text:
Proper way to address a bhikkhu?
I have seen many ways to address a bhikkhu, and I'm wondering about the proper way to address a bhikkhu, in writing?

Bhante is the preferred mode of address if you are addressing the bhikkhu respectfully; note that it is masculine, so for bhikkhunis, Ayye is correct (mostly they use ayya, but I don't think that is technically correct). In English, Venerable x and Reverend x would also be suitable expressions of respect.
If you are addressing them as an equal or as an outsider to the religion, Venerable x and Reverend x would still be proper, I think, but even Brother x would be okay. In Pali, words like bho and ayasma were also used, meaning something like "good sir" or "friend" by those who didn't hold the bhikkhus in any special esteem.
In writing, using the nominative endings (e.g. o for -a stem names) is not technically correct when addressing the bhikkhu in the second person, e.g.:

Dear Venerable Yuttadhammo,

should really be:

Dear Venerable Yuttadhamma,

In Thailand this distinction has been pretty much lost, whereas in Burma and Sri Lanka they prefer the a endings for all references.
In Pali, when referring to someone in the third person, you would use the nominative endings, but in the case of corresponding in English, the dictionary stem form is certainly acceptable, as it is with 'buddha', nibbana', etc. Just as we don't say:

The Buddho was staying in Savatthi.

we really shouldn't be saying:

Venerable Yuttadhammo was staying in Florida.

As for regional honorifics, e.g. Ajaan (Ajarn, Ajahn) in Thai, Ashin in Burmese, Hamuduruvo in Sinhala, Lakhun in Khmer, etc., I would suggest they only be used by members of the specific ethnic community; I wouldn't think them appropriate for non-members to use to refer to members (e.g. Westerners calling Thai monks Ajaan) unless speaking in the language from which the word comes. In practical usage, however, Ajaan for example has become so widely used by Thai people (even for monks who clearly aren't their or anyone's teacher) that they often insist that non-Thais use it to refer to Thai monks, which of course would be the wise choice when among such people.

Thank you, Bhante. Could you please include the use of Ajahn (teacher?) in your tradition, in the answer? Or is that a separate question?

Ajaan is only proper if you are Thai, just as Ashin if you are Burmese. I don't know why all the Western Thai monks still use it as a part of their name; meaning teacher, it's not something one should expect ordinary people to use.

added some thoughts on regional honorifics

Ven. Yuttadhamma wrote:
"Bhante is the preferred mode of address if you are addressing the bhikkhu respectfully; note that it is masculine, so for bhikkhunis, Ayye is correct (mostly they use ayya, but I don't think that is technically correct)."
To comment briefly on this - i have learned of "Bhante" as the vocative contraction of "Bhadanta"--an "expositor" [of the Dhamma], used for "master" teachers. Buddhist historians say that early on, in the Buddhist monastic Sangha, only the Buddha was addressed as "Bhante".  Later, after the Buddha's parinibbana, other monastic teachers came to be addressed as "Bhante" as well. But were they all men?
Epigraphically, in donative inscriptions from the Indian subcontinent, we find at least one reference to a bhikkhuni teacher with the title "Bhadanta".  In the vocative, she should be addressed as "Bhadante", or by the contraction "Bhante".  There are comparatively numerous donative inscriptions in which we find the honorific "Ayya" prefixing bhikkhus' names; in hypothetical example: "Ayya Yuttadhamma Bhikkhu".  This could be translated as: "the noble bhikkhu Yuttadhamma".
When and how it happened that "Bhante" came to be used only for men and "Ayye" only for women, or at least generally so, as we find much of the time in the Pali texts is not known to me.  We do several times find bhikkhus addressed as "Ayya" in the Pali-text canon. In example, in the bhikkhuni ordination proceedings from the Pali-text Vinaya, the new bhikkhuni when coming to the Bhikkhuni Sangha to request the confirmation and completion of her full ordination as a bhikkhuni is to address the Bhikkhu Sangha as "Ayya" (here in the masculine plural vocative).

It would be good if sister would modify the approach so that it does not appear respectless.

If its Theravada you can never go wrong either just the name " yuttadhammo bhikku" or Bhante. In Thai you can say Ajahn,  a word basically similar to bhante.
I personally just use Bhante(means teacher) ,  its quick,  easy,  and used from ancient times. In fact i am in email communication with a bhikkhu at the place im going to hopefully ordain,  and i start emails with Bhante.
Bhante (Pali; Nepali; Burmese: [pronounce-ဘန္ေတ] [write-ဘေႏၲ] Burmese font used - Zawgyi-one font, pronounced: [bàɴtè], Sanskrit: vande and vandanā ) is the polite particle used to refer to Buddhist monks in the Theravada tradition. Bhante literally means "Venerable Sir."

Calling someone Bhikkhu is not really appropriate; kind of like saying, 'hey, monk'.

And bhante comes from skt. bhavantaḥ, not vande... just FYI. Ajaan comes from acariya, meaning teacher.

Apologies bhante i took the definition from the net,  ill check my sources next time thanks for correcting my comment.

I would say address them in the most respectful way in your culture and native language.   "Sir" might be sufficient in English.  To me, it is an attachment to rites and rituals (3rd fetter) if you use the most appropriate words expected by community but not sure why or even using them without true respect.  But again, you want to have organization and harmony in the community, so once you find out what words are used, then use it with respect.

Its not an attachement to rites and rituals, or would Dean say Arahats are still attached? The third fetter means "being attached to rites and ritual not contuctive on the path." (Often wrong interprated) Paying proper respect is a matter of Sila and throw down even all aggregates by mind, speech and body in front of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha it can couse even path and fruit. Aside of that, good and respectable and practical answer @Dean A.

thank you for kind comment. my understanding of 3rd fetters also covers doing right thing but without understanding why.  The key is "not understanding reason behind it.  For example, you may have seen people of some faith that requires believers to cover their hair to be modest, but now a day you see a few of them with hair covered but very tight revealing outfits.  that defeats the purpose of covering thier hair to be modest in appearance.  Those hang on tightly to the belief of hair covering but forget the purpose behind it.

similarly to original question,  FullPeace.org has found the right words but my addition to that was to make sure to understand reasons for using those words.  What good if the correct words are used but without truly feeling respectful.  To rephrase my answer, it doesn't really matter what words used as long as it is said from respect, but to promote harmony, use same words as the community also with respect.

That is right, Dean. Nevertheless, would you tell people not even capable to follow simply rituals of the wise, to start with abhidhamma and understand there mind? Actually such is mostly a smart excuse of defilements, or? So if having a good appearance in general, why not also cover the hair? Modest in regard of being perfect or I am ugly, why should I wear something to cover my hair? As for the beauty without cover and the ugly waering, of whom a wise would say that he tries the best of his possibilities and a person of respect and virtue? The answer was on the first replay.

There is no need to respect a certain community with maybe even improper and unskilful ways of adressing and how to pay respect. If a certain community is not up to respect and venerate of what is worthy of that, than, its good and proper to leave it and not to take on usuals. That is totally wrong. So if messured, and addopted its good not only to follow one feeling but also ask the wise and Elder of what is proper. Give me five and lifting the hand when for example a Bhikkhu crosses certain townships? If you tell them, just follow you community than you have what we already have, Dean. Like?

Atma (my person, usual kind form of adressing one self, speaking with householders and not ordained) needs to take 2, 3 h sleep since nearly 2:00 and will stop here. Since the community or leaders will surpress discussions, Upasaka (?)  Dean is welcome to talk about it on sangham.net . Just from experiances, 95% of so called Buddhist explode within minutes talking straight on this topic, since the modern world and specially those on internet, are really fare from even small amounts of proper paying respect. Again, such is not really in the sphere of Dana and generosity, deal, but a matter of v

Worthy a read: Opening the Door to the Dhamma: Respect in Buddhist Thought & Practice

this is exactly my point "attachment to rituals" , conversation will never end trying to come up with proper way to address or "greeting ritual" if you may.  But as long as you you have respect.  I would imagine if a bhikku is in town where high five is a form of most respectful greeting and not against Vinaya.  Just as ancient Indian walking around someone or something 3 rounds was one of the most display of respect one can do to a person or a place, but now, many buddhists dont understand that "ritural".

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Things to consider in regard of the OP's Question, since a proper Question would be: "How do I address monastics, Brahmans and ascetics in a way that it is of most benefit for me?"
To understand the merit an demerit of paying respect a little, my person wrote a "wiki-like" articel, supported by members here:  Respect and Veneration
In bodily regard:
Is you aspect being taught well by a Monk, you should consider that especial a Bhikkhu is not allowed to teach to someone:

holding an umbrella (unless he is ill).
holding a stick (unless he is ill).
holding a cutting object (unless he is ill).
holding a weapon (unless he is ill).

(for internet this means to people holding power while one would speak - moderators and others with tendency to delete or banning, willing to put Dhamma in that wsy under their power)

who is wearing shoes (unless he is ill).
who is wearing sandals (unless he is ill).

(appearings of not respecting the place of Dhamma talks and putting them selfs higher)

who is inside a vehicle (unless he is ill).

(One in hurry, just passing by)

who is lying down (unless he is ill).
who is sitting with the knees raised and the arms around (unless he is ill).
wearing a turban (unless he is ill).
whose head {and sholders} is covered (unless he is ill).

(One with an improper Avatar, not showing his face.)

sits on a seat while the teaching is sitting directly on the ground (unless he is ill).
sitting at a higher level and the teaching on a lower (unless he is ill).
who is sitting while one is standing (unless he is ill).
is walking ahead (unless he is ill).
who walks on a footpath while one is walking to the side of this footpath (unless he is ill).

