text:
Distinction between Dharmaguptaka and Mahayana
what's the distinction between Dharmaguptaka and Mahayana? I know that the former is an ordination lineage with specific vinaya as distinct from Theravada ordination, but I don't understand where Mahayana may encompass Dharmaguptaka, or where Dharmaguptaka may encompass Mahayana, or neither.
I would be interested in a Venn-diagram type of answer, and similarly for the same question asked of Mulasarvastivada and Vajrayana.
In the same way, is Theravada both an ordination lineage and a sect?
Is the question valid?

The Dharmaguptaka school was one of the old 18 to 20 early schools of Buddhism that arose before the arrival of Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism is really just a blanket term we use to refer to groups that started following various new sutras that were written after this period which have an emphasis on Bodhisattva practice and various other new doctrines.
When this Mahayana movement started out, it wasn't yet a defined school and didn't have any organization, and its followers were just members of the other early sects who chose to follow these texts. For example, it was common for a period of time for a Saravastivadin monastery to have Mahayana and non-Mahayana monks living and practicing together. Because they followed the same Vinaya, it didn't really matter. Eventually in India however, Mahayana Buddhism developed into distinct schools such as Madhyamika, Yogacara, etc... and all that remained of most of these schools were their canonical texts (which were still upheld as canonical by the Mahayana schools) and their ordination lineages.
In brief, for a time, some Dharmaguptakas were Mahayana, and some Mahayana were Dharmaguptaka. Some Sarvastivada were Mahayana, and some Mahayana were Sarvastivada, and the same pattern repeats for almost all of the sects. Eventually though, the only non-Mahayana school to live on as a body of teachings rather than just an ordination lineage and a textual transmission was the Theravada school, and all the non-Theravada lineages were simply absorbed into Mahayana Buddhism.


text:
What kind of mistakes can a new meditator in his/her early 20's avoid?
I am currently in my late twenties and I began meditation in my early twenties. I often think that the path that I am on being correct as it is and it has provided it's justification through practice- I am unsure what I will think of me in my thirties or forties I am pretty certain I am making some mistakes that I am not aware now and will be with the passage of time.
This question stems from the fact that I personally know how my meditation journey began as a yuppie and how I thought more an did less. Also following books and authors without knowing that it's not really my own wisdom but someone else's. Trying to be someone else unconsciously without thinking what I want from my life. Intellectual discussions and tryin to prove a point without having metta for the other person. Learning to accept family as they are without doubting or questioning their motives (still beats me). The list goes on.
Well I am sure there are many more experienced and mature meditators who can probably provide a glimpse on their twenties. All this only for a healthy comparison as I don't have any friends my age who take meditation seriously.
Metta

Choose the middle between all extreme contrasts.
If you are going too fast, go slower.
In your meditation you might choose a kind of meditation.
Then you would try to keep yourself on doing only that one thing you have choosen.
You would be disturbed by thoughts or feelings and might not keep yourself on one point.
This is OK. This is meditation: if you come back from things which disturb you, back to point you have choosen. - Many people might think they do not meditate if they can not keep themself on one point - that is wrong.
I think you allready know you need patience, but also there might be a time where a change can help.

When you meditate you get either positive, negative or neutral experiences. Early on in can be very negative and bizarre experiences to a novice meditator. Whatever the case the main and most grave mistake any meditator can make is to loose awareness and equanimity in facing the experiences.
If you maintain awareness and equanimity in facing all experiences then nothing can go wrong in your meditation.
Initially you get mainly painful sensations, then it becomes mostly blissful sensations and then it starts turning to neutral sensations. In the latter case sometimes it might be difficult to keep your Equanimity. In which case you have to try to balance this with Concentration as this it one of the Hindrances (Restlessness) which has come about. The factors to balance the Hindrances are the 5 Powers.

Dear suminda, I have trouble getting out of a fuzzy subtle-ish sensation all over my back and tend to relish it longer than necessary. It's sometimes easy to be aware of a painful sensation but the subtle ones are very difficult to be aware far from being equanimous. And I also think I'm quite hard on myself outside of meditation hours when I get upset or annoyed with someone and it's hard to maintain a calm mind. I know it's not good but it happens sometimes.

You are doing as you should. However,  you must avoid negative acts (whatever they may be), at all costs,  to all living things.
Make peace with your enemies and allow karma to take it's course. Practice, meditate, and always remain positive. The universe will unfold in your favor as it should.
And you shall know when you have achieved enlightenment. But not without great sacrifice and faith...

Welcome to Buddhism S.E.! Could you emphasize the mistakes that a new meditator in his/her early 20's should avoid? I suppose "negative acts" is a mistake, could you elaborate on that? Perhaps you implied sustaining hostility (as opposed to making peace with enemies) and falling into negative moods (as opposed to always remaining positive) as examples of mistakes? I suggest you explain why these are relevant.

It does not look like you understood what I said friend. I'm asking you to edit your answer to explicitly address the question, otherwise I will delete it.

I would say that a good thing is to read up on the basic method of whatever meditation practice one wants to learn and practice. By doing this one is making sure that one is really practicising e.g. Samatha Meditation and not Vipassana Meditation.
One could find a teacher in real life or tune into the enormous amount of meditation videos that are available on the internet. One could preferable find a small number of teachers/monks that teach the meditation method one wish to practice.
One could also sign up for a retreat and learn about the meditation-technique in this way. In retreats such as the Goenka 10-day retreat there are also teachers that one can have interviews with if one needs help or assesment of one's practice.
Next there is the practice. Experience is ones friend. Errors will be made. Thats just how it is since its a learning experience and one will become better and better with time. Especially Samatha Meditation is an ability/skill that will improve over time with consistent practice.
I already mentioned it -> Consistency in practice is a key point in ones practice - especially in the beginning where the terratory is new. One does not have to meditate for hours everyday even 5-10 minutes is enough if done consistently. Then one can gradually extend ones sitting time and more importantly begin to carry the meditation over into daily life, i.e. mindfulness in daily activities such as walking, brushing teeth, taking shower etc.
Lastly i want to mention The Five Hindrances which are obstacles to meditative progress. One can read more about the hindrances here and how to overcome them. It helps a lot to know what obstacles one will be dealing with in meditation, especially in Samatha Meditation where concentration is the key point one is developing. When one knows how to deal with e.g. sensual desires, ill-will or worries then one will be much better equipped to practice. Its similar to a soldier receiving combat training before going to war.

to add onto Lanka's point of the five hindrances, here is a good audio talk on them by Bhikku Bodhi that someone else posted on here the other day - http://www.dhammaweb.net/dhammadb/view.php?id=2394   http://www.dhammaweb.net/dhammadb/view.php?id=2395

source: Stack Exchange

license: 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/

sort: votes


text:
Are non-Theravada monks allowed to eat after noon, and to use money?
What's the history behind this? I am assuming non-Theravada monks eat after noon, and use money. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I'm not wrong, why do the sects differ in this manner?

There are Theravada monks that eat after noon and use money.

There are, but it's against the rules.

They differ for any number of reasons.  For one, there are at least five different 'official' versions of the vinaya - each of which is prominent in different countries.  The rules in each vary slightly - some have more rules, some have less, some place greater emphasis on different things, etc.  A lot of it also has to do with tradition and the culture where Buddhism is practiced.  If there is one thing you say about Buddhism it's that it very much malleable to local custom.
A very good example of this is Japan.  Some monks there will accept money such as for funeral services.  Many will eat after noon, despite the injunction not to - it's just called "medicine" instead of a meal!  My own teacher's teacher really loved his sake despite that being a fairly clear violation of the fifth precept.  Some Japanese monks, believe or not, even get married.
I think it's helpful not to view Buddhism as a monolithic entity.  It really is as complex as the people practicing it.

That is a very good example indeed, although they may dress up like monks, have their heads shaven, and call themselves "monks", they are not, by far, a true Buddhist monk.

I'm not sure I'd call the sangha monolithic either.  ;-)

@Dhammarakkhita: What is a "true" Buddhist monk? What more is there to distinguish monasticism from laicism than whether you prioritize spiritual and worldly matters? Being a monk is most certainly not about appearances. Those are ultimately worldly.

Monks in Japan aren't ordained under the Vinaya like they are in most of the rest of the Buddhist world, but under a separate system of vows based on the Mahayana Brahmajala Sutra, and they don't have any rules about money or eating in the afternoon so I think it is rather unfair to criticize them for that.

Bhikkshu Pratimoksha
As far as I know (and I verified this with a Chinese Malaysian monk), the pratimoksha is what non-Theravada monks follow.  It is more or less the same but has 250 rules over the Theravada 227.  The extra rules however, can be found more or less in the Theravada Culavagga or Mahavagga.  (Generally known, but I did not verify)
The rule on money is very basic and part of the 10 precepts.  The same with eating after 12 Noon.  The rule however mentions "gold or silver" as the wording and is defined in the vibhanga as anything dealing with money or trade.  I remember once hearing that Mahayana follows a different interpretation of their rules.  This may be where it might be "allowable."
A long time ago, in Myanmar, I once traveled with a "vinaya" Mahayana monk from Malaysia.  He did not use money.  They had two monks in his monastery including himself.  It was the only one in Malaysia as far as I could remember (I think I asked him).  When we stopped the car to urinate in the forest, he did his business while standing up, which is against the rules.  We must squat.  I remember asking him about this, and that was where I was told that they follow a different commentary.  This commentary seemed to render many of the 250 rules as obsolete.  However, this monk did not use money, so I presume that rule was left intact.
I welcome a Mahayana monks to edit this post.

