be the "best of men," free of all ordinary afflictions, though not yet a Buddha, a bodhisattva will never be reborn as a female in his final rebirth. The 32 marks of a great man clearly include exclusively male attributes. There is no denying that this is the orthodox or traditional attitude of those who accept the Pali Canon as their basis.
Whether this was the actual teaching of the Buddha is less clear, since the Buddha stated that females could attain nirvana and clearly ordained nuns. He also implied that the sangha must include nuns to be complete, and explicitly affirmed women's rights as the fifth principle of a good and strong society. One can criticize this view logically on the grounds that men also suffer various gender-related afflictions, such as excessive lust, aggression, violence, etc. More than five hundred female arhants are mentioned in the Pali Canon (ibid). The Chinese Tientai school and Tibetan Buddhism both recognize female Buddhas (op. cit., p. 186).
The Dalai Lama has clearly stated that a female could become a Dalai Lama, but of course the Dalai Lama is a bodhisattva, not a Buddha, and is not experiencing his final birth (otherwise there would be no lineage of Dalai Lamas). Ajahn Brahm has criticized this doctrine publicly, for which offence he was expelled from his lineage in Thailand. Female ordination is still prohibited in Thailand so far as I know. I have presented a talk on this topic entitled "The Status of Women in Ancient India and the Pali Tradition."

Why don't you read my correct answer rather than assert "the Buddha was unclear" & try to reinvent the wheel like everyone else? Also, which misogynistic Pali texts are being referred to? Please quote them. Thank you

I quote many of these texts in the talk I cited, q.v. They are too numerous to quote in a comment. I have however found additional texts, so give me a few days and I will collect the references in a comment if there is enough space. They are quite offensive but also interesting as a reflection of the misogyny of the Sri Lankan male monastic redactors of the Pali Canon.

DN 16:5-9 (ii 143); 19:49 (ii 246); 21:1.12 (ii 273); 23:13 (ii 332); 32:7 (iii 200) (Walshe); MN 21; 67.19 (I 462); 73.11 I 491); 115.15 (iii 66) (Nanamoli); SN I.III.3.I.16(6); I.IX.9.6; II.IX.20.10; IV.III.37.I.1(1); IV.III.37.IIV.III.37.I(3) (Bodhi); AN I.XV (i, 27); II.VI(10) (i, 77); III.I.VIII.79(ii) (III, 8, 78); III.I.XIII.127(i, 281); IV.II.VIII.x(80); IV.II.XX.vii(197) (ii, 202); V.III.IV.iii(33) (iii, 36). V.III.VI.v(55) (v, vi, 54). V.III.XXIII.v(225) (V, XXIII, 222); V.III.XXIII.vi(226) (iii, 259); V,III,XXIII.ix(220) (V, XXIII, 227); V.III.XXIIII.x(230) (iii, 261); VI.V.x(52) (i

ii, 362); VII.IV.V.viii(48) (iv, 54); VIII.II.v(15) (IV, 194); VIII.II.vii(17) (VIII, II, 16); VIII.III.vii(27) (IV, 221); VIII.V.vi(46) (IV, 263); VIII.V.ix(49)(iv, 266); VIII.VI.1(51) (VIII, vi, 51); X.V.VIII.ii(72) (v, 134); X.VIIIv(75) (X, VIII, 75); X.VIII.v(75)[143] (V, 141) (Hare); AN I.I.1(1); I.XV.279(12)-283(16) (I 28); II.VI.61(10); III.III.129(7)(1) (I 282); IV.III.80(10); V.I.II.I.55(5) (III 69); V.III.229(9) (III 261); VIII.V.46(6) (IV 265); VIII.V.47(7) (IV 270); VIII.V.48(8) (IV 270); VIII.V.49(9) (IV 270, 271, 273); VIII.II.I.51(1) (IV 274); X.III.75(5) (V 140); X.V.I.213(3) (

V 287); X.V.I.214(4) (V 287); X.V.I.215(5) (V 287) (Bodhi)

I've wondered about this myself. One way to think about it is that the Karma of a Bodhisattva always leads them to possess the best possible qualities to allow them to teach when they become a Buddha, and in societies with sexism, it would make it harder to teach and be taken seriously by the general public, so therefore, a Bodhisattva would be born as a male in a sexist society in order to be able to teach widely. If this is so, that would mean that the reason that Buddhas aren't women isn't that women are inferior, but because Buddhas always have to approach societies in a way that will allow them to be effective.
That's just my personal interpretation. I also think this principle would only apply in a sexist society, so if by the time the Buddha Metteyya will come it won't be taboo for a woman to be a leader, I think Metteyya might be born as a woman.