(If situations and views are hold, monks are equal to others here)
All this things are not conductive in regard of peoples respect in reagard of the Dhamma. For Monks themselves also a personal protection.
In regard of demand and compensation:
Monks, keeping Vinaya, do not and never teach for rewards or let the taught be bound by any contacts or demands. Accepting gifts, rewards or other things as reward for teaching is not the way of the Noble Ones and there are rules to cut off possible corruption of the Dhamma in that way. So gifts as well as the gift of veneration is good placed in advanced to gain most benefit and make it acceptable.
Speech:
What ever feel proper to one, thinking on someone who is not only high above one self but also could give one the highest gift possible to give.
Usual ways are to express his worthy be calling him Ven. Sir, Lord, Lord of Compassion, Ven. Teacher and if in Pali, as usual, "Bante". For female likewise.
In third person, whether he is at place or not, its also good to do such in that way. If there are more Monks, put the name behind. Its not usual and polite to use the "Status/Profession" like Bhikkhu, Samanera, monk, Samana.
Consider always, that a ordained person has actualky no gains be receiving respect, and if he/she takes such not worthy of it, he/she just accumulte depts. Giving or not giving in this regard is the doers benefit or demerit, whether he/she knows or not. Not knowing does not eliminate causes.
Its also good to have mistrust is monks and laypeople associate like friends and address each other very familar.
Generally again, this topic is very large and it is good if one maybe takes the linked article and asks further questions in detail.
Modern people today must be aware that they are usuall taught and trained in a post-modern or "communistic" way, wrong view, empathizing all are equal.
In such an enviroment, under such believes, its never possible to gain anything, how much Dhamma ever one would read, be taught... gains in ways not in line of Dhamma.
Keeping precepts and being tended to virtue (of what veneration of what is worthy of verneration is on part) and to take Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha really as refuge, venerate by heart, are the signs of a faith follower, and stream-enter, both no more able to fall off the path of liberation.
If you are a person with long meditation practice or of much knowledge in Dhamma, if you are a virtuose person for your self and consider your self as experianced and still have problems and aversions in regard of Veneration, it is a good sign that such a practice was not based on Right View and the refuge is not really taken.
Its a really good working place to get ride of very raw defilements and at the same time also possible to drop down all clinging aggregats just by a poor cousin treaded single deed.
Asking Questions:
While it is not wrong for a Monk to teach even not invited, one does good when raising a question, to address an venerate possible present persons proper. That is also generally. While usuall everywhere is very rude and a sign of low education and virtue, to put just ones question into the "marked" without kind greatings. Even if a person of good contact enters a shop, here a costumer, he would great friendly and show signs of politeness.
So generally people incl. the moderators have a lot of work if wishing to be frequented by Monks aside of just short visits and those with certain improper aims, using such places like most here, for certain other gains outside good or no trade.
Those follow the tradition of the Noble Ones will never addopt certain social and timely usuals but hold on that others, being willing, are able to addopt those, step by step, leaving both improper ways of live in the world or even the eorld behind.
Like every teaching, this words are originated by compassion, and not made to demand anything. What ever one gives is the givers reward. So is it with taking.
Addition in regard of "warm" addressings :
In SEAsia is very common to use Ven. father, grandfather, oncle, great brother... Such is usual under uneducated people and not really proper, althought both might like it. One would address a lay priest of a village or his honored father or granduncle like wise. Such as brother or sister are merely usuals comming from commonist countries and, in setting even equal, totally improper. Its good to use respectful "cool", with proper distance, addresses. Such is very common in "Guru" paisas and put single individuals high and warm. While of course no problem for uninstructed people with raga- or saddha-charita, a good instructed person does not use such warm addressings.
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or other wordly gains.)

May I ask, what is the proper way for me to address you on this site? When you post a comment to me, you tend to include "ChrisW" and sometimes "Upasaka" in your comment. Would you like me to do the same when I address you? For example when I begin a comment, should I start by writing "Samana", or, "Samana Johann"?

How ever Upasaka Chris (better "Nyom" (Chris)) , feels as proper and likes to give. Usually people adress my persons appearing with Bhante in the west (which fits to normal usuals), usual adressings here (Cambodia) are from Ven. older brother to Ven. Grandfather, Lord of compassion, Ven. Sir., Ven. Master, ... if translated. "Warm" adressing used most by villagers and people not so educated, Ven. Grandfather and the others by knowledgeable housholders, Samaneras and Bhikkhus. Personally, Atma really does not care, althought such always gives certain reason for either mudita or karuna.

Whatever identifies that specific monk. That's the purpose of a name. I tend to use only their monastic name or, if they teach, I use 'teacher' in their local idiom. Keep things simple & respectable.
As for a "proper way", there are as many answers as there are people, I guess.

Paying respect in regard of what is worthy of respect is not a matter of what is easy, Unrul, but a merit. Merit has always to do with giving up and letting go of one self. Paying reference is also grouped under Sila and not only out of that countless more benefical as practicing generosity, even a life time. So its really not about identify and also ask for what is proper and not how Hinz and Kunz does it. Maybe consider that in your answer, since also such if of good or bad results.


text:
Why do monastics in certain Buddhist traditions take new names?
In the Theravada tradition, and perhaps others, monastics take a new name when becoming bhikkhus/bhikkhunis. Where does this tradition come from, and what is its significance? Others don't - what's the difference?

The practice of monks getting a Dharma name upon ordination is very old and widespread. (It would be interesting to know the flip side question- is there any Buddhist order than doesn't involve Dharma names? I can't think of one)
Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_name
This article discusses the modern practice in Zen of giving Dharma Names where in he mentioned that this is an Indic tradition that probably pre-dates the historical Buddha.
Ref: http://hardcorezen.info/dharma-names/2733
Since the renunciates were renunciating family and householding, it is not surprising that they took on a new name, which makes it perfectly clear to the surrounding community that you don't plan to carry on the Jones family name by having kids, you aren't going to take advantage of the hereditary titles that go with the Jones family nor keep the Jones family estate.
If we're lucky someone familiar with the history of the early vinaya might know more about this, since the practice of Dharma names would have been promoted in the vinaya.

In India, during the time of the Buddha, the vast majority of monks and nuns didn't change their names. Notable exceptions are Sariputta and Moggallana, whose original names were "Upatissa" and "Kolita" respectively.
It is not clear why the Buddha chose to call Upatissa by the fact that he was the son (putta) of Sari, or Kolita by the name of his village. The Mahavagga calls them by these names before they met the Buddha, so it may have been that they took these names earlier.
Other examples that may also have been acquired earlier are Kundala-Kesi, Bakkula, etc.
Cases of adding a descriptive to the name are common, e.g. Kumara Kassapa, Lakuṇṭaka-bhaddiya, etc.
One case stands out, that of Angulimala, who actually had his name changed by the king:

Then the king's fear, his terror, his hair-standing-on-end subsided. He went over to Ven. Angulimala and said, "Are you really Angulimala, lord?"
"Yes, great king."
"What is your father's clan? What is your mother's clan?"
"My father is a Gagga, great king, and my mother a Mantani."
"Then may Master Gagga Mantaniputta delight [in staying here]. I will be responsible for your robes, almsfood, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for curing illness."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html

Apart from all this, the biggest reason for later name changes is simply because names in other languages don't work for the Pali recitation required for ordination, e.g.:

ayaṃ Noaho āyasmato Tongassa upasampadāpekkho

doesn't really work, so giving monks Pali names is considered appropriate:

ayaṃ yuttadhammo āyasmato sirimaṅgalassa upasampadāpekkho

It seems that early on there was a tradition of naming monks after arahant disciples of the Buddha, so we get various Moggallanas and Sariputtas throughout the ages. In modern times, there seems to be some greater variation in the practice, and choosing a name for a monk has taken on significance that pretty clearly wasn't there in the time of the Buddha.
My name, for example, is chosen because I was born on a Wednesday - in fact, I was given the wrong name, because one monk thought that me being born in the morning in Canada meant that he should give me a Wednesday night name (it having been night in Thailand when I was born).
In the end,

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
  By any other name would smell as sweet;
  So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
  Retain that dear perfection which he owes
  Without that title.
-- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

I think this relates to the fact you are starting a new life when you get ordained. This does not seem to be the case in the Buddha's time but more of a later development.
The name changing practice refer here is more perticulaly in referece the practice in Sri Lanka where a monk takes the name of the village or area he is from followed by a new name he would be addressed by.

I think the first statement is accurate but, as for the second one, some early discourses do relate name changing. SN 56.11 is one example of this: "Then the Blessed One exclaimed: "So you really know, Kondañña? So you really know?" And that is how Ven. Kondañña acquired the name Añña-Kondañña — Kondañña who knows." And if I recall correctly, Sariputta was called Upatissa before becoming a monk.

This is more like getting a nick name. E.g. like Kumara Kassapa than a formal name change in my thinking.

Indeed. I agree, but they are addressed by their nicknames from then onwards and that is what matters I think.

Also during Buddha's time there were monks who didn't change name. E.g. Anurudha, Deva Devadatta, etc. This became a norm sometime later in my opinion. Perhaps a historian can give more light on this.

I certainly have nothing to say about your opinion but in the early texts there are explicit references to name changing: "...when members of the four castes — noble warriors, brahmans, merchants, & workers — go forth from home to the homeless life in this Dhamma & Vinaya declared by the Tathāgata, they give up their former names and clans and are classed simply as 'contemplatives, sons of the Sakyan'..." Ud 5.5, Uposatha Sutta: Uposatha

There are instances the names didn't change. At least for the first names. This might be referring to the Sir name or "Ge" name which is tired to the class or community you come from. E.g. Ananda, Ysodara, Maha Prajapathi Gothami, etc.where their original names before ordination.