One has to distinguish between monks/nuns that follow a Vinaya and those that do not follow. You may have monks that use such title but cannot be regarded as true monks because they have not been ordained in accordance with, and follow the Vinaya rules.
In the pali suttas the Buddha says that he teaches the Dhamma and Vinaya, i.e. the Doctrine and Discipline. So, it is fair to say that a monk or nun who does not follow the Vinaya rules cannot be regarded as a true Buddhist monk or nun.
A monk/nun which follows the Vinaya is not allowed to eat after midday and to handle money. There are some food items allowed after midday but those are specified in the rules.

The question is about non-Theravada monks, so whatever is in the Pali suttas doesn't seem to be relevant.

OK, sorry. The same can be found in the sutras of the Chinese Agamas. Both collections - Suttas in Pali and Agamas in Chinese are widely considered as containing the earliest teachings of the Buddha. So, based on the teachings of the Agamas any non-Theravada monk/nun who does not follow the Vinaya rules cannot be regarded as a true Buddhist monk/nun. Besides the Pali Vinaya there is the Mula-sarvastivada Vinaya and the Dharamaguptaka Vinaya. All Vinayas agree about the restriction to eat food after midday and to handle money.

Certain Mahayana has a rule that forbids laypersons to study Vinaya, which in my opinion, an obstacle for laypersons to recognize true monks and nuns.

Many Chinese Buddhists mistakenly think that Mahayana Buddhism teaches the practice of vegetarianism, and confuse ‘Chi Su’ (vegetarianism) with ‘Chi Zhai’ (not eating after noon until the next dawn). In the early Suttas, ‘Chi Su’ is said to be the unbeneficial ascetic practice of external sects. ‘Chi Su’ is practiced by Han Chuan (Chinese Buddhism), not Bei Chuan (Mahayana Buddhism), since Tibetan and Japanese Buddhists are not vegetarians. Chinese emperor Liang Wu Di commanded Buddhist monks and nuns to eat vegetarian food. The word ‘Zhai’ means not eating at certain hours, i.e. fasting. Thus the Muslim fasting month of Puasa is called ‘Kai Zhai’. The Buddha taught his disciples to ‘Chi Zhai’, i.e. not to eat (with exception of medical allowances) from noon until the next dawn (1 p.m. till 7 a.m. in Malaysia). In Han Chuan this ‘Chi Zhai’ became synonymous with ‘Chi Su’.

The question was, "are non-Theravada monks allowed to eat after noon?" (the question wasn't asking about vegetarianism).

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


text:
How do I become a Buddha, the stages of the path?
I'm interested to see the process broken down into steps preferably using Theravada theory, all in the context of a summarized "how to".
This would range from trying meditation, through all the stages of insight, enlightenment, into and through any other stages, and into Buddhahood, assumably hundreds or more lifetimes from now. What are the stages?

I think you are asking for a summary of the Visuddhimagga by Buddhaghosa. It is a step by step manual for going from here to enlightenment. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visuddhimagga

For my answer, see my answer to 'Is aversion toward unwholesome deeds normal?'

You are looking for "The Stages of Insight" leading to Awakening (and fractally repeating itself until Complete Enlightenment). The various classes of immortals would also be interesting for you to read, found in the Surangama Sutra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamrim might be of interest

The Buddhist path is the Noble 8 Fold Path which is divided into

Morality
Mastery over the mind
Wisdom

(Three fold training.)
You should start by leading a moral life, develop mastery over out mind without being a slave to it, then practice Vipassana gain Wisdom. This intern helps you strengthen you morality and so on and so forth.
In addition you have to practice the Perfections to become Enlightened.
Practicing the Perfections and walk on the Noble 8 Fold Path you will slowly but surely progress towards enlightenment. If you want to be a Buddha the Perfections you have to full fill are greater. Also in practicing Wisdom you have to stop before you reach the 1st stage of sainthood.
In addition you have to be ware of the Dependent Origination, Three Marks of Existence, 4 Noble Truths, Factors of Awakening, in order to make you pratice of developing wisdom fruitful and well directed.
The following book might be also useful as further reading:

A Manual of the Excellent Man
Requisites for Enlightenment also book by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on the Subject: Wings to Awakening

Instead of taking second hand opinions I suggest you got directly to the source, to the instructions given by the Buddha himself. The Dantabhumi Sutta is a discourse with a great narrative and fully outlines the training taught by the Buddha to reach enlightenment. Here it is:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.125.horn.html

Thanks!  and in october i'll be doing just that... going to stay at a monastery for an open ended length of time. I'll also keep the sutta you mentioned handy, thanks again.

You don't follow someone else's instructions to become a Buddha. That even goes against the definition. :) Buddhavamsa contains a nice description about Paramitas. You can cultivate the mind according to that, but there's no guarantee that you will reach the goal until your aspiration is verified by another Buddha. Maithriya Buddha is the last Buddha to appear before the world ends. Then many eons will pass by where there will only be Pacceka Buddhas. So you would have to wait for an indefinite long period, if you want to become a Buddha.

You become a buddha eventually by being yourself, your joyful self. A self that does not tilt between joy and sorrow and that is even. That looks on events passing by, as a bystander stands on the river bank impassively looking at the flow of the river but not flowing with the river. Practice, practice and practice till you become the enlightened one even when being in Samsara.

While enjoying ever increasing space between thoughts,  experience an unspeakable truth that pervades all that exists. The undivided dimension of reality.
  Practice a good nights sleep.
  Show up.

Welcome to Buddhism SE! Can you elaborate on this, so it better answers the OP's question?

Buddhahood can be viewed as what is left when you purify/rip the veils covering the mind since time immemorial. The term path doesn't mean that a distance is there to be crossed, but describes a purification process. "The first obscures the aspect of the purity of the dharmakaya.
The second obscures the aspect of its being true self. The third obscures the aspect of its being true happiness, and the fourth obscures the aspect that the dharmakaya is of true permanence. The cause that purifies these veils consists of the four qualities of the path, which are outstanding devotion towards the sacred Dharma and so on, that is, the perfection of discriminative wisdom, immeasurable samadhi, and great compassion."
From The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra by Arya Maitreya/Jamgon Kongtrül Lodrö Thayé/Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche
The term Dharma, how I understand it, means "what truly is, inside you and outside you"


text:
What is Nirodha?
I came across the concept of Nirodha in the book The Meditative Mind by Daniel Goleman. I think it's originally from the Visuddhimagga. In the book it seems to be placed above Nirvana in the path of insight. I have never heard of this term anywhere else or ever heard of anything being above Nirvana. Does anyone have any details about what this is and why it would be placed above Nirvana.

Related topic: What is the different between Nirodha Samapatti and Phala Samapatti?

Nirodha is usually translated as "cessation", for example (but not necessarily) "cessation of suffering", the third noble truth. So while its dictionary meaning is just cessation (of anything)  in a more general sense, Nirodha is often used as a synonym of Nirvana.
Digging deeper, Nirodha doesn't mean passive cessation (as in something ceasing by itself), but rather preventing something, making it impossible. For example, stopping a criminal from commuting new crimes by isolating him from society. In modern Hindu, a language descended from Sanskrit + local vernaculars, nirodha is a word for condom. From this we can understand, that cessation of suffering is not an automatic result of the Realization, but a skill one can master.
Digging even deeper, to the question if there is anything above Nirvana, Mahayana gives a clear answer that Nirvana is really just the other side of Samsara. Somewhere before enlightenment one is supposed to realize that "bodhi and nirvana are hitching posts for donkeys" (to quote Linji, the founder of Rinzai school). In this sense, Nirodha can be seen as true liberation from any form, beyond all duality, including liberation from the very concept of liberation.

Nirodha is a term that is normally translated as 'cessation' or 'stopping'. It's what happens to suffering in the 3rd noble truth, dukkhanirodha (cessation of suffering) and to all of the other elements of the chain of Dependent Arising.
The context which you refer to is the state of nirodhasamāpatti (attainment of cessation), saññāvedayitanirodha1 (cessation of perception & sensation) or nibbāna2 (quenching or stilling). It is a state where all sensory, corporeal and incorporeal experience ceases. It is the last of the meditative attainments after transcending the four jhānas & the four arupa āyatanas (formless spheres).3

Venerable Prayudh Payutto a distinguished Thai Scholar Monk explains that another way of interpreting nirodha is that the phenomena does not arise because it's cause has been eliminated. In that sense nirodha would not entail the cessation or suppression of something that has already arisen but instead there is no arising at all. Like for example in 3rd noble truth - dukkhanirodha - which means that suffering does not arise because the cause for it's arising has been eliminated.

Yes, that's what I meant by "suppressing" or "controlling" -- not letting it happen. One of the definitions of suppress is to "prevent the development, action, or expression of (a feeling, impulse, idea, etc.); restrain." Thanks for clarification.

"Not letting it happen" implies there is volition and the meaning of nirodha as quoted above does not imply volition. Since the cause is not present, volition does not play any role.

Volition plays the role in removing the cause. It doesn't remove itself, you know :)

Sankhara-nirodha viññana-nirodho (sankhara=volitional formations)
......
Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa nirodho hoti

From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness.
......
Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering

SN 12.2 - Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta

Translating Sankharas as "volitional" formations is a recent western invention. Instead, I would translate them as "imprints" or "preconceptions". Anyway, even if they were "volitional" formations, they are not "volition" itself. Cessation of sankharas has nothing to do with cessation of volition. Enlightenment is not becoming a vegetable.

@dhammarak excellent answer

Daniel Goleman was mistaken. An excellent internet review of his book states:

Two notable mistakes are made in this section, one being the consistent misspelling of pañña as puñña (I get a little worried when
  an author misspells key terms), the second being the placement of
  nirodha-samapatti (“cessation of feeling and perception”) as above, or
  superior to, nibbana.  There is no justification for this given the
  evidence of the Pali Suttas, where nirodha-samapatti is described rather as a kind
  of “super jhana” attainable only by anagamis and arhats.  It is not,
  in itself, liberative.