According to Anagathawamsa Maithriya Bodhisatva will have a wife called Candramukhi and a son called Brahmavaddana. His family name is mentioned as Maithriya and the first name is said to be Ajitha. So he can't be a woman.

I personally have a lot of problems accepting the material from the commentaries when they talk about things outside of the current Buddha Sasana. I wonder how that kind of information could be known unless it was explained by a Sammasambuddha, and if the Buddha Gotama explained it, then it would have been preserved in the Suttas. I'm not saying these kinds of stories are wrong and should be rejected, I'm just saying that for me personally it's a stretch to believe them.

Well, the details about the Maithrya Buddha are preached by the Buddha himself. "The Buddha with His divine vision and insight predicted that there will be a kingdom in Benares known as Kethumathie, which will be a glorious city inhabited by very rich people..."
More at http://www.ceylontoday.lk/64-47781-news-detail-buddhahood-of-maithreya-bodhisatva-announced.html
I don't find it hard to believe the additional details in the commentaries. It is not unrealistic that when they wrote down the Tipitaka, they left out detailed explanations of many stories.

@Sankha I agree that the commentaries contain material from the time of the Buddha, but that doesn't mean that all of the stories in them are true. For me personally a lot of these stories are quite different in character and content from the early suttas and so I don't think they should be understood as literal historical accounts. I'm not saying it is wrong to believe in these stories, but I do think it means that we shouldn't treat them as being mandatory belief.

One may not even treat the Tipitaka as mandatory belief. The commentaries were written by different authors at a later time. So you would expect them to be different in style. But that shouldn't necessarily cast doubts on the content.

Neither a man nor a woman can become a Buddha. Only a Bodhisattva having completed the necessary parami can become a Buddha. In that last life of the Bodhisattva, the Bodhisattva takes on a masculine shape at birth. This is what is said in the Theravada texts.

No, it is not true. According to the Lotus Sutra, women can attain Buddhahood in this lifetime. This sutra being the only sutra that says this accounts for its popularity among women over the centuries.
From Burton Watson's translation pp 226-8 -
Before his words had come to an end, the dragon king’s daughter suddenly appeared before the Buddha, bowed her head in obeisance, and then retired to one side, reciting these verses of praise:
He profoundly understands the signs of guilt and good fortune
and illuminates the ten directions everywhere.
...
And having heard his teachings, I have attained enlightenment—
the Buddha alone can bear witness to this.

In the Early Buddhist Texts, some texts have statements attributed to the Buddha that a woman cannot become a Buddha (or Mara, or Brahma, or a world monarch), and some do not. But in all the early Buddhist texts, there is statement attributed to the Buddha that women can achieve full liberation (arahant or equivilent). A recent discussion by scholars on this occurred here https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/democracy-or-immobilism-in-the-sangha-based-on-ebt/16544/49 regarding differences between very early Chinese and pali canon texts on this.
Further materials can be found in that forum, and might also be referenced here https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/buddhism-women-gender-a-bibliography/7579
Also of interest is well respected scholarship of Theravada bhikkhu Anālayo https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/bahudhatuka.pdf

Whereas the inability of a woman to be a Buddha can still be seen as an expression of leadership conceptions held in ancient Indian patriarchal society, once her ability to be a Pacceka-buddha becomes part of the listing of impossibilities, the implications are clearly a diminishing of the spiritual abilities of women. This tenden-cy can safely be assumed to stand in contrast to the original teachings of early Buddhism, where—as far as the texts allow us to judge—gender was not considered to have an impact on spiritual abilities.

Perhaps anyone who identifies with an aspect of Form (female or male) cannot achieve liberation without giving that up.
Whether or not a world community can recognize a Buddha is a matter of circumstances, which, in anticipation, can only be speculation and grasping...