I'm not opposing that some didn't change or that it was only the last name that changed. That seems to be true. I'm just saying that name changing seems to go back to the Buddha's time and is not a later development. If you wish to stick to your opinion, feel free, I have no problem with that. May you be well.

Added more clarification to the answer.

It’s worth remembering here that general naming practices in different Asian cultures often differ from our own.  In traditional Thailand (before 1935 or so), government officials received a new name when they took up a new rank in the hierarchy, besides the actual rank title.  For example, there is a scholar of Thai culture who is now known as Phraya Anuman Rajadhon (1888-1969).  Phraya was his official title, the rest is the name he took when he received the title.  (His descendants use A-R as their family name.)  Earlier in his life, he had other names:  since his family was Chinese, he was born Li Kuang-jung, and in Thai he was known as Yong Sathienkoset.  When people have multiple names like this, each used in a different context or life phase, another name taken when ordaining would seem perfectly natural.
Note also: in Thailand today, parents seeking a name for a new child will often go to a monk for suggestions.  And a person who wants change his or her given name for luck or some other personal reason will also usually consult a monk.  It may be that this is “not Buddhist,” but anyway it’s common practice.

I practice with the Triratna Buddhists. For us the renaming of a person symbolises spiritual death e.g the passing away from an old life/way of existence. Fortunately this is followed by spiritual rebirth or it would be all a bit bleak.
The full process (system of meditation) is

Integration
Positive Emotion
Spiritual Death (new name)
Spiritual Rebirth

Just responding to @MatthewMartin. Though it isn't a Buddhist order as such - the Insight Meditation Society doesn't rename as far as I'm aware. Jack Kornfield is still Jack Kornfield irrespective of his commitment and progress on the path (both formidable I'm sure)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Jhana Required For Awakening?
I've found this to be an interesting question with highly respected monastics falling on both sides of the answer.

Given it's a controversial topic, I'd suggest this question is a better one to get a definitive answer; I'm not sure that we want questions that are so subject to controversy, do we?

Are you asking about Buddhist meditation in general or the Four Jhanas specifically? If meditation, then I suggest you update the question title. If Four Jhanas, then this is a duplicate of the following question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1287/in-meditation-should-one-pursue-tranquility-first-prior-to-looking-for-insight

@yuttadhammo We want, just let people state different points of view.

Then how does one choose the "best" answer without relying upon personal opinion?

Please discuss here: http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/114/questions-asking-for-an-answer-to-a-controversy

Actually, a point that is not well understood is that, among those who follow the Pali canon, there is no controversy over whether some jhāna is necessary; the answer is in all cases yes. The controversy is really over which jhāna is necessary.
There are three types of jhāna in total:

samatha-jhāna - jhāna based on a conceptual object that, due to its conceptual nature, cannot lead to the realization of the nature of reality.

For example, in the Visuddhimagga:

The colour should not be reviewed. The characteristic should not be
  given attention. But rather, while not ignoring the colour, attention
  should be given by setting the mind on the [name] concept as the most
  outstanding mental datum, relegating the colour to the position of a
  property of its physical support. That [conceptual state] can be
  called by anyone he likes among the names for earth (pathavī) such as
  “earth” (pathavī), “the Great One” (mahī), “the Friendly One”
  (medinī), “ground” (bhūmi), “the Provider of Wealth” (vasudhā), “the
  Bearer of Wealth” (vasudharā), etc., whichever suits his manner of
  perception. Still “earth” is also a name that is obvious, so it can be
  developed with the obvious one by saying “earth, earth.” It should be
  adverted to now with eyes open, now with eyes shut. And he should go
  on developing it in this way a hundred times, a thousand times, and
  even more than that, until the learning sign arises.
Path of Purification, IV.29

2. vipassana-jhāna - jhāna based on ultimate reality that allows one to see the three characteristics and thus attain nibbana. As the Mahasi Sayadaw states:

The tranquillity that occurs while one contemplates various phenomena is called momentary concentration, the concentration that lasts momentarily during contemplation. No insight is possible without this momentary concentration. The meditator who has no basic [samatha] jhānic experience and relies on insight meditation alone develops insight through momentary concentration and attains the noble path. This concentration for insight is not confined to a single object. The meditator practising it notes all the mental and physical phenomena that arise. However, at the moment of noting, his mind is fixed on the object and free from distraction. This is obvious to the meditator who practises effectively.
http://www.aimwell.org/sallekha.html

3. lokuttara-jhāna - jhāna that takes a supermundane object (nibbana), and is equivalent to attaining the noble path and fruition. According to Bhante Gunaratana:

But the four jhanas again reappear in a later stage in the development of the path, in direct association with liberating wisdom, and they are then designated the supramundane (lokuttara) jhanas. These supramundane jhanas are the levels of concentration pertaining to the four degrees of enlightenment experience called the supramundane paths (magga) and the stages of liberation resulting form them, the four fruits (phala).
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/jhanas/jhanas01.htm

It is this third type of jhāna that everyone agrees is necessary. The problem is with deciding which type of jhāna the Buddha is talking about in specific contexts. Since these three types of jhāna are not enumerated in the sutta pitaka, the debate centres around whether lokiya (mundane) samatha jhāna are necessary, since that is the only type of jhāna recognized by certain Buddhists.
This too can be seen as a misunderstanding, since samatha jhāna according to those who hold that it is not necessary is not exactly the same as jhāna according to those who hold that lokiya jhāna is.
According to those who say lokiya jhāna is necessary, they seem to believe that lokiya jhāna is a practice which allows for the realization of insight, in which case it cannot be samatha jhāna as understood by those who believe that samatha jhāna cannot lead directly to insight, unless the former group actually believes that jhāna based on a conceptual object can allow for the realization of insight into reality, which I'm pretty sure is not the case.
So, the debate is really not all it is cracked up to be, unless there are people who believe meditation based on a non-real conceptual object is sufficient for attainment of understanding of reality, in which case they are in contradiction with the sutta pitaka, not to mention the abhidhamma and commentaries.
I suppose there could still be room for debate over whether samatha jhāna based on a concept must be cultivated prior to Vipassana; the yuganaddha sutta probably shows this to be false:

Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. As he develops tranquillity preceded by insight, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.170.than.html

Of course for anyone actually adhering to the Theravada (I.e. the commentaries, patisambidhamagga, and abhidhamma), there isn't much room for controversy. Most of the debate is over whether to follow the existing commentaries or create one's own.

Yuttadhammo, this is really useful but could you clarify the meaning of the word "lokiya". Your answer lists three kinds of jhana -- samatha, vipassana, and lokuttara -- but then you introduce a fourth word, "lokiya", without prior mention of what it means. (I don't doubt the content of what you're saying -- just pointing out that an already good answer could be even better if you clarified this one point). Thanks!

Lokiya just means mundane - I added a parenthetical.

So of the three types, samatha is lokiya, lokuttara is not lokiya, is that right? So then what is vipassana -- lokiya or not lokiya?

On further Googling I realise that lokuttara is the antonym of lokiya, so me noting that "lokuttura is not lokiya" is just an empty tautology. Still, my question remains: what is Vipassana; mundane, or supramundane (I'm guessing the former)?

Yep, vipassana is mundane.

Well, I think there is a reason why the path is eightfold and not sevenfold. The Pāḷi Canon is full of encouragements, made by the Buddha, to practice jhānas. It would be stretching the texts a lot to say it isn't necessary. I wouldn't argue over it though.

‘The sage, the withdrawn chief bull,
  the Buddha who awakened to jhāna,
  the One of Broad Wisdom has found
  the opening amid confinement.’
  -AN 9.42, Confinement (Sambādha-suttaṃ) & SN 2.7, Pañcālacaṇḍa (Pañcālacaṇḍa-suttaṃ)

'There's no jhāna for one with no discernment,
  no discernment for one
  with no jhāna.
  But one with both jhāna & discernment:
  he's on the
  verge of Unbinding.'
  -Dhp v372

Isn't one of the difficulties, though, that the word "jhāna" is used in (at least) two different ways. One -- the least common now but maybe exactly what was intended back then -- is simply "meditation". The second -- the most common today -- refers to a series of distinct states or stages of absorption while meditating. I'm guessing the original questioner was using it in the second form, but it's possible the Canon is using it in the first. In which case the answer is "Yes, jhana is required, but all that means is you need to meditate"??

I would say the two meanings apply since there is no contradiction between them. So I would say, "Yes, jhāna is required, but all that means is you need to meditate to make those stages appear in your practice."

I'm not sure that's true. I've seen many comment on how they'd been meditating for years and never experienced absorptions. Then they encountered a teacher who, or read a book that, guided them precisely, and bingo they experienced absorption. The very fact there is a debate shows there are two concepts at stake. The percentage of people who meditate seems much higher than the percentage who meditate and experience the absorptions. So the question still remains -- is it necessary, for awakening, to meditate to the extent that one experiences the absorptions (or at least upacara samadhi).

As I said in the answer, I wouldn't argue about it. :)

From SN 55.5:

“Sir, the factors of stream-entry are associating with good people,
listening to the true teaching, proper attention, and practicing in
line with the teaching.”
“Sappurisasaṃsevo hi, bhante, sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, saddhammassavanaṃ sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, yonisomanasikāro sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ,
dhammānudhammappaṭipatti sotāpattiyaṅgan”ti.

