text:
Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?
I am born Hindu and have been following Buddhism for more than a year. The change has been a life changing experience but now I find myself at the junction of two religions. I sometimes face contradictory situations where its ok in one religion but violates the other. Traveling in two boats at the same time is certainly not possible but its also difficult to choose one over the other. So my question is:
1) Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?
2) How to maintain a balance between the two?
3) Or would I have to choose one over the other?
4) Or is it possible to choose Buddhism as subset of Hinduism, just like Jains do i.e. the mainly follow their own religion first & then they following Hinduism. So even in contradictory situations, they choose Jain rule over Hindu rule.

In Buddhism the main teachings you have to have faith in is the 8 Fold Path divided into 3 trainings, which is to develop higher virtue, higher mind and higher wisdom.
No religion is incompatible with developing higher virtue, higher mind and higher wisdom, therefore you can start practicing considering you self a Hindu. As you find parts of Buddhism logical and verified at the experiential level then you can lowly accepting parts of Buddhism at your own pace.

Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?

Theravāda branch of Buddhism (in its truest sense) is in stark contrast with Hinduism, but it may not be so for the other branches of Buddhism. It is mainly because the view of sassata is not found in Theravāda. Hinduism teaches that one possesses a soul that lives eternally. This soul is considered to be one’s real self, a form of personality view. Hinduism teaches that the soul exists even after death. In the Bhagavad Gita, the God Krishna says that he created the world and that everybody possesses a soul. When one dies, the four physical elements (pathavi, apo, tejo and vayo – earth, water, fire and wind) vanish. But the soul is not harmed.
On the other extreme is “non being”. That is the view of Uccheda. This world is divided between these two extremes: Existence and Non-Existence. The Dhamma that Buddha taught overcome both these two extremes. We are taught that there is only cause and effect. Because of a cause, there is an effect. When causes cease, then effects cease too. So then there is no reason to fall into either of the two standpoints of sassata ditti & Uccheda ditti.

How to maintain a balance between the two?

Both believe in Kamma, but unlike in Hinduism, Kamma is not deterministic in Theravāda. In Buddhism, even if root causes are there, we can stop kamma from bringing their results by blocking the conditions for them to come to fruition.  It is like a seed that has the potential to bring about a tree, but for that to happen the seed must be given a fertile soil, water, and sunlight.
Both practice Ānāpānasati. If by Ānāpānasati one takes it to mean  "mindfulness of breathing” – then it is no different to that of Hinduism. In Hinduism what ‘Buddhists’ call the four Jhana is referred to  as “kundalini awakening”. These similarities are because of Buddhaghosa introducing Hindu Vedic meditation techniques to Buddha Dhamma in his Visuddhimagga. Buddhaghosa was always devoted student of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras, and because of his influence, Buddhism as it is seen and practiced today has become similar to Hinduism.

Or would I have to choose one over the other?

I would choose Buddha Dhamma over Hinduism. If you follow the true Dhamma it will lead you to lead to the completion of the four satipattanas, the seven bojjangas, removal of avijja, and the attainment of Nibbana. The four satipattanas, when cultivated and pursued, bring the seven bojjangas to their completion. The seven bojjangas, when cultivated and pursued, bring vijja (opposite of avijja) and vimutti (or Nibbana) to their completion.

Or is it possible to choose Buddhism as subset of Hinduism, just like Jains do.