In Buddhism, the key or essential meaning of 'nirodha' is in the same context of the 3rd noble truth & dependent origination. Here, it refers to the 'cessation of suffering' & the cessation of mental defilements that cause suffering (rather than 'cessation' per se).
The etymology of the word can certainly be examined however this may not satify every use of the word in the suttas.
It is best to examine context in the suttas, such as the Upaya Sutta, Iti 44 or MN 38:

Bhikkhus, if a bhikkhu has abandoned lust for the form element, with the abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for
  the establishing of consciousness. If he has abandoned lust for the
  feeling element … for the perception element … for the volitional
  formations element … for the consciousness element, with the
  abandoning of lust the basis is cut off: there is no support for the
  establishing of consciousness.
When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative, it is liberated. By being liberated, it is steady; by
  being steady, it is content; by being content, he is not agitated.
  Being unagitated, he personally attains Nibbāna.
Upaya Sutta

What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbāna-element with residue left.
Iti 44

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with
  mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he
  understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance
  by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
  feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering.
MN 38

The above quotes show, in the context of Dependent Origination, the process of 'nirodha' is always about the extinguishing or cessation of the fires of the mental defilements (rather than the cessation or destruction of the aggregates, such as consciousness).

I directly knew as it actually is: ‘This is suffering’; I directly knew as it actually is: ‘This is the origin of suffering’; I directly
  knew as it actually is: ‘This is the cessation of suffering’; I
  directly knew as it actually is: ‘This is the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering.’ I directly knew as it actually is: ‘These are
  the taints’; I directly knew as it actually is: ‘This is the origin of
  the taints’; I directly knew as it actually is: ‘This is the cessation
  of the taints’; I directly knew as it actually is: ‘This is the way
  leading to the cessation of the taints.’
MN 4

In conclusion, 'nirodha', while sort of synonymous with 'Nibbana', always occurs before Nibbana thus is never above Nibbana.
When the mental defilements (of greed, hatred & ignorance) nirodha/extinguish (like a fire extinguishes), what remains is the peace or coolness of Nibbana & liberation of mind (ceto vimutti).
Thus, nirodha is the process of cessation of mental defilements and Nibbana is what remains.
For example, the term 'nirodha' is always used with the 'arising & ceasing' of defilements. In other words, 'nirodha' is the opposite of 'samudhaya' ('arising'). While the term 'Nibbana' is always used with the utter absence of defilements.

It is the extinction/destruction (khayo) of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbāna-element...
Iti 44

This, bhikkhu, is a designation for the element of Nibbāna: the removal (vinayo) of lust, the removal of hatred, the removal of delusion. The
  destruction of the taints is spoken of in that way.
The destruction (khayo) of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the Deathless.
SN 45.7

I think it's originally from the Visuddhimagga
It's used before that, e.g. in the first sutta, it's in the definition of the third noble truth:

Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkha·nirodhaṃ ariya·saccaṃ: yo tassā·y·eva taṇhāya asesa·virāga·nirodho cāgo paṭinissaggo mutti anālayo.
Furthermore, bhikkhus, this is the dukkha·nirodha ariya·sacca: the complete virāga, nirodha, abandoning, forsaking, emancipation and freedom from that very taṇhā.

The Glossary says

nirodha: cessation. Used in many cases as a synonym of Nibānna.

On pages 38-39 (pages 12-13 of the PDF) of Piya Tan's introduction to this sutta, he writes,

The terms samudaya and nirodha are commonly
  tr respectively as “origin” and “ending, cessation.” However, from the teachings of this Sutta, which underlies
  the Buddha’s Teaching as a whole, they are better rendered as “arising” and “non-arising.” Payutto
  makes an important note:

Generally speaking, the word ‘cease’ [or ‘end’] means to do away with something which has
    already arisen, or the stopping of something which has already begun. However, nirodha in the
    teaching of Dependent Origination (as also in dukkhanirodha, the third of the noble truths) means
    non-arising, or non-existence, of something because the cause of its arising is done away with.
    For example, the phrase ‘when avijjā is nirodha, sakhārā are also nirodha,’ which is usually
    taken to mean, “with the cessation of ignorance, volitional impulse ceases,” in fact means that
    ‘when there is no ignorance, or no arising of ignorance, or when there is no longer any problem
    with ignorance, there is no volitional impulses, volitional impulses do not arise, or there is no
    longer any problem from volitional impulses.’ It does not mean that ignorance already arisen
    must be done away with before the volitional impulses which have already arisen will also be
    done away.
etc.

I tried to understand what it might mean etymologically; all I can offer on that is this discussion, perhaps especially this answer.
However Payutto (quoted by Piya Tan above) goes on to say,

Where nirodha should be rendered as cessation is when it is used in reference to the natural
  way of things, or the nature of compounded things. In this sense it is a synonym for the words
  bhaga (breaking up), anicca (transient), khaya (cessation) or vaya (decay). For example, in the
  Pali it is given: imaṁ kho bhikkhave tisso vedanā anicccā sakhatā paiccasamuppannā khayadhammā
  vayadhammā virāgadhammā nirodhadhammā—“Bhikshus, these three kinds of feelings
  are naturally impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen, transient, subject to decay, dissolution,
  fading and cessation” [S 4:214]. (All factors occurring in the Dependent Origination cycle
  have the same nature.) In this instance, the meaning is “all conditioned things (sakhāra), having
  arisen, must inevitably decay and fade according to supporting factors.” There is no need [here]
  to try to stop them, they cease of themselves.
As for nirodha in the third noble truth (or the Dependent Origination cycle in cessation
  mode), although it also describes a natural process, its emphasis is on practical considerations. It
  is translated in two ways in the Visuddhimagga [Vism 16.18/495]. One way traces the etymology
  to ni (without) + rodha (prison, confine[s], obstacle, wall, impediment), thus rendering the meaning
  as “without impediment,” “free from confinement.” This is explained as “free of impediments,
  that is, the confinement of saṁsāra.” Another definition traces the origin to anuppāda,
  meaning “not arising,” [and goes on to say “nirodha here does not mean bhaga, breaking up
  and dissolution.”]72

In summary it's understood to mean "cessation" ... and/or "non-arising", when the cause of arising ceases or doesn't arise or fades away or is abandoned etc. ... and/or Payutto (or the etymology)introduces a third possible meaning, i.e. "without obstacle", "liberation".
Given the etymology I find it difficult to see how it might mean "cessation" at all, rather than freedom; but the English translation of the Visuddhimagga explains that pretty well, saying,

The word ni denotes absence, and the word rodha a prison. Now, the third truth is void of all destinies (by rebirth) and so there is no constraint (rodha) of suffering here reckoned as the prison of the rounds of rebirth; or when cessation has been arrived at then there is no more constraint of suffering reckoned as the prison of the rounds of rebirth. And being the opposite of that prison, it is called dukkha-nirodha (cessation of suffering). Or alternatively it is called "cessation of suffering" because it is a condition for the cessation of suffering consisting in non-arising.

Nirodha is the cessation of feeling and perceptions.
The first Nirodha people will experience is when they first realized the way, in a split second everything stops and they will see the links of dependent origination. This will happen again every Magga and Phala.
Once they realized and saw the way, they'll be able to get into Nirodha through Nirodha Samāpatti.
Meditation through SamathaVipassana will help you get into that.
Jhana 1 - 4 all the way to base of neither perception nor non perception.
Then cut all of the Tanhas, until you feel Disenchanted and Dispassionate with the task and keep on cutting the Tanhas on the background until everything Ceased[Nirodha].
Only the Anagami that is able to get into NirodhaSamapatti anytime they want.
Hopefully this helps.

This post mostly wrong & does not help. "Nirodha" is just a word, used in different ways. "Dukkha nirodha" of the 3rd noble truth is something different to the "cessation of perception & feeling" (nirodha sampatti). Also, your ideas about "in a split second everything stops and they will see the links of dependent origination" is more kookiness often posted by Vimalaramsi disciples. The suttas state the Buddha contemplated dependent origination for four hours during the 1st watch of the night, dependent cessation for 4 hours on the 2nd watch of the night, then both ways for the next fours.

Thank you for your comment friend. I'm very sorry if my post does not help at all, i tried my best to explain it with everything i know. Through practice and experience i accumulated this knowledge. If this knowledge of mine sounds wrong to you, then please forgive me.

Well said, @LomX . It corresponds with my experience.

Extract from -
The Teaching of No Person: Only Dhātus
by Ajahn Buddhadāsa
Interpreted into English by Santikaro Bhikkhu
A Dhamma talk given at Suan Mokkh on 4 August 1991

So we can say that there is this body or form which is a dhātu (sankhara) – rūpa-dhātu (the form element). The mind then, is just another dhātu, the dhātu which experiences, feels, and thinks. This we can call the citta-dhātu (the mind element). Then there are the things which the mind thinks, feels, experiences – all these things connected with and associated with the mind are called the cetasika-dhātu. So in this life there are these three dhātus – the form dhātu, the mind dhātu, and the mental factors dhātu. This way of speaking has not been done before, we haven't come across others saying this, but to say that life is made up of these three dhātus is totally in line with nature and so we are free to say it. It is completely true that life is made of these three dhātus.
There is one more very special dhātu called the asaṅkhata-dhātu or the nibbāna-dhātu. This is the dhātu which is the quenching point when all other dhātus cease. All the saṅkhata-dhātus just mentioned are quenched in the nibbāna-dhātu. This kind of dhātu is much different than the ordinary dhātus because it's here where all other elements are quenched or extinguished.
When one dhātu gives way to another dhātu, there's one dhātu and then there's another dhātu, for this to happen depends on the element of cessation, for there's one dhātu which must cease for the next dhātu to appear. This dhātu which is the cessation of the ordinary dhātus is called nirodha-dhātu (the element of cessation). This isn't the same as the nibbāna-dhātu where the saṅkhata-dhātus are quenched thoroughly, but rather this is a temporary quenching or cessation, and so we call it nirodha-dhātu. So all the saṅkhatadhātus – mental, physical, and what have you – are quenched or ceased in this nirodha-dhātu. It's only because of this cessation element, that there is any possibility for change or evolution. If there wasn't this cessation element nothing could change, but this dhātu must cease for another dhātu to arise. The transformation from this dhātu into that dhātu only happens because of the nirodha-dhātu (the element of cessation). So all the saṅkhata-dhātus, or all changes, all worldly life depends on not only the saṅkhata-dhātus but this asaṅkhata-dhātu (the element of cessation).