According to the sutta above, proper attention (yonisomanasikāra) is required for stream entry.
It's not possible to achieve proper attention, when one is afflicted with the five hindrances. In order to significantly overcome the five hindrances, one needs to have mastered at least the first jhana. You can find more info in this question.
To quote Ven. Dhammavuddho from that question:

The third condition, this word - yoniso manasikara, which I translate
as focused attention. Sometimes they say careful attention. This word
means that when you listen to the Dhamma, you are focused on listening
to the Dhamma. In other words, at that time, you don't have the five
hindrances. If that is so, then you can understand the Dhamma and
attain stream entry.
So who are the people who do not have the five hindrances? In the
suttas, it is stated by the Buddha that as long as a person has not
attained piti and sukha which are secluded from unwholesome states,
which are secluded from sensual pleasures, the five hindrances will
obsess him and obsess him habitually.
... When a person has attained the first jhana, he has eliminated the
five hindrances and the Buddha says that the five hindrances no longer
obsess that person habitually.
So there are two conditions if a person has the hindrances. Firstly,
it obsesses your mind, it enslaves your mind. Secondly, it is
habitual, it is very often there. ... When a person attains the first
jhana, these hindrances reduce to a very low level. ...

In that question, Ven. Dhammavuddho claimed that instead of the first jhana, it is also possible that persons of high IQ can also achieve proper attention, although this is his personal opinion.
From this page on Nirodha Samapatti:

According to Vis.M. XXIII, the entering into this state takes place in
the following way: by means of mental tranquillity (samatha) and
insight (vipassanā) one has to pass through all the 8 absorptions one
after the other up to the sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception and then one has to bring this
state to an end. If, namely, according to the Vis.M., the disciple
(Anāgāmī or Arahat) passes through the absorption merely by means of
tranquillity, i.e. concentration, he will only attain the sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and then come to a standstill;
if, on the other hand, he proceeds only with insight, he will reach
the fruition (phala) of Anāgāmī or Arahantship. He, however, who by
means of both faculties has risen from absorption to absorption and,
having made the necessary preparations, brings the sphere of
neither-perception-nor-non-perception to an end, such a one reaches
the state of extinction.

So, according to the Visuddhimagga, the 8 jhanas and Nirodha Samapatti are not absolutely required for attainment of the fruition of anagami and arahat.

SukkhaVipassaka can enlighten Arahatraphala without order from 9 samapatti. This kind of people must has less 5 hindrances from his birth to enlighten in 7 years, or more than that for TanhaCarita MandaPuggala (too much hindrances who avoid to practice Jhana and no knowledge in Paticcasamuppada). However, most Arahanta attain 6 Abhiñña as well according to Theragatha, so I think Arahanta try to practice 9 Samapatti after enlightenment too. The same as Arahanta try to memorize Buddha's teaching which commentary commented BhandāgāikaPariyatti (Nikaya Memorizer) is duty of Arahanta directly.

Upacara&Appana Jhana are required for TanhaCarita according to Netti, Kayagatasatisutta's &Mahasatipatthanasutta's  structure, Visuddhimagga DitthivisuddhiNiddesa.
Netti (my english is terrible, so please find the translation yourself):

[81] tattha diṭṭhicarito asmiṃ sāsane pabbajito sallekhānusantatavutti bhavati sallekhe tibbagāravo. taṇhācarito asmiṃ sāsane pabbajito sikkhānusantatavutti bhavati sikkhāya tibbagāravo. diṭṭhicarito sammattaniyāmaṃ okkamanto dhammānusārī bhavati. taṇhācarito sammattaniyāmaṃ okkamanto saddhānusārī bhavati, diṭṭhicarito sukhāya paṭipadāya dandhābhiññāya khippābhiññāya ca niyyāti. taṇhācarito dukkhāya paṭipadāya dandhābhiññāya khippābhiññāya ca niyyāti.
tattha kiṃkāraṇaṃ, yaṃ taṇhācarito dukkhāya paṭipadāya dandhābhiññāya khippābhiññāya ca niyyāti, tassa hi kāmā apariccattā bhavanti, so kāmehi viveciyamāno dukkhena paṭinissarati dandhañca dhammaṃ ājānāti? yo panāyaṃ diṭṭhicarito ayaṃ āditoyeva kāmehi anatthiko bhavati. so tato viveciyamāno khippañca paṭinissarati, khippañca dhammaṃ ājānāti. dukkhāpi paṭipadā duvidhā dandhābhiññā ca khippābhiññā ca. sukhāpi paṭipadā duvidhā dandhābhiññā ca khippābhiññā ca. sattāpi duvidhā mudindriyāpi tikkhindriyāpi. ye mudindriyā, te dandhañca paṭinissaranti dandhañca dhammaṃ ājānanti. ye tikkhindriyā, te khippañca paṭinissaranti, khippañca dhammaṃ ājānanti, imā catasso paṭipadā. ye hi keci niyyiṃsu vā niyyanti vā niyyissanti vā, te imāhi eva catūhi paṭipadāhi. evaṃ ariyā catukkamaggaṃ paññāpenti abudhajanasevitāya bālakantāya rattavāsiniyā nandiyā bhavataṇhāya avaṭṭanatthaṃ [āvaṭṭanatthaṃ (sī. ka.)]. ayaṃ vuccati nandiyāvaṭṭassa nayassa bhūmīti, tenāha ‘‘taṇhañca avijjampi ca samathenā’’ti.

In DesanaHara, TanhaCarita should practice 4 Satipatthana and 4 Jhana. That is compatible with KayagatasatiSutta's commentary which separate Kayanupassana into 2 parts, Samatha and Vipassana.
The structure of KayagatasatiSutta is Samatha, and MahasatipattahanaSutta is Vipassana. This is compatible with many points of MahasatipattahanaSutta's commentary.
That's why in Visuddhimagga DitthivisuddhiNiddesa:

and the purification of consciousness, namely, the eight attainments (Upacara Jhana) together with access concentration (Appana Jhana), has also been dealt with in detail in all its aspects in the Description of Concentration, (Chs. III to XIII) stated under the heading of “consciousness”

Don't combine and don't separate samatha-jhāna, vipassana-jhana,  and lokuttara-jhana without deep understand in the pali canon.
Samatha-jhāna and vipassana-jhana are friends who fight together to win, become Lokuttara-Jhana, together.
Balava Vipassana-Jhana can't grow up with 5 hindrances. Samatha-jhāna can't  attain Nibbana without Understanding in the reality and 7 Anusaya. They are colleagues in the noble eightfold path.
Lokuttara-appana-jhana are them who graduated as a team, maggacittupada (a noble eightfold path; it is not many. It is only one team; it is "ariyo atthangiko Maggo", not "ariya atthangika magga").

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:
How is Uposatha practiced in non Buddhist countries?
Uposatha (a.k.a. Poya Day) is the traditional Buddhist observance day. Observances vary but one traditional pattern is to celebrate this day on the lunar calendar on each of four moon events; the new moon, full moon, and quarter moons.
For those living in traditional Buddhist countries or communities, there may be opportunities to visit a monastery. But how do those in non Buddhist countries celebrate the holiday?

Happy Uposatha Day! You "stole" my question. I was going to ask if any western forms of Buddhism have established any westernized customs.

Sorry for that @MatthewMartin. Happy Uposatha to you as well. =)

Uposatha day is the day when the vinaya is recited. The vinaya is of course the list of all the rules that monastics follow.
In Asia, there are well defined community practices. For example, people go to the local temple that day, or in Mahayana Buddhism, you might fast (i.e. eat vegetarian) that day, or make a stronger effort to follow the five precepts or maybe follow all 8 precepts.
Out here in the west, not a lot of community practices visible to me. I personally try to make up for it by re-reading my favorite list of rules, the "Brahma Net Sutra" on Uposatha days, which is the same thing that real life east Asian Buddhist monks do.
I suppose a lay follower who wants to keep to the spirit of the holiday, but didn't want to read or recite a particular moral code, might do a sort of "Weekly Review" like you see in system of personal productivity, except with a Buddhist theme, e.g. http://lifehacker.com/5908816/the-weekly-review-how-one-hour-can-save-you-a-weeks-worth-of-hassle-and-headache


text:
The danger in lying

"For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you, there is no
  evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This: telling a
  deliberate lie."

Also

The person who lies, who transgress in this one thing, transcending
  concern for the world beyond:     there's no evil     he might not do. — Iti
  25

So I'm mainly concerned with the part that says "there is no evil deed that is not to be done". I kind of agree with this, however, the people to which I've shared this, think it's somewhat exaggerated.
Is it exaggerated?

Reading the earlier ones there in Itivuttaka: The Group of Ones, you can see things like,

Abandon one quality, monks, and I guarantee you non-return. Which one quality? Abandon greed as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return.

Next it says,

Abandon one quality, monks, and I guarantee you non-return. Which one quality? Abandon aversion as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return.

And,

Abandon one quality, monks, and I guarantee you non-return. Which one quality? Abandon delusion as the one quality, and I guarantee you non-return

This is referring to the three poisons which are shown as being at the centre of the 'wheel of life'. My understanding, from the way they're represented/illustrated, is that they cause or feed each other.
Wikipedia claims that ignorance is the root cause:

Of these three, ignorance is the root poison. From ignorance, attachment and aversion arise.