Is Jainism a subset of Hinduism? In Jainism, this view of eternalism is taught different to Hinduism. Jains explain that our previous karma has accumulated around our pristine soul like layers of bark around the core of a tree. To help remove these old karmas the Jains do not wear clothes, do not take baths, refrain from eating, or do not shave, do not wash their faces and so on. They believe that these kinds of severe practices remove the bark of the old karma thereby allowing them to reach a state of eternal purity. As I see it both Hindus & Jains have similar severe practices, but that does not mean it is a subset.
Sadly as it is practised today, if you do wish to go this way, you are in good company. Few Buddhists understand urgency of coming to Nibbana and hence the distortion and dwarfing prelevant today. The rituals that are embedded in Hinduism are common in Buddhism today. Rituals have hidden the greatness of Hindu thoughts and concepts from most Hindus. Rituals have evolved into an attempt at bribing the God/ Gods in Hinduism today. The Buddhism practiced today is no different. Hinduism and Buddhism are thoughts and philosophies that stimulate and fire the intellect. Unfortunately, they have been reduced to the level of blind faiths and beliefs today. “Shraddha” has been erroneously brought to the forefront instead of “Panna”. Both religions have lost their dynamism and direction in practice. Both religions have been brought to the level of the masses.  As a result the sublime and profound in both is lost. The need to strive has been negated in both religions in practice.

Your question already implies differences in practice between your variation of Hinduism and what Buddhism you have practiced. On these issues you will have to choose.
When it comes to doctrine too, you will have to be clear in your mind. The very word dharma means something very different in Brahmanical Hinduism vs. Buddhism. There are differences in the nuances of the word karma too - and so on.
It's certainly easier to stick with the faith and practices you grew up with, and merely add those practices and doctrines from Buddhism that you can without contradiction. It's easier not merely for you personally, but also within the context of your family and social sphere.
In other words: take those aspects of Buddhism that make you a better human being and a better Hindu. Leave the rest be.
To do anything other than that should only be done after more time and study than you have at present devoted to it. Westerners often become Buddhists as converts from Christianity - but they only do so after they've already become disenchanted from Christianity. Even so - it's a difficult process that leads to culture-shock.
You do not sound like you are done with Hinduism because of anything within Hinduism.
As for seeing Buddhism as part of Hinduism... That's Hindu propaganda that doesn't respect Buddhism. It's a bit like Muslims claiming Christianity is part of Islam: it doesn't respect Buddhism as a separate religion. [Jainism: same thing.]
[This is advice that fits in with H.H. the Dalai Lama's advice on mixing religions.]

“The very word dharma means something very different in Brahmanical Hinduism vs. Buddhism”. What does it mean in Brahmanical Hinduism?

I think the answer is incomplete and also missing sources. Indeed what do you mean by Dharma is different or Karma is different?

Here are some differences between Buddhism, and Hinduism and Jainism:

The middle way between eternalism and annihilationism (both Hinduism and Jainism subscribe to eternalism of the self) - see this answer
The middle way between asceticism and indulgence (Jainism tends towards asceticism) - see this answer
The self is not eternal, not standalone and not independent - see this answer, and SN44.10, and contrast with Hindu BG2.24
The self or soul does not pervade the body (unlike the Hindu BG2.17) - see SN35.85
In terms of karma, not everything we experience is a result of past karma (compared to Jainism) - see this answer, SN36.21 and MN101
There is no Supreme Creator God (unlike Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions) - see this answer
The self or soul does not transmigrate (unlike Hindu BG2.22) - see this answer
Warriors dying on the battlefield while performing their duty do not go to heavan after death according to SN42.3 (unlike Hindu BG2.32)
Lay people eating meat that was bought dead and frozen from the supermarket is not sinful - see this answer

However, as also discussed in this answer, later on, Buddhist and Hindu philosophy influenced each other to produce Advaita Vedanta and Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Also, Tibetan Buddhism have adopted some Hindu deities. On the other hand, there has also been debates in later times between Hindu and Buddhist scholars (see this question).
However, Anatta (no eternal self) and the lack of a Supreme Creator God, still keeps Buddhism very far apart from the other religions, and due to this, it is very unlikely that one could truly practise Buddhism simultaneously with other religions including Hinduism and/or Jainism.