To add to both @Unrul3r @Andrei Volkov's answers.
You can break the links of Dependent Origination when you understand it at the experiential level. When enter the Attainment of Cessation you see the links in one direction (contact has ceased followed by ... ) and when coming out the other direction (contact has started followed by ... ). Depending on the clarity you achieve you enter one of the stages of sainthood.
Understanding of Path Leading Out of Misery and Path of Misery starts at with contact followed by sensation at the experiential level. This becomes clear and the understanding becomes 1st hand when you enter the Attainment of Cessation.

Exactly right! I guess it makes only sense after the experience of nirodha.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/nirodha

Theravada (major branch of Buddhism)
Cessation; disbanding; stopping. (Source): Access to Insight: A
  Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms (Cessation) nirodha is the
  cessation of all aggregates and consciousness as a whole - even at a
  subtle level. In order to be experienced, it does require some
  specific determinations and the development of considerably more
  concentration than the one required for experiencing nibbana.
(Source): Dhamma Dana: Pali English Glossary s. Nirodha
  (“extinction”); - of craving: tanhakkhaya.
(Source): Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines
  'extinction'; s. nirodha-samāpatti, anupubba-nirodha.
(Source): Pali Kanon: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines context
  information

The word "nirodha" is used in similar contexts to the word "atthaṅgamañca". The words "origin" ("samudaya") and "passing away" {"atthaṅgama") appear defined in SN 22.5, as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of form? What is the origin of
feeling? What is the origin of perception? What is the origin of
volitional formations? What is the origin of consciousness? Here,
bhikkhus, one seeks delight, one welcomes, one remains holding. And
what is it that one seeks delight in, what does one welcome, to what
does one remain holding? One seeks delight in form, welcomes it, and
remains holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight arises.
Delight in form is clinging. With one’s clinging as condition,
existence comes to be; with existence as condition, birth; with birth
as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure,
and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
suffering.
And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of form? What is the passing
away of feeling? What is the passing away of perception? What is the
passing away of volitional formations? What is the passing away of
consciousness? Here, bhikkhus, one does not seek delight, one does not
welcome, one does not remain holding. And what is it that one does not
seek delight in? What doesn’t one welcome? To what doesn’t one remain
holding? One does not seek delight in form, does not welcome it, does
not remain holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight in form
ceases. With the cessation of delight comes cessation of clinging;
with cessation of clinging, cessation of existence…. Such is the
cessation of this whole mass of suffering.


text:
Historically, where do the concepts of Karma, Nirvana, Dharma and Samsara come from?
From a historical perspective where do the concepts of Karma, Nirvana, Dharma and Samsara come from? I'm aware that they predated Buddhism but do they come from the Vedas, Shramanic tradition or somewhere else? I appreciate that Nirvana might have started with Buddhism (maybe?) but this would be based on the concept of Moksha which definitely did predate Buddhism.
If possible could people please refer to sources or reasonable authoritative sites with the answers.

I described the origin of the concept of Karma in my answer in Hinduism.SE: http://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/2492/36

These concepts all (with the exception of Dharma, which is sort of a Pan-Indian concept that's in all Indian religions) derive from the Shramanical tradition, which is a general term referring to those who became Śramaṇa (Samaṇa in Pali) which simply means an ascetic.
These ascetics formed a parallel system of religious thought of both the Veidic religion and the local folk religion focused on worshiping local Devas, Nagas, and Yakshas. The Shramanic tradition had a great deal of internal diversity, but the common denominator for most of these groups was a belief in repeated rebirth, Karma, an enlightened state in which one is free from this repeated rebirth, etc...
The Shramanical tradition even seems to have a sort of common vocabulary. If you compare the religious terminology of Buddhism and Jainism for example, you can see that often one religion uses as a standard term something that the other religion also uses in its terminology, although non-standard. For example, the Buddhist term for someone who has become freed from defilement and rebirth is the term Arahant, and Jainism occasionally uses the Ardhamagadhi equivalent term Arihant. In Jainism, the standard term for the same thing is Jina, which means "one who has achieved victory" which in Buddhism is a title of the Buddha.
Some terms are totally identical. Samsara, Karma, and Nirvana are common to both Buddhism and Jainism and are absent in the Brahmanical literature (e.g. the early Upanishads) from the same period, so logically, the commonality has to stem from their common non-Vedic source, which is their shared ascetic tradition.
We can see then that when the Buddha uses these terms he is adopting an idea that already existed and we can also see that he often gives them a radically new interpretation. In Jainism for example, Karma is imagined to be almost like an invisible sticky substance that sticks to your soul (called Jiva in ardhamagadhi) and causes suffering, and so the goal of Jain practice is to purge all karma through ascetic spiritual practice after which one's soul would ascend to a formless perfect heaven inhabited by disembodied souls. In contrast to this the Buddha defined the cause of suffering to be craving, and ultimately ignorance of reality, and emphatically insisted quite often:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html#part-5
If you want some contempraneous sources on what some of the other Shramanical schools thought, the Samanaphala Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html) has a listing of six such schools and their teachings. Note that Mahavira, the leader of the Jains, is given the name Nigantha Nataputta. Also, some of those groups believed some pretty far out things that aren't nessisarily representative of what all Shramanas thought, and in all likelihood the most outlandish aspects of their doctrines are stated in the most unappealing way possible so I wouldn't take it as an overly accurate depiction of some of the groups. You do clearly the common elements with some of them though, even in the more outlandish ones in that they were at least considering questions about rebirth and karma.


text:
Loneliness: Rhinoceros-Horn Sutta from a Lay person's perspective
How can a lay person benefit from this beautiful sutta? It is about being reclusive as a key for good insight and enlightenment.
Does this sutta apply for short period of loneliness like Retreats? Or should it be taken literally and is only for monks?

"Laying aside all violence, respecting all beings,
   never harming even one of them,
   one should not wish for a son,
   nor neither for any companion.
   One should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn.
  ...
   The considerations which exists for sons and wives is like
   a spreading bamboo entangled, a solid web of bars,
   Like a single young bamboo shoot up free, not caught up with others
   One should wander solitary as a rhinoceros horn."

Khaggavisana Sutta

This was an early ideal-- the idea that regular society was so screwed up that it was better to leave it. Even people who liked the idea, still preferred to hang out together than to be alone.

hmmm interested point of view, I would like to hear other opinions about it, maybe it is more about attachments than how good/bad society is!

According to Chogyam Trungpa, loneliness is the heart of Sila, Buddhist discipline. As such, the spirit of loneliness must permeate one's practice, whether one is ordained or not. Critically important at "hinayana-level", loneliness temporarily steps aside for the Mahayana phase, only to return with Vajrayana, this time to stay.
Loneliness begins with making commitment to the spiritual quest:

The refuge ceremony cuts the line that connects the ship to the anchor; it marks the beginning of an odyssey of loneliness. We are
  suspended in no-man's land in which the only thing to do is to
  relate with the teachings and with ourselves.

In terms of actual practice, loneliness translates to following guidelines:

Not looking for entertainment in any shape or form.
Giving up one's need for companionship, for relationships.
Relying on one's own resources, not waiting for help.
Taking a stance, however suboptimal, without confirming it with an external authority all the time.
Working towards one's goal (Enlightenment), instead of giving the entropy a free hand.
Learning to trust one's fundamental goodness.

A lonely person could still relate with other people. You could be lonely, alone, and living in the midst of society at the same time. Aloneness does not mean you have to be a mountain hermit.

This loneliness -- the feeling that no one is going to descent in a golden chariot to take you to Nirvana, help you, or even acknowledge your existence, and that therefore your Enlightenment is on you and you alone, is solely between you and the universe -- is what eventually develops into wakefulness, or Bodhi.

Its funny how some believe Chogyam Trungpa was enlightened and, conversely, believe the enlightened are unenlightened.

define "enlightened"?