Whether or not it is the "root" cause, the implication of the suttas above is that if/when you can eradicate any one of them then you can break the chain or cycle.
The corollary though, IMO, is that if a person indulges in or abides in any one, then they cause them all.
The second noble truth explicitly warns against greed, but the 'three poisons' also warn against anger and ignorance.
And it seems to me that lying is (except in vanishingly rare circumstances) intended to promote ignorance. A person who thinks they can lie successfully might think that they can 'get away with murder'.
You ask, "Is it exaggerated?" IMO 'not lying' is also connected with Right Speech, with being able to share (true) Dharma, with not causing schism in the Sangha.

I'm interested in what "aversion" means in these cases. I've seen the word used a lot in the literature (I'm no expert, I just started reading about Buddhism). Where could I check out what "aversion" means here?

@David Wikipedia seems helpful with explaining/translating terms. E.g. for "aversion" it gives some alternate English translations as anger, aggression, hatred; thence see also Dvesha for more details and further references; and knowing the Pali term you can enter 'dosa' (and/or 'aversion') into the 'Search' box at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ -- or e.g. search for "aversion" on http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html to find 'dosa'

According to my current teacher, good character is an important prerequisite for Enlightenment. Key qualities of good character are:

Honesty
Integrity
Responsibility

Responsibility depends on Integrity. Integrity depends on Honesty. If there is no Honesty, there is no Integrity. The person without Integrity can do anything if it is in their interest, they can't be trusted.
A person who tells lies deliberately has a corrupted value system. If they went as far as to warp reality to cover up their fault or to advance their case, there is no guarantee whatsoever as to what they may do under pressure. Hence "there is no evil deed that is not to be done".

It strikes me that if I can't be trusted not to lie to others, how can I trust that I have not lied to myself?

For most of human history your word truely was your bond.. It was everything, and to lie was to put the reputation of your house, your family, and yourself in danger to the point where you became an outcast or worse.
These days things are different in many ways,  our words are not necessarily connected to our social and physical survival,  but they are still important. When trust is lost it is not so easily gained back.
So do i believe anyone who lies will also kill people and do horrible things?  Most likely not,  but deliberate lieing is a dangerous thing that is unskillful and not beneficial to yourself or others. It puts us back along the path and is to be avoided at all costs.

Most likely that person will not kill but they have the desire to defend their ego and that is what it takes to be motivated to kill.

A lie is directly supporting ignorance. And an ignorance is directly supporting all defilements (it's present in all of them), which directly supporting all type of evil deeds.
It's usual that weight of deeds is greatly misperceived by common people in compare to Buddha. Mental deeds are most important in consequences. And deliberate lie, probably, does most damage to a mind.
It's said that Bodhisatta in previous lives could do all evil, except lie.

In certain cases a Bodhisatta may destroy life, take what is not given
  him, commit adultery, drink strong drink, but he may not tell a lie,
  attended by deception that violates the reality of things.
  (Harita-jataka, JA 431).

Wow, I guess i'll never be a Bodhisatta then. :(

@David You can't know the future too.

But knowing that I have already lied in this life and that a Bodhisatta can't lie in past lives, then I wont ever be a Bodhisatta. Haha.

@David That's not problem, because you can always take percept to not lie anymore.

@David Btw, it's not all infinite lives as a being are meant, but only lives since Bodhisatta acquired that title (given by other buddha).


text:
How much should one eat when following the not-eating-after-noon precept?
In my understanding, there are a few ways to follow the not-eating-after-noon precept. Here are what I know of:

Two meals per day + juice/sugar water: breakfast and lunch, juice or sugar water for dinner.
Two meals per day: breakfast and lunch, nothing but plain water after noon.
One meal per day: lunch only. Plain water only before and after lunch.

I am a layperson working in an air-conditioned office. In my experience of method 1, I can do with normal amount of breakfast and lunch. But for method 2, sometimes I need more amount of lunch, say 1.5 times of a normal lunch. Never did try method 3.
I wish those who have experience can share their thought on the appropriate amount of food, and also the ways of following it. I believe Buddha had suggested to have moderate amount of food, but how much is considered as moderate?

as much as you need but not as much as you want.
if nutrition is the concern perhaps you should study that subject.

It will depend on the amount of physical work one does, but since you've said you work in an office, I would say one meal a day is enough for maintaining the body healthy if you have no digestive problems. I started having one normal-sized meal per day 2 years ago and I've had no problems. I'd recommend seeing what fits for you by making gradual adjustments.
Bear in mind that the following quotes are directed at monks but, depending on one's health & working conditions, laymen are also capable of following the advice:

“And how does a bhikkhu observe moderation in eating? Here, reflecting
  carefully, a bhikkhu consumes food neither for amusement nor for
  intoxication nor for the sake of physical beauty and attractiveness,
  but only for the support and maintenance of this body, for avoiding
  harm, and for assisting the spiritual life, considering: ‘Thus I shall
  terminate the old feeling and not arouse a new feeling, and I shall be
  healthy and blameless and dwell at ease.’ It is in this way that a
  bhikkhu observes moderation in eating.
  -AN 4.37, Non-decline (Aparihāniya-suttaṃ)

“Bhikkhus, I eat at a single session. By so doing, I am free from
  illness and affliction, and I enjoy lightness, strength, and a
  comfortable abiding. Come, bhikkhus, eat at a single session. By so
  doing, you too will be free from illness and affliction, and you will
  enjoy lightness, strength, and a comfortable abiding.”
  -MN 65, To Bhaddāli (Bhaddāli-suttaṃ)

And how, bhikkhus, should the nutriment edible food be seen? Suppose a
  couple, husband and wife, had taken limited provisions and were
  traveling through a desert. They have with them their only son, dear
  and beloved. Then, in the middle of the desert, their limited
  provisions would be used up and exhausted, while the rest of the
  desert remains to be crossed. The husband and wife would think: ‘Our
  limited provisions have been used up and exhausted, while the rest of
  this desert remains to be crossed. Let us kill our only son, dear and
  beloved, and prepare dried and spiced meat. By eating our son’s flesh
  we can cross the rest of this desert. Let not all three of us perish!’
“Then, bhikkhus, the husband and wife would kill their only son, dear
  and beloved, prepare dried and spiced meat, and by eating their son’s
  flesh they would cross the rest of the desert. While they are eating
  their son’s flesh, they would beat their breasts and cry: ‘Where are
  you, our only son? Where are you, our only son?’
“What do you think, bhikkhus? Would they eat that food for amusement
  or for enjoyment or for the sake of physical beauty and
  attractiveness?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Wouldn’t they eat that food only for the sake of crossing the
  desert?”
“Yes, venerable sir.”
“It is in such a way, bhikkhus, that I say the nutriment edible food
  should be seen. When the nutriment edible food is fully understood,
  lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood. When
  lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure is fully understood, there
  is no fetter bound by which a noble disciple might come back again to
  this world.
  -SN 12.64, Son's Flesh (Puttamaṃsūpama-suttaṃ)

Ok, this son-eating story shocks me.

Do you drink fruit juice, sugar water or other kinds of drink before and after noon?

Indeed, the simile expresses very vividly how one should view & handle food. Yes, normal water & fruit-juice or soya milk when they are available.

Canabalism and infanticide is okay as long as you have suitable detachment and equanimity? As much as I enjoy reading these crazy tales (zen has even more), it sure doesn't help the public opinion of buddhism as a whole.

I don't know where you got that idea from. If you read the discourse carefully, you would've understood that the point is not to condone cannibalism or infanticide but to show how to regard food. Why would you care about the "public opinion of buddhism"? But since you do care, what would portray "Buddhism" better than the Buddha's own words? If the Buddha's words aren't for your taste, disregard them. No one said you'd have to swallow them. Please be more considerate before commenting. May you be well.


text:
What is the equivalent scientific term for samsedaja? What kind of beings on earth are born from samsedaja?
Are there any beings on earth that are samsedaja (born or arisen from moisture)? Are bacteria samsedaja?

Yes, I think binary fission, a form of asexual reproduction, is.

The scientific term for the process is abiogenesis. The material that gives rise to abiogenesis is a variety of chemicals. The Scientific Buddha by Lopez gives an unsympathetic account of the attempt to match up Buddhism to science. Buddhist Biology by Barash is a more sympathetic attempt to do the same. I haven't finished reading either, can't say if they address the origin of life.

@MatthewMartin, thanks for the book recommendations, I will give them a good read!

Mahasi Sayadaw says:

Conception in moisture-laden media such as moss etc. (sansedaja), represents the coming into existence of some larva etc.
http://static.sirimangalo.org/mahasi/Dhammacakkappavattana%20Sutta.htm

In this view, the larva seems to be seen as an embryonic stage.
Nina Van Gorkom says:

Queen Padumavati was conceived in a lotus blossom and Queen Veluvati in the hollow of bamboo plant. Cincamana who slandered the Buddha took rebirth in a tamarind tree.
http://www.wisdomlib.org/buddhism/book/abhidhamma-in-daily-life_2/d/doc3179.html

These allusions are to cases where a human being was born miraculously outside of the womb; somewhat apocryphal.
She also says most insects are samsedaja, but that doesn't seem technically correct.
As for bacteria, I'm only going to state as an opinion that given that stem cells are not sentient, I'm not convinced that bacteria are either. There seems to have to be a higher level of organization for sentience to be possible. At any rate, there is no reason to assume that just because something is alive and reproducing that it is also sentient; unless the mind takes hold of the organism, there will be no sentience even in the case of a fertilized egg.

Thanks! What do you think about bacteria? Do they belong to animal realms, which can be taken rebirth as?

sorry for missing the bacteria question; added some thoughts to the answer, but I have no real conclusion about them.


text:
Do Buddhists believe in gods?
As far as I know, many Buddhists believe in multiple gods. Doesn't this contradict the idea that the world is governed by the law of karma? Is praying to gods allowed?