“If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.” - The 14th Dalai Lama
The 14th Dalai Lama has said that if somebody proves to him that reincarnation is not real, he will stop believing in it. That is because truth trumps scripture. We learn more and more as time goes on, and in fact we are encouraged to in scripture. We are not stuck in a past century with the limited knowledge of that century.
Today, male-female equality is a scientifically-proven fact.
Therefore you cannot truthfully say “only men can …” or “only women can …” because you are wrong in both cases.
For any man that doubts this, you can pick any field of human endeavor, and there is a woman alive somewhere right now who is better at it than you. Doesn’t matter if it is science or fighting or what. There is a female mathematician somewhere right now who can run circles around you in math. There is a female special forces soldier somewhere who could kill you in 2 seconds before you got a punch in.
Science has also shown that we all start out in the womb as female. So if you believe only men can be buddhas, why would a male buddha who can only be reincarnated as a male buddha start out in the womb as female?
So, yes, if men can be buddhas women can be buddhas because women are scientifically-proven to be equal to men. Any particular buddha you want to refer to can be reincarnated as a woman or a man, and any man or woman can become a buddha in this life or the next. No distinction based on gender can be truthfully made. Again, doesn’t matter what scripture says.

Actually science has revealed in great detail the physical and mental differences between the sexes. For instance almost no female will have a grip strength greater than the median male.  "The results of female national elite athletes even indicate that the strength level attainable by extremely high training will rarely surpass the 50th percentile of untrained or not specifically trained men." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17186303

"women are scientifically-proven to be equal to men"??? {{citation needed}} ; as WorBlux said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_psychology , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_medicine etc.


text:
What is the difference between Karma and Sanskara
Karma and Sanskara seam to be very much related. How are they related and how are they different.

You ought to clarify the question. You tag it as "pali" but use the Sanskrit forms.

It seems that sanskaras are the precursors that lead to karma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskara
"In Hinduism sanskaras or samskaras (Sanskrit संस्कार meaning impression; under the impulse of previous impressions) are the imprints left on the subconscious mind by experience in this or previous lives, which then color all of life, one's nature, responses, states of mind, etc.[1] The Dictionary of Common Sanskrit Spiritual Words says, "Whenever an action is performed with the desire for a specific result (whether for oneself or another), sanskara is created for that person. These accumulate and determine the situations with which we will be presented in the future and will influence the scope of future actions."[2]"
Sanskaras are impressions derived from past experiences that form desires and fears that influence future responses and behavior (karma).
So it seems by being attached to the outcome of an action that karma results. Is that not something we can all agree on?

The question, while using the Sanskrit forms, is said to be about the meanings in Pali. And sankhara never has this meaning in Pali.

Saṅkhāra refer to all conditioned phenomena. That means everything else apart from Nibbana. Karma refers to volitional acts which is only a subset of Saṅkhāra. All Saṅkhāras come under the first noble truth, i.e. Dukkha. All Saṅkhāras are impermanent. All Saṅkhāras are non-self.

If you can be more detail it will be good.

That was a pretty good terse answer.

I have translated (awk-word-ly) sankhara as 'own-making'. SAN = one, once, with, own, con, com; khara = make. This is not without precedence in that 'I-making' and 'my-making' are also found in the Pali, but it is not well accepted as of yet. It is kamma from the point of view of personalization. The making of one's own world. The definition is helpful:
Sankhara is identification with the intent to create personal experience through acts of thought, word and deed, and the identified with consequence. By pushing out the deed a marker of sorts is attached to the consequences which results in the experience "my---".
Like kamma, it is two sided: the doing and the result. In translations the danger for the reader is that it is almost always translated one-sidedly. 'Activities' or 'Fabrications' or 'Volitional activities' and then when dealing with the consequences an unrelated word is used: 'constructed', 'conditioned'.
You might find this discussion interesting:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/dhamma_talk/dt_009.conditioned.vs.own-made.htm

That's incorrect etymology. Here san- is equivalent to English con- and doesn't mean "self". We know this because the word is used widely in ordinary language contexts where the meaning "self" makes no sense.

Saṇkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda (kamma-bhava, karma) means it causes, conditions, becoming (jāti, upatti-bhava, 5 khandha).
Saṇkhata (5 aggregate-effects) means it is caused, is conditioned, by 5 aggregate-causes.
Saṇkhāra (5 aggregate-causes) means it causes, conditions, 5 aggregate-effects.
Asaṇkhata (nibbāna) means it is unconditioned by any saṇkhāra.
So, paṭiccasamuppāda is called vaṭṭa, never ending cycle, because it is a loop of aggregates causes and effects. For explanation: ignored, attached, and clinged aggregates had done the past kamma, saṇkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda, to get the present effected aggregates, then ignoring,  attaching, and clinging aggregates do the present kamma, kammabhava-paṭiccasamuppāda, again, to get the future effected aggregates, jāti of Ignored, attached, and clinged  aggregates, suffering. Therefore, paṭiccasamuppāda is never ending loop cycle of aggregates, suffering.
When the practitioner contemplating paṭiccasamuppāda, 3 characters will gradually clearly appear to him. Then he can do high level insight meditation, 3 characterizes contemplating.
You can see these pali-words everywhere in canon. This is the reason that why I often told everyone to recite and memorize pali canon.

Karma is related to dharma as it is the feedback mechanism of the universe. There is no right or wrong but just feedback.
We can bring about change by working on clearing our minds so that we can develop patterns and habits (samskaras) which are more in line with the life we want to lead.
Quote from Pandit Tigunait, Spiritual head of the Himalayan Institute. "Instead of trying to penetrate the entire mystery of karma, samskara, vasana, and destiny, simply try to compose yourself. With a calm and tranquil mind, assess your strengths and weaknesses. Then decide whether at this stage you should place greater emphasis on eliminating your negative samskaras or strengthening the positive ones."

This answer sounds more like Hinduism than Buddhism

One can explain kamma as sankhara and one can explain sankhara as kamma.
Kamma to be experienced is sankhara that will be coming into play.
Sankhara that has been is the kamma that has come into play.
Sankhara that is refers to kamma coming into play.
Cessation of kamma can be spoken of as cessation of sankhara.

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma.

"And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma.

"And what is the cessation of kamma? Whoever touches the release that comes from the cessation of bodily kamma, verbal kamma, & mental kamma: This is called the cessation of kamma.

"And what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.

Interesting answer however I have concerns about it. (i) AN 6.63 says sense contact is the means by which kamma comes into play (sambhavo; co-production); (ii) the eye, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind referred to as "old kamma" in SN 35.145 do not sound like sense contact. Therefore it may not be that "old conditioned sankhara kamma" has come into play; (iii) AN 6.63 only refers to the "new kamma" of SN 35.145 and includes the phrase "comes into play (sambhavo"). SN 35.145 does not include the term "sambhavo". Therefore, it appears uncertain "sambhavo" applies to the "old kamma to be felt"

It seems the words 'sankhara' & 'kamma' share a common root, namely, the verb 'karoti':

karoti kar + o
does; acts; makes; builds.

'sankhara' appears to be 'saṁ + kar', which means 'together built'
'kamma' might be 'kar + man', which may possibly mean 'doing of a man/person'
Therefore, kamma appears to certainly mean the intentional actions of an individual, per AN 6.63, which says:

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

Where as 'sankhara' has a very broad application, which can mean:

conditioned phenomena, per SN 22.90 (each of the five aggregates is called a 'sankhara'), AN 3.136 or Dhp 277, including physical things, such as 'kayasankhara' ('breathing') or 'anusankhara' ('life-force'; 'vitality'). MN 43 says 'anusankhara' continues when perception & feeling end therefore it appears obvious here 'sankhara' is purely physical conditioned phenomena and unrelated to mental experience & mental concoctions/constructions

a requisite or conditioning condition for another condition, such as in Dependent Origination, where sankhara means kayasankhara (breathing), vacisankhara (thought) & cittasankhara (perception & feeling), which are the requisite conditions for further mental & physical conditioning. For example, a spontaneously non-volitional thought may arise: "I feel like sex". This is the type of distracting thought found in MN 19 & MN 20. Based on this spontaneous thought, the body & mind (nama-rupa) may go through lots of trouble & hassle, such as going to night clubs, getting punched out by other guys, getting slapped in the face by women, getting charged with sexual harassment, etc, because of taking this "sankhara" seriously and pursuing its contents. Refer to SN 14.12, which describes how a mere sensual thought leads to a sensual quest/search and resultant disastrous kamma.