Mr. Konrad,
as Andrei Volkov rightly quote, its actually the heart of Dhamma practice. And like many issues, there are no such as "this is only for Monks", "this Laypeople should not do". More over, a live of rhinoceros is not a required way according to the Vinaya. The mode of life like this, does even reduce the need to stay with certain rules and is most present in the practice of Dhutanga or forest monks.
Its simply a real well meant advice of mode of life and practice. It touches many topics and of course also the matter of "if there is no one equal or better, if there is no good friend: Walk alone", kalyanamitta
Its has been also the mode of the Bodhisatta, in many of his life times.
"Laying aside all violence, respecting all beings,
never harming even one of them" for example, incl. renunciation are the three factors of right resolve/intention, the second path factor. So it comes right after right view.
And if you think of how the Buddha told to identify of what is Dhamma, and what not, you would also find the same aspects (look for the sutta named — Cv.X.5 in this document)
Don't forget, even you live in the midst of everything, you are always alone. So what seeks for engagement?
Maybe also an alternative translation with some introduction Khaggavisana Sutta: A Rhinoceros
Speaking about this topics is straight right speech and touches many of the 10 wholesome topic.
Modesty
Contentment
Seclusion
Non-entanglement
Persistence
Virtue
The hidden intention, like also have been mentioned here, to be back on stage again, as a hero, is a beloved one, but actually the Buddha adviced, if such is the case, it is not righteous to practice the Dhutangas. It has been also indicated, that if the Sangha does no more prefers this mode of live, that this is the end of the Sasana.
Every Stanza of this Sutta is worthy to talk about it and explain it. Some related essays:

With Robes and Bowl: Glimpses of the Thudong Bhikkhu Life
Recognizing the Dhamma: A Study Guide
All of Us: Beset by birth, decay, and death

I think that the sutta referred to simply says that being entangled in others' lives ("son or wife", or any other commitment) will result in having to make hard choices, and eventually: abandon the other person, die, they die, or they leave, which is only more suffering!
But on a daily basis it means spending time with that person or doing things for them which takes time away from your practice. Even just getting interrupted by the other person's activity or questions interrupts one's awareness of life and how we attempt to overcome enthrallment. You can only focus on one thing at a time, so if another person is there, they will usually have priority, else why would you choose to be with them?
So the sutta is simply advice to be aware that your choice to be with someone will affect the course of your life and realization.
I feel that relationships are valid experience and teaching, but they do impose a lot of "overhead". You can decide for yourself, and your answer can change over time. You are free.

Interesting perspective, thank you for sharing :)

Wikipedia makes the following claim, but unreferenced,

The Rhinoceros Sutra (Pali: Khaggavisāṇa-sutta; Sanskrit: Khaḍgaviṣāṇa Gāthā; Gāndhārī: Khargaviṣana-sutra) is a very early Buddhist text advocating the merit of solitary asceticism for pursuing enlightenment as opposed to practicing as a householder or in a community of monastics. The goal of this was to become a pratyekabuddha, who wandered alone through the forest like a rhinoceros.

One modern book intended not for "solitary ascetics" but for laypeople is described in this answer, which says something like,

If you fail to find suitable associates it's better to be "like a solitary rhinoceros"

Note that chapter 23 of the Dhammapada makes this slightly modified claim, i.e.,

If for company you find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, you should, overcoming all impediments, keep his company joyously and mindfully.

If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone.

Better it is to live alone; there is no fellowship with a fool. Live alone and do no evil; be carefree like an elephant in the elephant forest.


text:
When was the Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism marked as separate religions?
Historically Buddhism, Jainism were just the one of the sects of many sects or philosophical schools in ancient times. When was this separation of religions happened and all other vedic and non-vedic sects are clubbed under Hinduism?

Well, Buddhism separated itself out as a separate system of thought with the Buddha himself. Jainism must have been a distinct tradition by that time too because the Buddha interacted with the Jains and they are mentioned in the Suttas where they are called the Niganthas. Their leader at that time was Mahavira, who in the Suttas is called Nigantha Nataputta, but they may have existed for quite some time before that.
It seems that there may have been a lot of different ascetic groups that had a lot of the ideas of the Niganthas without actually being a part of the movement proper, as it seemed that Jain ideas of karma had diffused into the general religious climate of the ascetics. For example, it seems that when the Buddha was practicing self mortification for six years, he was acting under this sort of general theory of karma as the basis of his practice.
There were other movements and systems of thought as well that would eventually become part of Hinduism, but it is important to remember that at that time they were very much separate traditions that didn't see themselves as part of the same religion or spiritual heritage. They were very diverse and didn't join together as Hinduism until at the very earliest 200 A.D. These traditions are essentially became the six Astika schools of Hindu philosophy, but it is very unclear as to whether or not these groups accepted the Vedas at that particular time.
Some of them very likely didn't see themselves as Vedic systems of belief at that time and only subscribed to the Vedas when the schools of philosophy began to see themselves as part of a common heritage. Only the Mimamsa school was explicitly based on the Vedas for example, and some of them, like the Samkhya, Yoga, and Vedanta schools had received a great deal of influence from the various ascetic movements and possibly considered themselves to be part of the ascetic tradition rather than the Vedic tradition.
In addition to these distinctive traditions, you had the general folk religion of the people that was largely unorganized. People would venerate Nagas in caves and the various tree spirits by leaving offerings before them. These devotional customs had nothing to do with the Vedic rituals of the day, but would eventually be incorporated into the devotional practices of Hinduism.
I hope that gives a good overview.


text:
Modern and original versions of Chan and Seon
According to the answer to this question there is a clear distinction between the traditional Zen practised in Japan until 19th century and its modern version invented by Suzuki. Is there such a clear distinction within Korean Seon and Chinese Chan? If not, which version of Zen do they correspond to?

May be @MatthewMartin can provide an answer on this.

I'm counting on that too.

Korean Seon and Chinese Chan both have distinctive styles and practices.
Here is a detailed study of Korean Seon that will be selectively quoted to draw conclusions about differences between the two and zen in Japan.
http://www.acmuller.net/articles/ogahae-oxford.html

"...Thus, the well-ingrained custom of interpreting Korean Seon based
  on the models of Japanese Zen or Chinese Chan has also changed little
  over time, with Korean Seon regularly being seen through the lens of
  caricaturized takes of Tang-Song Chan with its radical non-scriptural
  tendencies and focus on encounter dialog, or a Japanese Sōtō/Rinzai
  model where textual studies are largely limited to the Shōbōgenzō and
  Zen poetry, and where meditative practices consist of either
  shikan-taza ("just sitting") or a graduated series of hundreds of
  kōans—and perhaps some sort of cultural admixture with the martial or
  fine arts. While Chinese Chan and Japanese Zen do have certain
  fundamental features in common with Korean Seon, the Korean tradition
  is in significant ways unlike the "meditation schools" of its two
  neighboring cultures. One of the more interesting distinctive aspects
  of Korean Seon, especially as compared with Japan Zen, is the
  character of its core literature.... And while it is true that we can
  also see in the sermons and private teaching records of many Seon
  masters through the Goryeo and Joseon periods the typical shouting,
  striking, and exhortation toward investigation of the hwadu that one
  would associate with classical Chan, there is at the same time a
  substantial amount of attention paid to scriptural study, recitation,
  and exegesis. Nonetheless, this study and exegesis is of a different
  character than the doctrinal work carried out during the in China and
  Korea during the Tang and Silla periods in that it has a distinct
  "Chan" orientation to it both in literary style and in the choice of
  topic texts."

So the above citations begin to outline the differences between Zen, Chan and Seon.
The question is did these different traditions radically change at a certain point in history like Zen in Japan under Suzuki.

The Diamond Sutra is cited everywhere in the Seon teaching records of
  the Goryeo. Beyond its distinctive thematic orientations, the extent
  of its influence in Korea also has to do with its central role in the
  myth of the creation of the Platform Sutra, the story of which
  provides the source for the very name of the Jogye school.2 The
  Diamond Sutra also has its own special thematic affinity with Chan
  practice, as it is seen throughout the Mahāyāna schools of East Asia
  as the locus classicus of what is arguably the most fundamental
  teaching/practice of Chan: "non-abiding" (K. muju;Ch. wuzhu).

Seon for the most parts goes through fewer changes then either of its "parents." Now Gihwa enters the scene after centuries of decline in Seon in Korea and tends to revitalize and refocus Seon. Here is a little of his biography.
Gihwa (1376-1433)

The lifetime of Gihwa (also known by the monastic name Hamheo
  Deuktong) fell in the midst of one of the most dynamic periods of
  social, political and religious upheaval on the Korean peninsula. The
  Goryeo regime, which had endured for over four centuries, but had
  become corrupt in its latter period, was on the verge of collapse, and
  as the leading Buddhist figure of his generation, many of the episodes
  in Gihwa's career had to do with his dealings with the epochal events
  of this juncture in history.5 Gihwa addressed in his writings a wide
  variety of Buddhist and non-Buddhist religious themes, but one of his
  favorite topics was the renewal of Jinul's argument for the
  essence-function connection of Seon and Gyo, which he addresses
  primarily within the context of the Oga hae. Besides this commentary
  on the Diamond Sutra, Gihwa also wrote the major Korean commentary to
  the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment,6 a commentary on Xuanjue's Yongjia
  ji7 and an essay on the intrinsic unity of the "three teachings" of
  Buddhism, Confucianism and Daoism that is considered to be a landmark
  work in Korean intellectual history, entitled Hyeonjeong
  non(Manifesting the Correct). He also wrote a separate essay on the
  theme of the Diamond Sutra, entitled Geumgang banyabaramilgyeong yun
  gwan ("The Penetrating Thread of the Diamond Sutra"), as well as a
  number of shorter essays and versified works on various doctrinal and
  meditation-related topics.

So Gihwa did revive some of the traditional methods and warned about the dangers of extremists within Seon

Gihwa should be seen as the major reviver of Jinul's argument against
  exclusivist positions taken by certain members of the meditative,
  mind-to-mind transmission oriented "Seon" school as opposed to the
  text-oriented, doctrinal stance of Gyo. While Gihwa was a Seon monk
  with a strong meditation-oriented perspective to religious
  cultivation, at the same time he also felt that the denigration of Gyo
  study methods by Seon extremists was unnecessary, and even harmful. We
  can see Gihwa's interest in the re-valorization of scriptural study
  both in direct prose addressing the issue, as well as in the mere fact
  of his extensive exegetical work.

So there may be others who revitalized Seon, but in many ways the traditional practices and texts of Seon remained unchanged over a long time. Of all 3 Seon, Zen and Chan, the Korean practice seems the most like a mono culture with a tendency to remaining close to traditions.
Cited from: The Oga hae seorui (Commentaries of Five Masters on the Diamond Sutra) http://www.acmuller.net/articles/ogahae-oxford.html#ixzz3CuhRVrTv

I don't really understand much about this school but upvoted for the effort.