...later on, Buddhist and Hindu philosophy influenced each other to produce Advaita Vedanta and Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy... this is a modern Theravadin promoted saying, there is nothing called Indian Mahayana Buddhist so and so. Hinduism is a modern production after Buddha's teaching caused decline of Brahminsm, first response was Advaita Vedanta than responded with Hinduism. Yet there are enough such promoted sayings influxed it's tiresome to bother with it except by chance I see it. It doesn't matter, say whatever whoever likes :)

There are many obvious and undeniable Hindu influences on Mahayana Buddhism like Buddha nature (tathāgatagarbha , buddhadhātu similar to Atmatattva), Śūnyatā (emptiness of all things - similar to maya in Advaita), Adi Buddha (similar to Parabrahman), Amitabha Buddha (mantra-chanting to reach the deity after death, also Buddha of Infinite Light is similar to jyothirlinga), rainbow body, Avalokiteśvara (similar to Devi), Tara (similar to Devi), Mahākāla (similar to Shiva), Tantric Buddhism (similar to Hindu Tantra), Tulku (similar to avatar), mandala similar to yantra etc.

Of course, Hindu influences on Mahayana Buddhism does not mean that it is Hinduism in disguise, because Mahayana still adheres to anatta, which is a fundamental difference to Hinduism and even Advaita Vedanta. Mahayana also adheres to the other key teachings- four noble truths, three marks of existence, noble eightfold path, dependent origination etc. What is really special and positive about Mahayana Buddhism is the Bodhisattva ideal and cultivation of Bodhicitta, as opposed to the Theravadin path to Arahantship rather than Bodhisattva-hood.

I cannot provide my own answer to your question. However, since most answers here are in the No camp, I thought I’d mention a famous proponent of the Yes camp, S.N. Goenka who believed that one can practice the core teachings of the Buddha while continuing to be a practitioner of another religion. I am not sure if his idea of such practice meets your or someone else’s definition of “practicing Buddhism”, though, so please keep that in mind.
He has taught hundreds of thousands of people and has hundreds of centers around the world. He grew up in an orthodox Hindu family and considered himself a devout Hindu till his death.  Under his view this is not particular to Hinduism and there are people who are Christian and Muslim also who practice his way.
As Katinka already pointed out, the Dalai Lama is in the No camp. He thinks Buddhism is suitable for those who are disillusioned with other religions or do not have one - otherwise, just follow “your own religion” whatever that is. Again, this would be dependent on what his view of “practicing Buddhism” is.

In order to answer these questions, you need to understand the Dhamma Differences in Hinduism and Buddhism. In DN1/ Digha Nikaya 1, Buddha expounded the differences between the dhamma that he teached and the dhamma of the brahmins/hinduism.
My answer is that, you need to find this yourself. but to tell you the truth, it's not possible.

But isn't the Hinduism of today different than the Brahmanism of The Buddha's time?  For that matter, doesn't the Hinduism of today reflect the influence of Buddhism on the Brahmanism of the time?  In short, can you really take these differences as still relevant?

The Hinduism of that today might not be the same as Brahmanism of the buddha's time but both Hinduism and Brahmanism has 3 vedas while Modern Hinduism has 3 Vedas of Brahmanism + 1 new Veda [adding a story about buddha as an incarnation of Shiva etc2]
As for Modern Buddhism, Sect like Mahayana and Tantra/Vajra was influenced by Brahmanism and practicing some of Brahmanic's practices such as worshiping gods and brahmas.

You may get close, but so long you believe in the concept of an everlasting soul (i.e atman), you will not achieve what the Buddha called the ultimate cessation of suffering, because of the clinging to the Self which arises in conjunction with this belief.
Remember: the Buddha spoke of four types of clinging. Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.

"You may get close, but so long you believe in the concept of an everlasting soul (i.e atman), you will not achieve what the Buddha called the ultimate cessation of suffering,..". Not too much of a worry, I'd say. Most people who do not believe that (and may firmly call themselves Buddhist) are also not going to achieve it in their lifetime.

Where in which religion you feel peace, truth, non-violence.
These two religions are very very different.
In Hinduism all time speak about war, killing violence at all.
Does Hinduism really help to live life peacefully, I never find myself as I observed and as I studied in society.
How you can use Buddhism techniques over Hinduism.
Because there so big different.
Hinduism = Hindu meaning Defeat, Loss.
*I also born as Hindu but I'm comletely following Buddhism.
In Buddhism drawing right hand side swastika  卍 (Good, positive, solar aspects, movement clockwise 'with' the currents of Nature) means non-violence, peace.
In Hinduism drawing left hand side swastika  卐 (Evil, negative, lunar aspects, movement counter-clockwise 'against' the currents of Nature) means violence.