This seems to be two questions in one. Buddhist scriptures include the reference to deities ("gods"), but Buddhist practitioners do not pray to these gods as in theistic religions.

Most Buddhists believe in some form of "higher" being; brahmas, devas, etc. It is not an orthodox Buddhist practice to pray to these deities, but people are people. Ordinary Buddhists from most, if not all, traditions, tend to succumb to the allure of prayer and supplication; most monasteries are now called "temples", monks are often called "priests", statues of Ganesha and other mythical gods are popular in these places. Some Sri Lankan monasteries actually have dedicated areas for deity worship.
How can they? Well, Buddhism doesn't demand complete adherence to Buddhist principles. I recently taught meditation at a Catholic college to priests and they seemed to gain benefit from it; one of them is planning on coming to do an intensive meditation course with me. So, the question of whether it is "allowed" doesn't really apply. Deity-worship is not recommended, since it promotes delusion and dependency, both of which are antithetical to Buddhism practice. Someone who clings to external support, real or imaginary, will not likely take full responsibility for their future, most likely becoming complacent and clinging to positive experiences as divine intervention (and therefore worth clinging to).
Does it contradict the theory of karma? Yes, and more importantly it goes against observations; praying to gods doesn't produce any observable change except in the mind of the believer. That in and of itself might be reason to promote prayer, since faith can have beneficial, uplifting effects on the mind, if it weren't misplaced and therefore promoting delusion and clinging as well.
So, it is allowed simply because we don't disallow things (except for monks who have strict rules - a monk who encourages theistic worship should be subject to reprimand, I think), but it is (or should be) discouraged because of its relationship to delusion and clinging.
Incidentally, to show how tolerant the Buddha was, in the Ratana Sutta he says:

O beings, listen closely. May you all radiate loving-kindness to those human beings who, by day and night, bring offerings to you. Wherefore, protect them with diligence.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.piya.html

"A monk who encourages theistic worship should be subject to reprimand, I think" - is there vinaya rule and punishment for its violation?

I can't point to a specific one off the top of my head, but the community can carry out an act of censure against a monk "defective in his views" even if he isn't teaching them.

Deity worship seems to be a major part of Tibetan Buddhism without which Tibetan Buddhism wouldn't be what it is. They even consider meditation on deity Chenrezig to be to be highest & quickest way to liberation.

@RBK Chenrezig is not a god but enlightened bodhisattva (or even buddha). Meditation on the gods is exist in Theravada too, it's called 'devatanussati' (recollection of deities).

(Vajrayana) Buddhism is an non-theistic teaching. All deities, yidams etc. are understood to be expressions of one's own nature, one's own mind. At the same time, it is clearly understood that "one's own" mind is not really "one's own" -- because there is no such independent entity as "I", the mind does not have boundaries between outer and inner. From this perspective the energies, deities and other inhabitants of the noosphere can indeed be considered "independent" agents (subject to caveat of universal Emptiness). As part of working on a tantra, practitioner interacts and communicates with the deities, participates in rituals etc. that may look like deity worship but are in fact psychoenergetic exercises. When involved in tantra though, we must clearly see that all these experiences are 100% real, otherwise they will not produce the intended effect on the mind. Because reality is an interpretation we make, being able to sincerely switch between alternative interpretations (materialistic, phenomenological, energy-centric, animalistic) is an important skill to be acquired towards complete mastery of the mind-made reality.

To be pedantic, have citations?

"According to the tantric understanding, the yidam is a nontheistic deity who embodies one's innate vajra nature, the basic sanity and wakefulness of one's beeing, freed from ego-clinging."
Chogyam Trungpa, The Heart of the Buddha

First, that should be included in the answer. Second, that doesn't really fully back up what you are saying.

Why would I care about "backing up" what I say? Do you not trust me? ;) Also, if you see other SE sites, e.g. Programming, the mother of them all, it's not like majority of answers have references, very far from that. If someone makes stuff up, they will be voted down and loose reputation.

The value of a programming answer is self-evident - when I read a PHP script, I know whether it does what I want it to do or not; factual claims like the ones you make here are quite different. Even if you are an authority on these matters, I think we expect you to link to your own published material on the matter.

"The value of a programming answer is self-evident" - not a valid assertion. Not all programming questions are this simple, answers about algorithmic complexity, architecture, or best practices are not self-evident at all. PHP answer seems self-evident to you only because you know how PHP works. If you knew how Vajrayana works, my answer would be self-evident to you too. Also, I did provide a quote upon request. Did it not seem inappropriate to you when @Hrafn demanded "that doesn't really fully back up what you are saying" without specifying which part of my answer was still dubious to him?

I'm just comparing your answer to mine, and mine is almost as bad in a way; but somehow you seem to be making claims that are not self-evident, whereas most of my claims are just general observations of Buddhist practices. As for SO, good answers to difficult questions do tend to have sources backing them up or as reference, I think.

Because mine is more far-reaching, I agree. But that's what makes it valuable, doesn't it? Ability to summarize volumes of books and endless guru lectures, and augment them with first-hand experience -- is a tremendous value-add, compared to restating the commonly known. Assuming I am a fake making stuff up, the moment a real expert shows up and calls my lies I will lose my luster, so why the concern? :)

If you pet a cat it will like you. If you respect a king he will reward you. Similarly for Devas. Buddha mentioned Deva Bali offering to the Devas in the context of how to spend what you have earned.
The concept of Deva in Buddhism is that they are just another form of life as mentioned previously.

I agree with catpnosis that a mere belief in gods, as Buddhism understands them, does not entail anything that contradicts the law of kamma. Buddhism holds the view that there is no ruling god who is responsible for everything that happens, but also holds the view that there are great, virtuous, and powerful non-human beings who, on account of merit, have achieved great beauty, long life, and power.
That said, whether or not prayer is advised depends on what you mean by prayer. If you understand prayer to include merely the focusing of one's mind on a deity or some aspect of the deity then even Theravada Buddhism does allow and advocate it, through a practice called the recollection of the devas. One of the ten recollections, virtuous Buddhists are advised to recollect the virtues of the devas and to reflect that they have similar virtues in themselves. See the Mahanama Sutta.

Multiple gods are just living beings, and god (or deva) is type of good birth. So, believing gods is easy—it is just more fortunate world, or life form, than ours. • It does not contradict idea of karma because beings rebirth as gods because of their own wholesome deeds. • Praying to gods is not forbidden as general act, but this is not Buddhist practice. Even though this is not Buddhist practice this does not necessarily contradict the Dharma, it would hugely depend on practitioner attitude and views. But if you pray for salvation or to clean sins this would contradict with karma.

This question doesn't mention which sect.
Modern secular Buddhists are atheists and agnostics. Stephen Batchelor is probably the most famous speaker for this group.
The historical Buddha, may or may not have been a theist. He appears to have been singularly uninterested in Gods, made jokes about them, and saw the whole Hindu enterprise as a distraction from the real problems of existence. Glen Wallis's "Basic Teaching of the Buddha" makes a plausible case for this historical Buddha.
There isn't just one historical Buddha. The historical Buddha is a modern construct made up of half forgotten memories and text filtered through a lot of people. So for the Mahayana crowd, especially devotees of the Lotus Sutra, the historical Buddha was and is, a almost god like being of long life and powers we can't comprehend, who is still alive and an active force in our world.
There is also the Adibuddha and Vairocana, the primordial Buddha or the Buddha from which all other Buddha's are an emination of. This particular Buddha sounds a lot like a Judeo-Christian god.
Finally, Buddhism isn't just what the founder may have said. It's a syncretic tradition that absorbed bits of Hinuism, Bon, Chinese Ancestor worship, Japanese emperor worship, and now in the west it is absorbing new age and Christian elements.  This is possible in part because the concerns of the historical Buddha were somewhat orthogonal to the concerns of a devotional religion.  The eightfold path is much the same regardless to if you are also engaging in a devotional religion. This differs from say, monotheism, where there are explicit rules about participating in other religions. (Not to say that Buddhism didn't acquire similar rules-- for example Chinese Buddhist text often warn about following outer paths, i.e other religions)

I like that "Buddhism isn't just what the founder may have said. It's a syncretic tradition..." I think the Dharma is not bound by lineage, tradition, or the like. Some people would like it to be so they can have an "answer" but most people'es personal experiences are not so easily "pigeon-holed". (At least mine isn't, anyway.)

Most Buddhists pray to devas, or gods. Some because of filial piety, particular devotion, family tradition, or any combination of the three (or more) reasons. People also pray to Bodhisattvas and Buddhas in a way that is pretty much indistinguishable from prayer to devas. In Chinese Buddhism, it is a pretty common practice to repent of wrongdoings with Buddhas/Bodhisattvas as witnesses of the promise to do better as well.
Devas are still subject to karma, since the heavenly realm is still within samsara. They can be benevolent, malevolent (although this would cause them to be reborn in a lower realm), or indifferent. They are still powerful, and can protect people. The typical logic is that a person has good karma if for any reason a particular deva takes a liking to them and helps them. In Siddartha's previous lives, he had such good karma that he was protected by devas.
Devotion and supplication to Buddhas and Boddhisattvas may be considered "safer" because they are more consistent with their compassion, while devas have different personalities, which can make them more or less "fickle". Even "wrathful Buddhas" are called so because they are fierce protectors of the dharma and dharmic people.
Institutional Buddhism still respects the individual native devas of particular regions. In one essay contained in the book "Living in Amida's Universal Vow", it was pointed out that some of the earliest "Code of Conduct" rules in Jodo Shinshu temples contained the rules "Do not disparage other Buddhas [besides Amida]" and "Do not disparage the kami ["devas" of Japan]". I do not have the book with me at the moment, but when I find the exact essay I will be more than happy to edit this post with the correct citation.