I felt a great joy coming over me. This really is an adventure we are on. Thank you for acknowledging those stumbling steps.


text:
The Buddha-nature of a dog
I keep seeing the following koan:

A monk asked Zhàozhōu, "Does a dog have Buddha nature or not?" Zhaozhou said, "Wú".

What does this mean and why is it important?
More specifically: Does "Wú" mean "no" in this context, or does it mean "the question doesn't make sense and therefore cannot be answered"? I've seen both interpretations, which one is correct?

It is supposed to be spelled, Woof!

We should really have a rule on here not to provide koan answers!  It's so important that you figure them out for yourself!  Written out, the answers become hollow and never approach their true 'meaning'.  That said (and no spoilers follow!)...
Mu does mean no, but it also can translate as blankness, voidness, or absence.  That should ring a bell regarding the concept of emptiness or shunyata.  The koan really doesn't have anything to do with dogs or whether or not they have a Buddha nature.  It has more to do with this idea of emptiness - what it is and the initial experience of it.  The monk in this koan is all caught up in scholasticism and conceptualism.  He's using his small mind to try and understand a concept that it's just not capable of of apprehending.  Zhaozhou's answer is an attempt to shake that monk out of his smaller way of thinking and point him instead to mu - the true essence of Zen.

PS - mu is Japanese.  Same word, though.

Does it mean that a dialogue involving any random question, e.g. "What time is it?" "Wú" would be just as good a koan?

Not providing koan answers seems like one for meta so I've asked the question there http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/271/157

@michau - Possibly, but that's actually a whole other topic - namely how the hua-t'ou (repeated phrase) operates in Zen meditation.  While the important part of the koan is the hua-t'ou mu/wu, I doubt that another random yes/no question would have the impact as the original or garnered the same reputation.

@enenalan If it is "wú" that is the important part, how come this koan exists in two versions, with the other one containing "yes" as an answer to the same question?

@michau - there's a reason why we talk more about the negative version rather than the positive version!  I think the koans are getting at two slightly different ideas.  The positive version kind of gets me thinking of the Heart Sutra, but that just speculation on my part.  Also, when I say 'important part', I mean wu serves as the hua-t'ou if you are going to meditate on the koan.

People often report this koan with out explaining the surface meaning. Chinese at the time considered dogs nasty dirty animals, that hold the same position as pigs in the western mind. Pigs or cockroaches or those parasites that burrow into your eyes. So the surface question is can the most contemptible being become enlightened.
The surface meaning of the most common answer, Mu is Buddhist jargon, meaning emptiness, sunyata. In the Mahayana system, you are enlightened when you realize the truth of sunyata, i.e. that you have no self (no atman), everything changes over time and various other things that I don't have space for here.
In my opinion, koan practice is a practice. You think about a question and always are told that your answer is wrong. During this process, many people report flashes of insight where they subjectively feel that they have grasped the answer, i.e. satori or sudden enlightenment. Reasoning takes time, so sudden enlightenment can't be done in step by step reasoning.
In China, there was a huge multiyear (multi decade?) discussion on if enlightenment was a matter of following steps or if it was something that happened to you in a flash. In China and Japan, the sudden enlightenment proponents won.
Some modern critics say that especially in Japan with a new funerary and post mortem outlook, have moved onto a form of Zen where sunyata is a sudden realization that you do have an immortal self, which contradicts early Buddhist thought.

sounds like you are describing incubation. Is it correct to say that koans are designed to prolong the experience of sudden insight as long as possible?

I have always found koans to be useful tools for thought. Through study of the dharma, interaction with the sangha and a variety of other means we reach new insights that are much like dull tools. Through their use applied against the situations in various koan we find their true worth. There is no right answer to a grinding wheel.

DON'T THINK ABOUT THEM!!!!  ;-)


text:
Homeless but not a monk
Is it frowned upon in Buddhism to undertake homelessness without ordination? Let us presume that part of this homelessness also includes a focus on meditation, with mind and body able to work for oneself.

No there are many people who do it. It is accepted by Buddhists with respect. This is called Anagarika. There are much respected and famous Anagarika people.

Another famous anagarika

Homelessness is simply freedom from home-boundedness.
Homelessness is too negative a term. Those who wander free of homes do have their concerns, such as deciding in which beautiful place to sleep tonight, but this is minor compared to the distractions of 30-year mortgages, ever-growing utility bills, the complexities of adequate property insurance, too many neighbors, the hope of an adequate retirement many, many years from now...
One path is not better than the other, and haughty frowns of judgement may be thrown in either direction. One thing is certain: Do not choose your path based on who may or may not frown at you!
A time of homelessness (as the home-bound like to call it) has been an essential period in the lives of many great seekers, the Buddha, Lau Tzu and Jesus being only a few obvious examples. The key is to be homeless with awareness, but this is equally true for the home-bound.

Yeah... homelessness is awesome when you compare it like that. I'm just lifting off my career... hope I never get stuck in that bubble. It takes far less money to be able to afford a off-grid mobile home lifestyle. I think it's because of familial/girlfriend/societal pressure or ignorance that men are trapped in that kind of lifestyle..

Yes. It's frowned upon generally in Buddhism to practice on your own if suitable teachers are available. Dogen (the Zen founder) stressed the importance of finding and studying with a teacher, so did Ajahn Chah (a teacher in the Theravadan tradition):

However, if one only has knowledge of books and scriptures, sermons
  and suttas, that is, only knowledge of the map or plans for the
  journey, even in hundreds of lives one will never know purity,
  radiance and peacefulness of mind. Instead one will just waste time
  and never get to the real benefits of practice. Teachers are those who
  only point out the direction of the path. After listening to the
  teachers, whether or not we walk the path by practicing ourselves, and
  thereby reap the fruits of practice, is strictly up to each one of us.

http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Fragments_Teaching1.php
If you just want to do intensive meditation I think you would quickly find homelessness (especially homelessness without the support of a sangha) was more of a hindrance than a help.

...practice on your own if suitable teachers are available. that said, if teachers are unavailable it should?? i found studying Sutras by myself far better than any "teachers" around the corner, practicing meditation much worthwhile than listening to what so-called talks. Maybe the trend is trending differently now, since the day of Buddha, or Dogen...

I don't think trends have anything to do with it. Ajahn Chah is telling you as simply as he can that compared to following a wise teacher you will derive very little benefit from practice on your own. I know this is predominantly an 'intellectual Buddhist' site (my orthodox answer is currently 0 vs. 17 for an unorthodox answer) but I think the orthodox view should at least be represented, if not showered with positive reputation.

The lesser knowing and understandig the teachings of the Buddha and the more people are into "Buddhist" and "Buddhism" they lesser they accept homeless ascetics, even if having taken refuge into the three gems.
The therm Anagarika seems to be a special Sinhalese rendering and is merely unknow in other Buddist countries.
A person still taking money, using money, can not really be called a homeless, recluse or Samana.
For the Sangha, other recluses should be no problem, and either they speak Dhamma or not, would lead them in regard of respect. There are serial rules dealing how Bikkhus have to handle with not ordained beggars.
One thing one should be aware, one does neither have a/the community of monks as support or refuge nor sociaty, so one needs a lot of confiction and resolution to walk such a way.
One should be also aware, that if thinking in ways "I don't like to work, I have no support, what if I wear the Robs of the Bhikkhus and mingle my self under the Bhikkhus, since they are well supported". In such case, out of such an intention, Bhikkhus would not be allowed to ordain someone having cheated being a full ordained Bhikkhu before while not.
Very practical it's of course good to have a community somehow behind, on the other hand such also has its limits of benefit an disadvantages.
Its not easy today and was also not easy in times of the Buddha, incl. the Buddha him self, living as real homelessness without a communal support and big reputation and adverticing behind. So it's really not a "let's see what comes along" life for certain periode of time.
How ever, there are less wise and knowledgeable people, whether members of the Sangha nor housholder, becoming aware of an recluse, who do not highly respect really homeless beggars on a/the path for liberation.


text:
Is it ok for lay meditators to have counsellors/therapists/psychologists
It's pretty evident that meditation itself helps you deal with your problems and inner issues, but is it okay for a lay meditator to pay a psychologist/therapist to talk about his or her feelings.
But then this raises concern if the therapist will see things from Buddhas teachings point of view. Meditation teachers are expert teachers and not necessarily good at listening to stories about what happened in your childhood for example and talking about it. Their answers, even though may be with complete metta, are only in the range of 'just observe' and 'keep trying' which is mostly what you need to do.
I know that but sometimes there just doesn't seem to be a link between sitting on a cushion observing breath or sensations when something is bothering you on a daily or recurring basis.

Both Mediation and Counselling can help. Talking about something can help you lighten your mind. Similarly meditation can help your reduce stress. But it is best to keep them independent without having spill over from one form of perspective to the other when you meet the respective people / crowd.
If there is any perspective which contradicts the other, you can evaluate both and decide whether to choose between them or formulate your own perspective.
The main idea in Buddhism is to see things as they are. So be prepared to set aside any perspective you build from either advice or your thinking when you see things for yourself through your practice.
Following courses also might be of help:

Buddhism and Modern Psychology
Buddhist Meditation and the Modern World

I know this feeling very well!
I saw a whole host of therapists of the years due to childhood stuff, whilst also doing daily practise. As I got older, the more my relationship with certain therapists changed. I was pretty fed up of seeing therapists and was dedicating a lot of time to the Dharma and going to temple whilst juggling a very stressful job. In the end, I thought I'd give therapy another shot and found myself in a very submissive conflict with my therapist. She thought my Buddhist beliefs and ways of dealing with a lot of pain or upset was simply another way of suppressing it all. She saw my religion as a coping mechanism. I agreed to disagree with her and eventually moved away and haven't seen another therapist since, but instead am heavily devoted to my practise and to trust my instincts further.
There is no shame in seeing a therapist as a Buddhist practitioner but be aware of coming up against those who have the somewhat Marxist belief of religion being the opiate of the masses. Even mindfulness therapists sometimes just don't 'get' it. I once saw a Child Regression Therapist and saw through them within the first 10 minutes and didn't go back again -- this therapist was so wrapped up in their own beliefs they wished to project it onto their clients, and I'm sure it worked in most cases, but I just wasn't buying it. However, even if the therapy does not particularly work, yet you find yourself talking things through with others, then in that way, it is working. Sometimes you have to filter through the 'guff' before you begin to be able to let go of it all.
Even if it doesn't work out, you will still gain from it in some way. Being at peace with yourself and battling memories, trauma, and the subsequent self annihilation is one of the hardest things to do, and Buddhism and therapy often does support each other. But it is also very easy to slip into Western therapy ideologies and lose some of the instinctive Buddhist understanding. As long as you remain aware, you will be fine!