Dr B. R. Ambedkar had vowed that "I born as Hindu but I'll not die as Hindu."

and so he gave treasure of Buddhism to all backward people of Indian society who wasn't Shudra but genuine Indians (Nag) who were worshiping Buddha in ancient time.
I would suggest you to follow Buddhism because there's peace and happiness.
So all the best.
Also Buddhism has liberty to following or leaving so there's no compulsion to following, you knows that as you practicing since a year.
So it's completely depend upon what you feel more for.
Hope you'll choose what you love.
❁ Wish you Happy Vesak ❁

Whatever decision I take will obviously not be putting Hinduism in negative light as you did. You might have your own reasons for it but I don't agree with your point of view on Hinduism. Its 5000 years old religion, it has some flaws but its not totally what you said.

Ok if you won't agree but this is truth. You must know truth history about Hinduism. Hindu word is given by Arya(Brahmin) people to backward people (genuinely Indians) of India. We all weren't Hindu but they made us defeat. It's ain't my own personal reason to have perspective like this towards Hinduism. I don't find any peaceful stuff in Ramayana or Mahabharata. There's no respect for women. But let me know with what you'd go with has some flaws or with path of enlightment. But as I told you it's depend upon you, your mind with what you feel more.

Who else down voted must know only Hinduism is sole and major reason decline of Buddhism in India. And they treated backward people very bad more than animals (Shudra) who are genuine Indians (Nag).  Here is why I have such perspective and every Indian knows that.

I will try to answer your questions which are of great nature.

1) Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?

Yes. At least from a Hindu point of view. Buddha is unanimously admitted by Hindus to be an Incarnation of Narayana or God, who came to rescue the kingdom of Righteousness.

2) How to maintain a balance between the two?

You need to get in touch with Brahmins of Buddha Gaya in Bihar , India, who are practicing the religion with Buddha as the Avatar of Vishnu. They are leading a very balanced life in spite of the contradictions between Vedas and Buddha. I am not aware of how they are doing it but they are doing it.
It is said in the book "Buddha Mimamsa" written by Maitreya that the original Religion of Buddha was part and parcel of orthodox Hindu System based upon the world-old religion(Sanatan Dharma) of the Vedas. Moreover it is worthwhile to mention that Gautama Buddha was himself a Hindu so whatever he learned he must have learned from a Hindu...His own discoveries like no-self , five aggregates and dependent origination doesn't make Buddha a Buddhist. What Buddha stands for is Truth. So if you are a Truth seeker then I guess you have no choice but to follow and understand what Buddha said. There is in my opinion no need to become a Buddhist without yourself realizing the absoluteness of his teachings.


text:
Sounds during meditation
When I practice meditation I focus on the rising and falling of my abdomen and if any thoughts or sensations arise I note them and continue focusing in the breath but I notice that I'm very sensitive to sound. I am acutely aware of all the sounds going on around which is a never ending cacaphony of nearby people, traffic, wildlife etc. I was using earplugs for a long time because I found it too distracting but I decided to stop using them and now I am finding the sounds very much in my awareness a lot of the time and I can't seem to focus on my breath. So I note "hearing hearing" but like how long am I suppose to keep noting hearing ?  If I sit for an hour and the sounds keep capturing my attention do I just keep noting hearing hearing every few seconds in the same way I do for thinking thinking?

It's happening at its source but my ear picks it up as other people's ears do too. And your point is?