Not sure about the statement Most Buddhists pray to devas, or gods - please mention a source to a claim like that, for reference. Not so sure most Buddhists do that.

@FullPeace - This has been my offline experience with Buddhism, and is not a controversial claim. I do also include non-western/non-convert Buddhists when I say "most Buddhists". Although, I also include instances where native "devas" were re-tooled as Bodhisattvas as well. Maybe that is where the controversy lies?

It is just beneficial to back up claims such as "most Buddhists" with a source of the claim. The intention was not so much disputing the claim, although I can see that the comment had that effect, as asking for thoroughness in the answer. Apologies for the wording. Your answer appears to refer to Mahayana practice, for instance, so that would also benefit the context of the response, imho.

@FullPeace.org This seems like one of those things that is easy to observe with enough experience. Also, some Theravadin Buddhists have their own devotional practices. In my area, the attendance of Theravadin and Mahayana temples is fluid. Theravadins are perfectly fine with participating in the devotional practices of other Buddhists here. Even still, Mahayana comprises the majority of Buddhist practice in the world, so to say "most Buddhists" referring to Mahayana only would be true just due to sheer numbers.

Respectfully leaving the clarification up to your discretion. No benefit in disagreeing about the details, it seems clear that opinions differ, and we can easily leave it at that. /\

The GOD concept on Buddhism is a wide scale subject, and according to my understanding Buddhism explain higher spirits who are called "GOD" in English.

Hello Umanda and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We are looking for answers that provide some depth and detail. Please consider expanding your answer and citing references if possible. Thanks.


text:
Nine Purification Breaths and Channels in Genderqueer and Intersex Individuals
When performing the Nine Purification Breaths (I have it from a separate source, but it is close to the one described by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche in Healing with Form, Energy, and Light) the position of the energy channels depends on whether the individual is male or female.
It is described as:

In women the right channel is red and the left is white. In men the right channel is white and the left is red.  The central channel is blue in both men and women.

The process first removes obstacles linked with male potencies and then obstacles linked with female potencies, breathing in through the red channel first and out through the white, then in through the white and out through the red.
Several people I know identify as agendered, genderfluid, or bigendered or otherwise genderqueer. I also know several people who are various forms of intersex.
For these individuals, is there a good way to adapt the practice (along with similar practices)? Alternatively are there adaptations for other practices that might be applicable (such as alternations made for ubhatovyanjañakas and paṇḍakas) or good rules of thumb for approaching these issues?

Meditation is meditation. Concentration on chakras, etc., is (imo) quite useless if a person can't even sense them. In other questions, in this forum, people has asked questions about Buddhism's approaches to homosexuality, etc. The answer(s) that I most like is that all physical cravings are desires. Meditation helps us learn how to move beyond desires, and the physical and mental "realms". I don't care if a person is tall, short, wide, thin, etc. I just care about whether they are trying to meditate. "Watch your mind" is the beginning, middle and end. All the rest of "filler" and distracting

I've heard of one Tibetan Lama who refuses to give a traditional Buddhist wedding to homosexuals. During the wedding he invokes some Buddha form in union and the bride meditates on the female Buddha while the groom - on the male Buddha. The Lama explained that he cannot tell where is the female and male element in a homosexual relationship so it is not straightforward how to carry on the ritual. He received a detailed transmission from his teacher in a certain form and he doesn't want to alter it.
Although it doesn't answer your question directly, a few things should be said. Techniques involving working with energy channels are very advanced and usually were directly transmitted from teachers to students for centuries. It is rather dangerous to practise those without a guidance and protection from the guru, especially if the female/male energies are supposedly mixed as in the cases listed in the question. It is possible that although one Lama refused to alter the ritual, another one will be able to correctly identify energy channels and will willingly perform the 'individualized' ritual. Having said that, I don't think a general advice can be given. If one wants to practise some advanced technique, a qualified teacher is essential and only he can resolve the issues concerning the practice. The advice from the teacher is individual and should not be broadcast as it can only confuse other people rather than help them.

Advice from the student to the teacher is also valuable in these contexts. It sounds like each has something to learn. The problem of artificial division of one into two is an issue with which the student and the teacher will both have reflected upon. There will be common ground.


text:
Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?
A claim which is often heard in connection with Buddhism is that it is not a religion. From a scientific point of view, is it a religion, or is it not?

I do not think it is a valid question, because it implies religion and philosophy are not conventions. Maybe a valid question would be "What did we take Buddhism to be through time?"

It really depends which definition of religion you go for. For instance

Human recognition of superhuman controlling power and particularly of
a personal God [..]
Oxford English Dictionary.

Buddhism is not a religion based on this definition

Any specific system belief or worship, often involving a code of
ethics and a philosophy
Websters New World Dictionary

Buddhism is a religion based on this definition
(Both quotes are taken from Jared Diamond's the world until yesterday pp 327)
Buddhism certainly is in a grey area with definitions. But then so are other philosophies/religions. Confucianism was considered a religion a few decades ago whereas now it is definitely seen as a philosophy (Jared Diamond again). Shintoism is simliar in the grey area. Going further back then Epicurianism, Stoicism and Neoplatonism all have something about the religious to them but are always (in my reading) spoken about as philosophies.
I would contend that the philosophy/religion divide is a continuum and owes something to the prevailing cultural climate. Nobody would say Marxism is a religion but there is certainly a religious attitude (controversial final point!)
Footnote
Well not quite the final point. Again Jared Diamond - he has 16 definitions for religion on pp 327 of World until Yesterday. It's an interesting exercise to go through them all and see if Buddhism fit's into each definition. It varies quite a bit. For instance just to give one more
Émile_Durkheim

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to
sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and
practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church,
all those who adhere to them.

Well maybe, maybe not.

It seems one distinguishing feature of religions is a belief in supernatural beings.  For example, Hinduism doesn't particularly fit the first definition of religion, but it definitely believes in supernatural beings.  Many folk religions are the same, who lack a belief in an overarching god, but believe spirits control aspects of their world, and require some form of interaction with these spirits.  The same belief in spirits shows up in folk Buddhism, such as in Tibet, where they burn offerings to the dead.

Buddhism is a framework implemented by religions.
From my Mac's dictionary:

framework |ˈfreɪmwəːk|
  noun
  • a basic structure underlying a system,
  concept, or text : the theoretical framework of political sociology.

I'd add to that, that the main difference between a philosophy and a framework is that a framework provides or suggests tools/methods based on its philosophy.
Buddhism the framework is the 4 Noble Truths, a collection of observations and logical conclusions (the first 3 "truths") with the methods/tools supplied in the 4th Noble Truth. To accept/follow/implement the 4 Noble Truths is what makes something "Buddhist" - not just for a person but for any system of thought, including religions.
Several religions have incorporated this and become Buddhist religions:

Hinduism + Buddhist framework == Indian Buddhism (the historical "original").
Daoism + (Indian) Buddhism == Ch'an (or Chinese Buddhism).
Shinto + (Ch'an) Buddhism == Zen.
Bon + (Indian) Buddhism == Tibetan Buddhism.

I'm being a tad simplistic in the depiction of the flavours of Buddhism, but the main thing is, it works as an explanation. Once you know to separate out the framework from the religion it's easy to see why it gets confused as a philosophy by some and a religion by others.

I'd agree with you if there was a widely-acccepted definition that Buddhism really is just the 4 Noble Truths, but I think most people define Buddhism to be much broader than that. Nevertheless interesting viewpoint!

@THelper thanks :) In my view, everything that is "buddhist" or "buddhism" is a logical extension or corollary of the 4 Noble Truths.

(Disclaimer: Bear in mind this is just a way of seeing things, I have no interest in discussion since it belongs in the chat & this question is very much opinion based. Anyone can argue in which ever way they want and still be supported by references and\or experience.)
Does it have to be one or another? Can't it be both?
To me it seems a bit of both and I would also add psychology.

Religion means 'reconnect' and is usually associated with belief, faith & charity.
Psychology is the study of mental & behavioral phenomenon.
Philosophy means 'love for wisdom' and is usually associated with understanding, reasoning & the intellect.

At the beginning stages of the path, it looks more like a religion because trust (or faith), giving (or charity) & virtue (or morality) are emphasized. These are qualities that 'reconnect' people.
Further along, it integrates psychology because one makes effort for preventing unwholesome thoughts & developing wholesome ones with the help of mindfulness which then evolves into concentration. These are qualities developed for testing & studying the mind.
Further along, philosophy is integrated because, by now, one knows his own mind very well and so understands which causes give rise to distress & which don't. This is where the path culminates by integrating all three with the complete understanding & realization of the four truths.

I've struggled with this question myself. My opinion is that the problem stems from the fact that the notions of religion and philosophy are purely Western concepts.
Religion, for instance, is term which originated in the Roman Empire, and was used by state powers to legitimize practices such as Judaism and later Christianity (Islam had not developed at the time). Conversely, other practices (e.g. pagan practices, animistic belief systems) lacked such endorsement and were legally open to persecution. In a way, the word "religion" can be seen as the particular superstition which is endorsed by the state.
From Wikipedia:

Julius Caesar formulated a policy of allowing Jews to follow their
  traditional religious practices,a policy which was followed, and
  extended, by Augustus, first emperor of Rome, reigned 27 BC - 14 AD.
  This gave Judaism the status of a religio licita (permitted religion)
  throughout the Empire.