The Buddha encouraged people to contemplate his teachings and see for themselves if they take it or leave it. You have to decide that for yourself, especially in case of contradiction. I don't really see the problem you're facing, it may a bit confusing and all but it won't work counterproductive if that concerns you.
If you haven't already, maybe take a look at The Abhidhamma if you are interested in phenomenological psychology.

You are talking about 2 different tools that should be used for for 2 different goals, if you need a hammer to do a job it does not make a shovel an useless tool, it is just for a different job.
Meditation is a tool for enlightment, calm, tranquility and insight into the nature of reality. Meditation is part of a spiritual path in Buddhism.
Therapy is a tool for understanding the unconscious mind, useful to deal with traumas, phobias and difficult moments, it is not part of a spiritual path eventhough it can make you a better human being.
You can use both at the same time if you need, both work with the mind, they don't repeal each other, they have different goals and create different outcomes. There is nothing in the Dhamma against a good and professional Therapy as far as I'm aware. (as long as your psychologist doesn't give you strong medication for small problems)
PS: After sometime it is likely that you will replace Therapy for meditation, especially if you have a good meditation teacher and if you put some effort on it, you will see therapy is very useful in the short term, but meditation can give you more powerful insights in the long run.

I can't say I agree with the reasons the tools are used for. The rest I agree with. I think the reasons you mentioned for both the rules are interlinked.

alright, so how would you see it? what are the purposes of the 2 tools in your view?

I think meditation encompasses all kinds of therapies because it's a therapy in itself against all maladies in life. Even what you mentioned understanding traumas, phobias, difficult times can be understood through meditation(if done properly) so therapy would be a smaller sub set and both not mutually exclusive. But only my opinion.

I agree they don't repeal each other and can work in paralel. The point is: Meditation is a tool for the long run, benefits are stronger but take time when compared to therapy that can help you with an urgent issue. Imagine a suicidal, what would be more useful to prevent him from killing himself or jump out of the window? I think therapy! Meditation is for a higher goal, requires more effort, more time etc

The co-founder the Insight Meditation Society Jack Kornfield really advocates the use of both psychotherapy and meditation. He has a PhD in clinical psychotherapy and in his (excellent) book A Path with Heart he devotes an entire chapter on psychotherapy and meditation. To quote the opening chapters

The best of modern therapy is much like a process of shared
  meditation, where therapist a client sit together, learning to pay
  close attention to those dimensions and aspects of the self that a
  client will be unable to touch on his or her own.

He also says more here about the relationship between the two.
For me, understanding the nature of the (not?) self is such a demanding task, why wouldn't you use every tool at your disposal.

Depending on the quality of your teacher, it might be often the case. Actually, on a straight way, no. And it will merely disturb the success of Buddhas treatment.
Its a very straight forward and easy to read essay, maybe you would like to give it a read: Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada. The teachings of the Buddha do not have the aim to keep you to be a productive member of the on-turning wheel, but to provide you a possibility to gain liberation. That is the main but significant different between this two treatments.
But all of the possible ways for a particular person, depend on his own potential, gained in the past and effort-ed now. There is no such as secure aside of actually really on the eightfold path.

As long as it helps. Personally I got to a point where I felt my maturity as an individual due to spiritual practice had developed beyond the point of needing a Western therapist/psychologist. This especially became evident as I realized my own personal values and spiritual practices were out of line with that of my therapist's. For example, if your psychologist does not believe pornography or masturbation are harmful, but your spiritual teacher does, then they become an obstruction.
I have found much of the Western psychology movement to not be very grounded in spiritual principles. Some are, but generally I think you find that a good guru is going to be your real guide through the world. I think in countries like India where gurus and saints are more common, having a psychologist is probably unheard of. The guru's real role is to provide that sort of guidance, and to enable you to solve problems on your own. If it helps you at the moment, do what helps. You shouldn't not take medicine if it helps you on your path.
I gratefully took anti-depressants and they helped me a great deal in regaining my mind. Same principle applies to anything else. Seek a real guru who you can devote yourself to, he or she is the real therapist. In time I think your practice will elevate you to the point where you will find you growing out of that desire for a therapist, but don't be ashamed if it helps you.

Edit: Added line-spacing to increase readability.


text:
How to deal with criticism?
How should one properly handle cases of insults, criticism and discrimination, according to the Buddhist teachings?

How should one properly handle cases of insults, criticism and discrimination, according to the Buddhist teachings?
Here's what the Buddha had to say to the monks:

For even this external earth element, great as it is, can be seen as
  impermanent, can be seen as liable to destruction, liable to fall,
  liable to change; so what of this body, which is clung-to by craving
  and lasts but a while? There can be no (considering) that as ‘I’ or
  ‘mine’ or ‘I am.’
So then, (thus having seen this element as it actually is) if others
  abuse and scold and curse and threaten a bhikkhu, he understands thus:
  ‘This painful feeling born of ear-contact has arisen in me. That is
  dependent, not independent. Dependent on what? Dependent on contact.’
  Then he sees that contact is impermanent, that feeling is impermanent,
  that perception is impermanent, that mental formations are
  impermanent, and that consciousness is impermanent. And his mind
  enters into that very object (taking it just as an impersonal)
  element, and acquires confidence, steadiness and decision (herein).
-MN 28, The Greater Discourse on the Elephant-footprint Simile

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb,
  with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered
  even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train
  yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil
  words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with
  no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness
  imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading
  the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill
  will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
"Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of
  the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you
  could not endure?"
"No, lord."
"Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw.
  That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness."
-MN 21, The Simile of the Saw

"Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they
  insult and ridicule you, what will you think?"
"If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta
  people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with
  their hands.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I
  will think, O One Well-gone."
"But if they hit you with their hands, what will you think?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a clod.'..."
"But if they hit you with a clod...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a stick.'..."
"But if they hit you with a stick...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't hit me with a knife.'..."
"But if they hit you with a knife...?"
"...I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very
  civilized, in that they don't take my life with a sharp knife.'..."
"But if they take your life with a sharp knife...?"
"If they take my life with a sharp knife, I will think, 'There are
  disciples of the Blessed One who — horrified, humiliated, and
  disgusted by the body and by life — have sought for an assassin, but
  here I have met my assassin without searching for him.' That is
  what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One
  Well-gone."
"Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are
  fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see
  fit."
-SN 35.88, To Punna

In addition, with cases of blame or disrepute, you might want to take a look at this answer.

Best is to handle it with Equanimity and Metha. When such an incident happens examine your self to see if you have lost the balance of your mind. In which case you would be having unpleasant sensation in your body and mind and your breath would loose regularity and become longer. If this is the case concentrate on the breath and / or sensation until the breath becomes short and the sensation become pleasant and / or neutral. When you reach this state you regained the balance of your mind. Then you can think clearly and take an action which is proactive opposed to being reactive. Also you can develop Metha towards the person also before any action.

Be happy and silent.
Happiness is the best reaction.
However, monks usually thank the one who tell them things and fixes what needs to be fixed even if it does not seem right.  This is the monk way.  Also, consider the criticism to see if it could be useful.
Dasadhamma sutta
“Kacci nu kho me attā sīlato na upavadatī?” ti
“Can I myself find no fault with my virtue?”
pabbajitena abhiṇhaṁ paccavekkhitabbaṁ.
[4] one who has gone forth should frequently reflect on this.
“Kacci nu kho maṁ anuvicca viññū sabrahmacārī,
“Will my wise companions in the spiritual life, after testing me,
sīlato na upavadantī?” ti
find no fault with my virtue?”,


text:
What kind of harm can koan answers cause to one's practice?
In a recent meta discussion some people expressed the opinion that giving koan answers may be detrimental to one's practice. In what way, exactly? And if it is so, why did many Buddhists publish koan commentaries for many hundred years?

I like to compare Koans with poems, or with jokes. Poems teach us to experience the world directly, unmediated by discursive analytical thinking, as feelings and associations. Getting a joke requires expanding one's context, relating alternative frames of reference.
In some professional settings, the experts develop a shortcut way of referring to things they deal with. E.g. in software engineering, you could hear someone saying that a particular design is kludgy, or leaking, or tangled up etc. Not all of these have official agreed-upon definitions, and many are made up ad-hoc, as required for communicating in a particular situation.
The method of Zen is to get practitioner in touch with their immediate experiences (to point them to their own mind). This requires transcending whatever context the person is stuck in, and expanding one's awareness to include "the elephant in the room". To build on the joke metaphor, the point of Koans is to make you "laugh".
Now, you can answer your own question: will explaining jokes help you learn how to laugh? Will analyzing songs help you learn how to feel?
Why did many Buddhists publish koan commentaries for many hundred years? -- I don't know. Because they are slaves of their minds? Because they think it may be helpful to certain types of practitioners?
The other problem with explaining Koans is that a Koan (unlike a joke) does not have a single "correct" interpretation. A Koan is always ambiguous, by design. A good koan commentary may help one explore various facets of the theme. Sort of like analyzing poems in school may(!) help one develop artistic sensitivity. But in context of Buddhism S.E. the danger is, someone might read an answer and assume they now know what this Koan is about.
Many people don't see until they know what to look for. I may not see a frog under my feet until my wife points it out, even though I've been staring directly at it. What we want to learn in Zen is to "see" before knowing. The more you explain Zen, the further you are from "seeing".