It's irrelevant to my question so please start your own thread if you wish to philosophise about such things

Distraction one of the two main obstacles in meditation (the other is dozing off or even falling asleep). Many people get distracted by sound.
It's normal and as long as you keep getting distracted you have two choices:
1) keep sitting there, and keep bringing your attention back to your meditation object
2) quit meditating.
3) change your meditation. (headphones, change in meditation object etc. see below)
There is no expected time limit within which you are supposed to stop being distracted. Distraction happens.
From the way you describe it - you don't just note the distraction and then get back to meditating. You are also getting annoyed at yourself. So note that too.
Patience. Patience. Patience. Remember that this is all part of the course & that as you are not living on a mountain somewhere, your conditions are not ideal. So be patient with yourself. I'll repeat myself again: be patient with yourself.
One alternative is that when you don't meditate with plugs (which I do think an excellent idea, btw), is to meditate on sound instead. That way the distraction has become the object. This may change the meditation dynamic.
Good luck. And remember: the fact that you are still regularly sitting there is in itself an achievement. Don't be too hard on yourself. And perhaps read something by Pema Chodron? She's very good at reminding us of being kind to ourselves.

I'm not sure there are only two choices. A third choice could be wear earplugs or noise cancelling headphones. Some people seem to think you shouldn't do this but I see no reason not to if it helps one enter a deeper state of meditation.

The continuous and recurring effort to bring back your attention to a chosen object increases your concentration. So when there is a distraction, know your mind wandered away, look at sensations due to contact with this distracting object, then bring your attention back. Just keep repeating this cycle. This is Vitakka and Vicara.

So I note "hearing hearing" but like how long am I suppose to keep
  noting hearing?

Noting is probably not so relevant because, unlike a hindrance or thought, noting the sound will not make the sound go away. Unlike thoughts & hindrances, the arising & ceasing of the sound is beyond the mind's control.

If I sit for an hour and the sounds keep capturing my attention do I just keep noting hearing hearing every few seconds in the same way I
  do for thinking thinking?

Listening is an excellent way to develop samadhi. I personally would naturally listen to the sounds rather than resist them. This may bring an expected favorable outcome when the mind & ears start to tune into the 'sound of silence'.

"Don't resist" is good advice for cold conditions also.

Just like a security guard in front of the mall's door, he know that a visitor is coming in but he doesn't care about what the visitor is going to do inside the mall. He didn't take "note" he just "know"
Until you reached the Nirodha, You will always hear a voice because you can't close your ears. Just don't pay attention to the sound.
Just like every object of meditation, you need to be relax while doing meditation.
I have a lot of acquaintance that used to have the same problem as you and now they don't have any problem with noise.
You might want to check out Dhammasukha Meditation Center. They have online retreat for free and they'll guide you in meditation.

One does not have to give attention to distractions like noise. One does not have to take a note. One needs to just observe. Response to external stimuli is built inside human mind for survival. When one watches breath mind starts dissolving and its ability to respond to external stimuli also goes down. Thoughts, emotions, and sensual responses of the body will start slowing down and that is a good sign of progress.

Hearing is sound, meeting ears, giving rise to Vinñana (individually knowing  things); This is called contact (passa).
When this happens, you are supposed to think that these three things (ears, sound and vinñana) are impermanent (anicca), thus sorrowful (dukkha), thus not me, mine or my soul (anatta). Then, let go of your cetana/kamma (sankhara) toward it by "gift" (chaga).
Rising and falling of abdomen isn't a meditation technique Buddha has preached.

Ah nobody really knows100% that  he even existed so you can't really say that you know what he taught.  Rising and falling is what Mahasi Sayadaw taught to help students focus on the breath.

emphasized textMay be It's a fault of your Kammattana.It seems you had practiced anapanasathi.If you change your Kammattana may be you can get good result.If you want to know about more suitable kammattana you will definitely meet kammattanacharya.

No clue what you're talking about

@Arturia 'Kammattana' means the 40 forms of meditation, as discussed in Olivia's recent Question. (this tablet has no way to paste a link here) Answers discuss various temperaments which make different forms of meditation more suitable for various people. Normally one's Guru would determine this.