aggregate of mental conditioning, namely, sankhara khandha, which creates intentions, ideas, views, cravings, defilements, emotions, identity, self-views, neurosis, grief, despair, suffering, etc. Thus Dhp 203 says  "sankhara is the supreme suffering/torment" or SN 38.14 refers to the "suffering/torment due to sankhara" ("mental constructions").

The two words share the same root and similar senses. Both kamma and saṅkhāra are widely used in everyday sense to mean "work", "activity", "procedure", and especially "ritual".
In Buddhist doctrinal senses they both have the meaning "intentional action (that leads to consequences both in this life and the next)."
The difference is that kamma is used in moral contexts. It is about choosing to do the right thing. Saṅkhāra tends to be used in existential contexts like dependent origination: whatever choice you make, even a good one, it leads to suffering.
In addition, saṅkhāra is also used in a broader sense to refer to "all conditioned phenomena", i.e. everything we experience (except Nibbana).

I marked this down. Sankhara does not mean "choice" in D.O. It is simply too early. Cetana or choice is part of the namarupa link. In summary, ignorant asava generate sankhara (thoughts with feelings & perceptions plus agitations of breathing/kayasankharo). Then at namarupa, the mind makes a choice whether to follow the temptation of the sankhara or to otherwise eradicate the sankhara. MN 19 describes this process well, how a choice can be made at nama-rupa to eradicate unwholesome sankharas that lead to harm or to eradicate wholesome sankhara that hinder jhana.

AN 3.136 appears to say sankhara occurs regardless of sense experience.


text:
Meditation techniques for beginners?
As a beginning meditator, the techniques I typically use are:

Counting breaths, restarting at 10 (learned in Japan).
Envisioning, with warm feelings, all of my friends and family around me in a large circle (learned in Florida).
Attempting to feel the minute sensations from each different part of my body (learned in Florida).
Focusing on identifying as many distinct sounds as possible, particularly when in nature (my own).

Are there any other techniques recommended for beginning meditators?

Counting breaths on phalanges (with thumb) - up to 12*12=144.
"Tonglen": breathing in all the suffering of the world, breathing out happiness.
Gladdening one's mind through "noble" posture and facial expression.
Zen-style. Just sitting, no matter what happens. "Don't go with the thoughts, don't go against the thoughts".
Energy. Identify blobs of emotional energy on and around body and dismiss.
Minimizing the amplitude. Watch the diaphragm when breath reverses direction and keep reducing the tension/effort.
Bowing meditation (aka half-prostration).
Bamboo meditation. Stand up with eyes closed and slowly rock back and forth while focusing on the centers of the feet.
Dahnmu (energy dance). Stand up with eyes closed and move freely as your body wants expressing yourself.

how would one count to 144 on the phalanges? i can't quite imagine it.

For each Twelve on one hand, count one on the other hand.

so, by extension how would one count to 12 on one hand? 2^5=32 so i know there must be a way.

3 phalanges on 4 fingers, counted with the thumb

i see! i mistook phalanges to mean fingers. so the thumb is used as a pointer. got it.

+1 for bamboo meditation and Dahnmu. I have not come across this before. Is this part of the tantric traditions?

Far Eastern tantra, yes

Simple breathing is recommended by Thich Nhat Hanh.
I am inhaling, one,
I am exhaling one,
Repeat for each number up to ten. If get off count go to one.
There is a simplicity to that that does not invoke mental activity and allows one to go to the counting and breathing when thoughts are faced.
Picturing being in the presence of the Buddha and your teacher and all sentient beings can help dedicate your meditation to benefiting all sentient beings and expand beyond the self-centered aspiration for awakening for eliminating one's own suffering.