It would be interesting to see a similar treatment with the word Philosophy, but I'm not informed on that topic.
In summary, I'm in agreement with CrabBucket that Buddhism is in a gray area. Buddhism has a strong resemblance to both religion and philosophy, with elements of both, but not adhering strictly to either one.
On the other hand, in modern times people use the word "religion" in the sense of world religions. In this case, the word describes practices that are similar, but which do not share essential qualities that somehow make them religions.

This is a pedantic question in the sense that it focuses on definitions rather than reality. That is the cause of the endless debate.
Plato is usually counted among the philosophers, but "The Republic" is clearly a religious text in key aspects. The line between religion and philosophy disappears at the deeper levels. Those who explore the edges of what seems to be known are always (by definition?) dabbling in both.
Take mathematics for example. It is the language of science, however it evolved from Hindu, Pythagorean, and may other religions traditions.
Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell tried and failed to prove the fundamental "truthfulness" of mathematics in Principia Mathematica. It has since been mathematically proven that it is impossible to prove the truth of mathematics. This puts all scientific certainty in doubt. Thus, the foundational language of science must itself be taken on faith.
Furthermore, the scientific faith in the logic of predictability upon which all scientific inquiry is based is scientifically unprovable. Therefore, science itself is a kind of religion based on a solid faith in predictability.
None of this is meant to equate the scientific method with simplistic, magical belief systems. It is simply meant to highlight religious assumptions at the core of the science method.
Buddhism, with it's emphasis on careful, honest empirical observation, is vulnerable to the same challenge as science. Still, a better method than humble observation does not seem to have been found by humanity, so we bumble along as best we can. To paraphrase Siddhartha Gautama's last words, all we can do is to do our best.

All religions have their philosophies (as metaphysics), so Buddhism is not an exception.
Views are sometimes divided into naive, religious, and philosophy. Where philosophy is  scientific, as opposed to the other two. In that sense, Buddhism is not strictly philosophy because it is not opposed to religion. On the other hand, for ancient people religion was science, and even more for ancient India where pandita was synonym for scholar. Thus, in that sense Buddhism is science and includes philosophy, ethics, soteriology, etc.
So, basically, this question is about splitting intersecting notions. They may be equated or distincted by different criteria, depending on context.

I am convinced that any answer has to give a definition first of “scientific” and of “religion”.
I consider “religion” a social phenomenon based on three pillars: doctrine, community and cult (see “Joachim Wach: Sociology of Religion”). Moreover, the doctrine should include the belief in one or more beings with superhuman power who affect the life of their believers.
I consider this definition a “scientific” definition, because one can observe in a given society whether such phenomenon exists. The experts can discuss the findings in an intersubjective manner. Eventually, they can reach a common view about the open questions.
It is not important for my definition whether the statements of the religious doctrine are true or false. I exclude this aspect from my definition because history shows: Questions like that are undecidable.
Applying my definition to Buddhism I tend to the following answer:

Going back as far as possible to the time of the Buddha, Buddhism was no religion. Of course Buddha taught a doctrine (dharma), of course Buddha founded a community (sangha), but Buddha did not emphasize any cult. On the contrary, one of his points was to protest against the Vedic cult. More important: Buddha took an agnostic view concerning the gods under discussion in his time.
I hope my answer is in agreement with “Richard Gombrich: What the Buddha thought”.
On the other hand, Mahayana buddhism is a fully developed religion which comprises a lot of variations specific to the society under consideration.

The original supramundane teachings of the Buddha are neither religion or philosophy. They simply express the true nature of suffering, the cure of suffering & reality. Core Buddhism is like a 'science' in that everything explained in it can be verified by direct insight (rather than are objects of belief or conjecture).
It was only later in history did Buddhism become a 'religion' of unverifiable beliefs.
Ultimately, Buddhism is neither religion, philosophy or science but, instead, 'dharma', which means a 'system of understanding & practise that supports freedom from suffering'. The word 'dharma' generically means 'that which supports'.

It depends on the practitioner.  For me personally, Buddhism is a philosophy and a way of living in harmony with the Dharma.  For others it is a deeply held faith that takes precedence over science.  (See Isn't Buddhist insight practice more scientific than the so-called scientific method?).  There is room for both sorts of people in Buddhism.  Buddhism is like Judaism in that both rely on a source text but the interpretation and practice of the lessons in that text are entirely up to the sangha (Buddhist) or minyan (Jewish), although there is much commentary from learned spiritual people.  Neither has a Pope. :-)

Buddhism is neither a religion nor a philosophy.
Buddhism can refer to the Truths (Ariyasaccani) (Dhamma) pointed out by Lord Buddha (Buddho Bhagava) to the world and His explanations thereof as given in the Nikaya texts published by the Pali Text Society; or
To the numerous Buddhist traditions, both living and dead. All these traditions arose after the First Council and the before the Second Council (See 2500 Years of Buddhism, Government of India, 1956).
Almost all these traditions do not acknowledge a 'creator god'nor they worship one.None of them are religions.
It is needless to say that Dhamma is not a philosophy. It is called a philosophy by people who do not and cannot ever understand Dhamma. This is the reason for numerous 'interpretations' of Dhamma.

I agree with your excellent answer.

Buddhism is clearly a religion, unless you have a very restrictive definition of religion, such as "belief in a single, omnipotent and personal God", which excludes a wide range of existing belief systems. There is of course Buddhist philosophy (as well as Buddhist psychology and what not), but there are various aspects of Buddhism that are typical only for religions and not for philosophies.
Mainstream Buddhists believe in supernatural entities, such as devas, which are organised in a very elaborate taxonomy, without any clear relation to the observable world. They believe in existence of a huge number of worlds and realms, and despite of lack any empirical evidence, they provide very specific information about them, such as their height. They claim to know what happens after a person dies, again without any empirical evidence. I would say those are features very typical for religions, and untypical for philosophies.
Of course, we may take a liberal definition of Buddhism and include, say, Sam Harris among Buddhists. He is one of the Four Horsemen of the Non-Apocalypse, and explicitly denies beliefs in anything that may be seen as religious. In such case your question doesn't have a good answer other than "it's a religion for some and a philosophy for others". But I wouldn't go that way, as this kind of reasoning can be done with almost any religion. For instance, there are many people who declare themselves Christians, but say that it is not important whether Jesus rose from the dead or not, it is the moral message that matters. For them, Christianity is effectively a moral philosophy and not a religion. So Buddhism does not differ from other religions in that respect.

Buddhism is more of a right view (samma ditti) and a noble truth (arya sathya) rather than a religion or philosophy.
It explains how to understand things that were created due to a reason and how to attain nibbana.

From a scientific point of view, is Buddhism a religion, or is it
  not?

quote from Dhammasangani preface PTS translation.
Another thing to consider. "What we see is, what we want". So first decide what to see? Good or Bad. View is like a "colored glass". To see the Buddhism as it is, we have to remove "color glass".

Because supernatural or transcendental is natural in buddhism. We can found supernatural in many sutta, vinaya, even though abhidhamma of tipitaka (pali), because there are many possible cases of supernatural by logic, causes and effects.
However, all supernatural is natural in buddhism by 3 characterizes: "when arising exit, then vanishing exit, too", paṭiccasamuppāda. So, supernatural is not important in buddhism.
Therefore, in buddhism, we don't try to debate about next life, heaven, or supernatural. We do not deny any possible theories, in causes and effects logic.  Then we develop consciousness to cope every possible situations, not cope just some situations that we have seen. We try to avoid every possible suffering, by logic or theory, to make sure suffering will never return anymore, although we never meet that possible suffering and possible situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Good question, but I think it doesn't really matter. Only in the west a person can claim to be a religious person and live just like everybody else, like going to the temple and do bad things after it, or even praying to God to punish other people (seems odd). In the east a truly religious person lives his religion day by day, hour by hour, so in this sense I think living the teachings is the only thing that matters. Focus on the dhamma!
Of course there is more to debate if you think in terms of Mahayana and Theravada. One may look more like a traditional religion than the other, but I rather not bring this up.

Welcome to Buddhism SE konrad01! Your statement doesn't answer the question which is important to the format at this Q & A site. Have you had a chance to take the [tour]?(http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/tour)

Hello, thanks for your message. Regarding the question I think it is a matter or point of view, that answer was based on a book (the monk and the philosopher) and I really think it is the best answer to this question, but of course, this is only my humble opinion! :)

Thanks for the clarification. Including the source of answers is helpful and recommended practice as well. Best wishes. :)

The answer can be improved by adding the source you mentioned and addressing the question that was asked. It also makes a broad, contentious assertion without offering supporting evidence.

Your statement, that only in the west can... is clearly biased and far from true. There are people who do whatever is unwholesome in the guise of religion, wherever there is religion.

Sorry, the statement is not mine, it is from a book written by a monk, I was only trying to help and I apologize if anyone felt offended by that.

Buddhism
Is a very successful enterprise direct sales
MLM : business owners to provide consumers with detailed product is the direct object
And sales. These enterprises will be in a variety of media to contact directly with consumers, the traditional trip
River's marketing model, not through middlemen so that consumers can purchase directly from the original enterprise or become
Member.
Original founders, just wanted to share the joy of insight, no one thought beings root and qualification is not the same, so it extends eighty-four thousand Dharma.
Do not put the Buddha as a philosophy or religion, True Buddha in your heart, how to play in the idea, the idea off comprehend the true meaning, that is the eternal pure land, hearts can often be, wisdom will grow, perhaps in the process. Many obstacles and difficulties against you, but that is the best way to reverse the cycle.