@Arturia I'm not saying this was a right or wrong answer to your question, but to explain it, there's some explanation of kammattanacharya in for example the answers to this question: How can we choose more congenial Kammattana? -- I think that Olivia is suggesting that the object of meditation could be something other than, for example, "the rising and falling of my abdomen" which you're practicing at the moment.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
15 Un-written BrahmaLokas in Dhammacakkapavattana sutta
I was wondering about Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. All i know is that when buddha turned the dhamma wheel for the first time, all of the residents of Devalokas and The Rupa-Brahmalokas came and claps their hands.
There's this 1 phrase which sounds:
"Brahmakayika deva saddamanussavesum"
As for Brahmakayika is the lowest of brahmaloka [1st Jhana Realm]. I don't think brahmakayika could represent all of the rupa-brahmalokas [Inculiding 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th Jhana Realms]
The Question is, why other rupa-brahmalokas name were not included or unwritten in the text, did they forget to write it or is there any missing text during that time?
Thank you,
LomX

Footnote 200 on page 59 of Piya Tan's translation says,

It is interesting and important to note that the list of exulting devas stops here with the Brahmās of the 1st dhyana.
  The reason for this is that, as there is still some level of mentation here—by way of initial and sustained applications
  (vitakka,vicāra)—these Brahmās are still in contact with the sense-world. In the realms beyond the 1st dhyana,
  thought-process as we know it ceases completely so that these beings enjoy the glory of their meditative state as
  pure light or profound peace for as long as their karma fuels it. See Bhava Ss 1-2 (A 3.76-77), SD 23.13 (3).

The Buddhists suttas describe thirty-one distinct "planes" or "realms" of existence into which beings can be reborn during this long wandering through samsara life cycle. Check The Thirty-one Planes of Existence. Also  THIS, and THIS, and THIS
They consist of four planes of the Immaterial (formless) Brahma Realm (arupa-loka); sixteen planes of the Fine Material Brahma Realm(rupa-loka); and eleven planes of the Sensuous Realm(kama-loka). A rough rule is that the bodies are dense in the lower realms and lighter and fine in the higher realms
In the Rupa Brahma Realm they have only three sense faculties of eyes, ears, and the mind (only two physical senses of eyes and ears). The fine bodies of the “rupa brahmas have no hands. Their bodies are much less dense than even those of the devas. And even devas are unable to see the fine bodies of the “rupa brahmas“, i.e., those brahmas in the rupa lokas.
The inhabitants of Immaterial (formless) Brahma realms are possessed entirely of mind. Having no physical body, they are unable to hear Dhamma teachings. Those of the arupa loka, the “arupa brahmas” who have only the mind do not even have a desire for sights and sounds. Mind pleasures are enough for them, and the presence of matter is minimal in the arupa loka.

AN 4.123 and MN 1 describe the Abhassara, Subhakinha and Vehapphala devas as the state of attachment (upadana), self-becoming (bhava) or sakkaya (self-identifying) in respect to the 2nd, 3rd & 4th jhanas, which, due to attachment, all have hell as the destination.
As described in MN 49 and DN 11, the Brahma gods generally do not rejoice in the Buddha-Dhamma of impermanence, not-self & the cessation of being (bhava), which is why they are not free from dukkha & wind up in hell.

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


text:
What are the personal consequences opposing, mobbing or even revile Noble Ones or right view?
Ven. members of the Sangha coming across here,
Valued Upāsaka, Upāsikā,
Valued team here and for awakening searching readers,
Since it is modern and somehow not only presentable but even seen as a sign of "independence" or "cool" to be fearless about opposing and undermining of what still stands firm: it may be good for those who do not know but like to know, to answer properly about certain consequences for oneself.

What can be expected for oneself, if one is opposing, fighting or even reviling the Noble Ones, Right View or those following this line, here or/and here after?

If somebody does not know, would that result in harder consequences, or equal, or even lessen such a fault?

What are the personal consequences for others and for many, who approve, accept and even follow such?

To get some ideas, here are some examples of wrong view, and of consequences:

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view. ― MN117
Then, having surveyed the silent community, he addressed them: "Could a person of no integrity know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity'?"
"No."
"Good. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of no integrity: 'This is a person of no integrity.'
"Could a person of no integrity know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity'?"
"No."
"Good. It's impossible, there's no way, that a person of no integrity would know of a person of integrity: 'This is a person of integrity.' ― MN110

(Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any commercial purpose or other wordily gains.)