This part is unclear: "will explaining jokes help you learn how to laugh? Will analyzing songs help you learn how to feel?" There is no such thing as "learning to laugh" or "learning to feel". You either laugh or not laugh, that's it. You either feel something while listening to a song, or don't feel anything. I'm not exactly sure what you wanted to express, but it seems this analogy doesn't work too well.

Your answer kind of suggests that koans are simply pieces of poetry: pieces of text without a clear interpretation that are supposed to evoke some feelings. Is it a good way of putting that?

As any analogy, my analogy is approximate. In reality, koans are not pieces of poetry, koans are not jokes, koans are koans. When you get it, you get it, and only a Zen master can see whether you get it or not.


text:
What is the difference between rūpa and Kāyā?
In reading about the 4 Satipatthana or about the 5 Aggregates, it seems the first category of each (form) is sometimes called rūpa and sometimes called Kāyā. Are these just two words for the same concept or are there subtle differences? Thank you.

My understanding is the following:

Rupa = external and internal matter or form. Externally, rupa is the physical world. Internally, rupa includes the material body and the physical sense organs.
Kaya = the material body and the physical sense organs.

Rupa is "shape", "form", "object", "appearance", "image", usually in the sense of something perceived visually.
Kaya is "body", both specifically of living being, but also generally a body of a tree (i.e. trunk), a body of a guitar (i.e. sound box), and even a body of a teaching (dharma-kaya).
Although in Theravada there is a tradition of using the word rupa to refer to "material" aspect of a living being, I would say "rupa" is more frequently used in the phenomenological sense ("what is perceived"), while "kaya" has more ontological flavor ("what is").


text:
Can I practice Buddhism without meditating?
If it's possible to do it, how should such practice look like? Will it be inferior to the practice of those who meditate?

I would say begin with compassion...

The Buddhist 3 Fold Training or main parts of the Noble 8 Fold Path are:

Morality,
Mastery over the Mind and
Wisdom.

You can practice 1 without meditation. But need meditation for to develop the other two. Also if you develop the other two your morality also becomes stronger.
Doing 1 itself gives benefit but this is much more if you practice all 3 parts of the Training (the latter 2 parts relating to Meditation and mental development) and with the addition of Giving which in part of the bases of merit with Morality and Meditation being an overlap.
The ultimate Buddhist goal is The Path to Nirvana in which Vipassana plays a great role.

IMO meditation is absolutely critical, but not at beginner's stages. I would even go as far as to recommend at least five years of practice before one tries meditation. What would that practice look like?

Watch the mind for emotions arising due to giving anything high importance. Let go of those.
Watch the mind for signs of behavior targeted at defending or advocating one's ego. Drop that.
Watch the mind for indulging. Stop that.
Protect your mind from garbage and negative information.
Learn some Buddhist theory.

First three are effectively meditation in action, every second of every minute of every hour.

Does it mean that all those Buddhists in Asia who don't meditate don't really follow the right path of Buddhism?

That's right, however they are lay people not seeking Enlightenment. They follow general guidelines for good living.

This is great practical advice. Meditation is an intensive endeavor and are the 2nd training which come after the 1st training (in truth the 3 trainings are all one thing but that's another topic). What Andrei here talks about is the 1st training in-depth. Very important.

-1 I've never heard a teacher say beginners shouldn't meditate, in fact at every temple I've practiced at beginners take part in the full meditation programme.

That's why we have so few enlightened people, because students meditate without understanding.

According to the Pali canon, stream entry (and possibly even up to once returner - I don't have my notes handy) can be accomplished by the so-called faith follower.  This practitioner would need to command a resolute faith in the triple gem and observe the five precepts (i.e. strictly practice sila).  The higher stages of enlightenment - and definitely the stage of arahant - are only available to those who have some mastery of the meditative absorption of jhana.  The Visuddhimagga also hints that the same higher levels of attainment are available to those who practice "dry insight" (e.g. Vipassana) that isn't "moistened" by the attainment of jhana.

Meditation is a key practice in Buddhism, however some Buddhists say you can reach enlightment by reasoning, using your intelect and contemplating things.
In many Buddhist stories people achieve great results only by listening to the Buddha or practicing sila/dana.
A great monk from Theravada tradition once told me that meditation should be the 8th part of the noble eightfold path, not the 1st. Lay people should focus on morality, precepts and dana. I'm sure this can be questioned, not all buddhists will agree, so I'm just offering a point of view.
I would say: Meditation is great, helps a lot, can be a short cut for your insight into reality, so why not?

There are many Shin and Pure Land Buddhists that do not exercise mediation.  You do not need meditation to be a Buddhist.

If you are not seeking nirvana, can you say you are a true buddhist?

Answer based in Theravada Buddhism.
If you would like to win Nibbana and issue liberation from the rounds of suffering, then you need meditation.
The root defilements exist in 3 layers in the Mind. The deepest layer, which is the layer of latent tendencies, i.e. the "roots" of the root defilements cannot be removed unless one practices insight meditation.
If the roots are not cut off the tree can grow back again, meaning one cannot become free from Samsaric existence.
If one does not want to become free from Samsara, then one can practice without integrating meditation into the practice. If that is the case then one is not fully following the teachings of the Buddhas, i.e. The Noble Eightfold Path, hence one will not gain the full benefit from the practice.

But if one does not want to become free from Samsara, what would be point in being Buddhist in the first place?

Whether or not one does not want to become free from Samsara, is not up to me to say or even possible for me to say. Each to their own.

I like the ideas of "deepest layer of the mind" and the "roots". These affect also how deeply one can convey the teaching to others, by living it and by having insight and experience. I have met many sincere "preachers" (of many faiths) who were obviously going only "on faith". This is not very encouraging to an inquirer. Go for depth.

If you do not follow (or know) what the Buddha taught, yet seek and reach enlightenment on your own, you are working on buddhahood. So in a sense yes. Though not meditating can also be a state of not doing the actual practice that the buddha taught.
Considering the theory of rebirth even without meditation one can start down the path as they noted above and develop kammic building blocks for the next round.

addendum: that is of course my own understanding of things.

If by meditation you mean "sitting down and resting the mind and gently focusing" then yes you can.
Just know this though, you can be "resting the mind and gently focusing" while doing something else such as: reading the suttas or other dharma texts including the ancient Vedas, calming the mind while lying down, being more generous (or practicing any of the other paramitas), etc.!
There is no real escaping meditation.
In order to practice Buddhism correctly you will calm the mind and body down and reach peace one way or another.
And it will be easy.
It will be relaxing and good for you. You will realize how lucky you are to be one of the few who have the opportunity to practice the Dharma...
The Dharma that is beyond sitting, reclining, or standing.
So in conclusion, one can practice the 3 trainings in any position! Meditation is your True Home and is beyond sitting down. If you do not like formal sitting meditation, no worries friend! Practice letting go of your worries and relaxing in any other posture you feel like. :)

I am not a Buddhist, however I have had a long spiritual practice including meditation taught to me by a direct disciple of my Guru (whom I have met several times - in another country). The point of meditation is to speed up the process greatly. My Guru compares it to travel on foot vs by airplane. If you want to end suffering sooner and help others more fully, then the insight gained by meditation will get you there in your lifetime.
Otherwise, of course people can gain understanding and insight and even Realization and Liberation, because it is a natural process that is supposed to happen. It is a process of development. But we can get lost in dead-ends for a long time when we do not have something like meditation to show the depth of the mind and the silent clarity within it. To see to the bottom of the pond, you have to learn how to stop stirring it.
Another analogy: there are lots of kinds of food which can be made without cooking. But if you want a cake, you have to bake it. It depends on what you want and how long you are willing to watch it unfold.

Meditation is the core of the Buddha's teachings. But meditation can be in many ways. For example you can start practising general mindfulness in daily life(this is also the core of Buddha's teachings) before starting practising formal meditation. I started my path after reading Eckhart Tolle's books and trying to live mindfully in daily life before I interested at Buddhism and did formal meditation for long periods of time with Ven. Yuttadhammo's teachings.
Those who don't practise mindfulness/meditation are not really following the core of Buddha's teachings. Meditation/mindfulness must be taken seriously and must be done with effort until the mindfulness becomes natural and spontaneous for you.
I think the Buddhist countries are better than most of the countries(especially better than the societies with narcissitic and bloody cultures) in the world. Because Buddhism leads people to do good deeds, respect and support the monks, and Buddhism makes people more kind, generous, loving. But this is a very limited benefit for those who don't practise meditation which is the core of Buddhism. Unless you do the actual work to change the structure of the mind, you cannot really expect any profound change in your mind that make you free from the evil nature of humanity.

Of course. You can be a Buddhist without meditating. It is only to separate the mind and body of us. If you want to meditate, firstly, you could rest your mind and you can notice the inhalatation and exhalation from your nose. And when you do this, you may not need to sit correctly. But you have to notice your mind and changes in your body. That is one way meditation works.

To your credit I think you are talking about the practice of learning-through-hearing-dharma (a route to enlightenment as well). If anyone has ever felt tremendous peace and meditative ease and focus when deeply reading Dharma writings then they know what I'm talking about.
Nothing can replace meditation though.