I personally will not recommend any in the list other than number 3.
You can use 4 also as long as you don't try to identify the sound. The sound should just make contact and produce a sensation and pass away with equanimity in the mind (no liking, disliking or developing self awareness). You should be very careful as not to have after thoughts or form perceptions which slip past your attention. This is generally very difficult for a novice. At a later stage you will start seeing sound as just quantums of vibrations. But having said this the best way to bring your mind to the present moment, if it has wondered away, is to listen to sound or look at the touch sensation as these are always in the present. In the case of sound, this should be done for a short duration due to reasons above.
What I would recommend is:
Before you start and end a session just look at the sensation of the touch of your clothes, wind and the ground and what your posture is.
Then start with breath meditation. To start with just try to see the in out breath. Then the start to finish of the breath. Then note the length of each in out breath from start to finish.
Once you can do that progress to other stages in the Anapanasati Sutta and Maha Sattipattana Sutta.


text:
Was Vipassana discovered by the Buddha (Siddhartha)?
I read somewhere that samatha (and jhana) was discovered by the Buddha, but how about vipassana? Is there any evidence either way (i.e. suttas)?
The reason I'm asking is because I am more proficient at practicing vipassana meditation than samatha, but I have some doubt about vipassana itself. Perhaps, if there were some proof that this method was founded by the Buddha himself, my doubt would be gone.
Note: I would prefer answers based on Theravada suttas.

The orthodox view is that samatha meditation was not discovered by the Buddha and vipassana meditation was.

On the origins of samatha meditation:
Besides the fact that other teachers at the time of the Buddha and before were practicing what appears to be samatha and jhana, we have the fact that the Bodhisatta went into the first jhana as a young boy, and the fact that he learned jhana from two teachers before his enlightenment:

“I considered: ‘I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied, while I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’ Then, following on that memory, came the realisation: ‘That is indeed the path to enlightenment.’
-- MN 36 (Bodhi, trans)

and

“I considered: ‘It was not through mere faith alone that Rāma declared: “By realising for myself with direct knowledge, I enter upon and abide in this Dhamma.” Certainly Rāma abided knowing and seeing this Dhamma.’ Then I went to Uddaka Rāmaputta and asked him: ‘Friend, in what way did Rāma declare that by realising for himself with direct knowledge he entered upon and abided in this Dhamma?ʹ In reply Uddaka Rāmaputta declared the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
-- MN 26 (Bodhi, trans)

The confusion seems to stem from some poorly constructed arguments from proponents of the necessity of practicing samatha meditation that what the Bodhisatta's teachers taught was not jhana, but something else. For example:

Some might raise an objection that the teachers Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta preached on Jhana, because the texts state that they taught the Bodhisatta (the Buddha-to-be) the attainment of the state of nothingness and the attainment of the state of neither perception nor non-perception. However, those two attainments could not have been connected to Jhana, because the Bodhisatta recalled, just prior to sitting under the Bodhi Tree, that the only time in his life that he had experienced any Jhana was as a young boy, while sitting under a Rose Apple Tree as his father conducted the first-ploughing ceremony (MN 36). That spontaneous early experience of Jhana had been untaught, unplanned and since forgotten. If that was the only Jhana experienced by the Bodhisatta prior to his experience under the Bodhi Tree, then the two teachers Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta could not have taught Jhana at all.
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Ajahn_Brahm_The_Jhanas.htm

The problem with this argument is that it misrepresents the Buddha (the part in bold). I have already quoted above what the Buddha actually said, and he is clearly not suggesting that he only experienced jhana once under the rose apple tree.
The orthodox view is that the Bodhisatta cultivated samatha meditation countless times in his past lives before finally discovering vipassana.

On the origins of vipassana meditation:
There are many references to vipassana in the suttas; the word itself is most often used in conjunction with samatha, as in:

“Bhikkhus, these two things pertain to true knowledge. What two? Serenity and insight. When serenity is developed, what benefit does one experience? The mind is developed. When the mind is developed, what benefit does one experience? Lust is abandoned. When insight is developed, what benefit does one experience? Wisdom is developed. When wisdom is developed, what benefit does one experience? Ignorance is abandoned.
-- AN 2.31 (Bodhi, trans)

(The word for serenity is samatha, and insight is vipassana)
But what is less acknowledged is the frequent use of other forms of the root √pas with the prefix vi, e.g.:

paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ, tattha tattha vipassati.
And what ever dhammas arise in the present, one sees clearly therein.
-- MN 131

or

andhabhūto ayaṃ loko, tanukettha vipassati.
Blind is this world; few here see clearly.
-- Dhp. 174

Further, the root √pas is used together with the noun paññā in a way that leaves no doubt as to the meaning being the same as vipassana:

evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passati
Thus one sees this as it is with right wisdom.
-- MN 35

So, the question of whether vipassana was something the Buddha taught is easy to answer.
The question of whether the Buddha discovered vipassana is a bit more complicated. What do you mean by vipassana? It is a term that means "clear seeing". If, by clear seeing, you include seeing shapes in front of your eyes, or being able to understand logical arguments, or empathizing with others, or any number of things that are called clear seeing by the world, then of course no, the Buddha didn't discover that for himself.
The clear seeing that the Buddha discovered was in regards to the three characteristics and the four noble truths; this is something he discovered that had been hidden to the world, and was the core of his teaching, for example:

“sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”ti, yadā paññāya passati.
atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyā.
'All formations are suffering.' When one sees this with wisdom,
Becoming thereupon disenchanted in regards to what is suffering, this is the path to purity.
-- Dhp. 278

Notice the use of a construct similar to vipassati.  As to the Buddha discovering this fact, we have:

uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ ṭhitāva sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā. sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā. taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññāpeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti — ‘sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’ti.
“Bhikkhus, whether Tathāgatas arise or not, there persists that law, that stableness of the Dhamma, that fixed course of the Dhamma: ‘All conditioned phenomena are suffering.’ A Tathāgata awakens to this and breaks through to it, and then he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyzes it, and elucidates it thus: ‘All conditioned phenomena are suffering.’
-- AN 3.136 (Bodhi, trans)

And finally, in relation to seeing the four noble truths:

“‘idaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.
'This is the noble truth of suffering." arose for me, bhikkhus, in regards to previously unheard dhammas; an eye arose, knowledge arose, wisdom arose, understanding arose, light arose.
-- SN. 56.11

All of this refers to the type of vipassana that the Buddha realized for himself before anyone else in the world.

Thank you Ajahn (sorry i dont know how to properly address you in english) for your very clear explanation. I have difficutly in reading Sutta (partly because english is not my mother language).

Please kindly see my other question if you have some time : http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3356/how-much-is-the-minimal-time-for-practicing-vipassana-in-daily-life-for-achievin

In the Suttas there is no distinction between Samatha and Vipassana. When you practice according to the Suttas you develop both either in tandem or one before the other. These were names which were given later to make a discussion between the practice leading to Samadhi and Panna.
Best is your read the Anapanasati Sutta and Maha Sattipattana Sutta and follow the instructions accordingly. Most of the time each phase is a step so don't miss a word in the Suttas. You should have the right interpretations of the words also. If you miss a word or use a wrong interpretation you can easily miss the results.
Once you have seen the results of practising according to the Suttas your doubt will pass away.

Samatha and vipassana don't always go together. The Yuganaddha Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.170.than.html) explains that they can be developed together or separately, and you can develop samatha first then vipassana, or you can develop vipassana first and then samatha.

Do you have a reference to the Pali version?

Yes. It's here, although you have to back up a paragraph to get the intro: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sltp/AN_II_utf8.html#pts.157

Thanks a lot. The english used in those Sutta is pretty difficult, i must confess that i only read a few Sutta until now :D

The Buddha didn't ever use the particular term vipassana meditation, but that's because in Pali the word vipassana simply means clear seeing, and technically it isn't an action but a mental quality. The term vipassana meditation doesn't mean "a method of meditation called vipassana", but means "a type of meditation which developes the mental quality of vipassana."
The actual method of developing vipassana is the practice of Satipatthana, and that is definately something the Buddha talked about explicitly. The very famous Satipatthana Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html) is probably the best known sutta on the subject but there is also an entire collection in the Samyutta Nikaya on the subject as well that is worth studying here: (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#sn47)

Thanks a lot, does practicing Satipatthana means doing Vipassana meditation?

@Blaze Yes, when used to describe practice, they mean the same thing.