A timely question @Samana Johann. I was thinking along this same line, the other day. I look forward to the answers to your OP. With metta... BTW.. I am a Upasaka (not an Upasika asyou addressed me the last time)

Upasaka @SapthaVisuddhi , good to inform so that there are no misunderstandings.Actually it's an all time matter and very, very serious. How ever, even if informing out of compassion, there are only less who would bear it by heart. It's a matter of Upanissaya (strong foundation) with the Noble Ones and people of integrity, so hard to have, so hard to find in this world. " A person of no integrity has, as his friends & companions, those brahmans & contemplatives who are lacking in conviction, lacking in conscience, lacking in concern, unlearned, lazy, of muddled mindfulness, & poor discernment.

(male/female), Upasaka @SapthaVisuddhi . Somehow Atma brought Upasaka in connection with a name beginning with A, and did not know that it's somehow different to the use of the same sounding name beginning with E.

As much as I want to understand what you want to say here, it is difficult to make sense of what you said here @Samana Johann. Pl. tell me who is "Atma"? What is the full name of this person - with a name beginning with A? What is this same sounding name beginning with E? Also if you could make your OP more concise, it would help as I would like to post an answer sometime next week. with metta....

"Atma" is here in Cambodia a usual and polite way to adress ones own person when monks are speaking with householders. The other is not so importand. In regard of concise: there are 3 questions, the rest is to make possible many to understand the question and also a door to make a seek for one self in questions regard.

Upasaka @ChrisW Sadhu for editing.

The mark of a Noble One is sunatta (emptiness; voidness), as the Lord Buddha explained about the perfectly virtuous Sariputta in MN 151.

The Blessed One said to venerable Sāriputta. `Sāriputta, your mental faculties are bright, skin colour is pure, in which abiding, do you
  spend your time mostly?”
“Venerable sir, I spend my time mostly in voidance.”
“It's good Sāriputta, you abide mostly in the abiding of Great Beings. Sāriputta,

When a monk exhibits greed, ambition, anger, conceit, domineeringness & delusion; always harassing laypeople; it is good karma to expel that monk from a community.
For example, in AN 6.54, the lay Buddhists expelled the bad monk Dhammika from their district.
The personal consequences are wisdom & liberation when opposing, mobbing or even reviling an Ignoble One of wrong view.
The Lord Buddha explained in the Dhammapada:

64. Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.
72. To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness.
73. The fool seeks undeserved reputation, precedence among monks, authority over monasteries and honor among householders.
74. "Let both laymen and monks think that it was done by me. In every work, great and small, let them follow me" — such is the ambition of
  the fool; thus his desire and pride increase.
75. One is the quest for worldly gain and quite another is the path to Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple
  of the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim but develop
  detachment (viveka) instead.

Given how important Right View is, I suppose that the consequence of ignoring or being averse to right view is remaining in samsara instead of becoming  liberated. The opening lines of the Dhammapada, for example, suggests that quarreling will only cause more quarreling, and that the only antidote to anger is non-anger (see also What is the Antidote for a Hateful Temperament?).
Note that the prescription in the Dhammapada isn't only about (isn't specific to) being polite to Noble Ones -- the back-story to verse 5 is about a quarrel with an ogress.
You presumably know more than I do but I don't remember much on this topic in the suttas. I think the suttas (and the vinaya) tell more about "how to behave in a respectable way" rather than "what happens if you oppose or don't show respect".
But the (translations of the) suttas do describe what might now seem to be elaborate shows of respect and polite discourse, and so I presume that's normal in that society and impoliteness is abnormal. See also for example Tradition and purpose of prostration practice.
The only example I can think of off-hand, where the Buddha reproves someone, is in MN 26:

One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'
"So I said to them, 'Don't address the Tathagata  by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened.

It doesn't explain why, or what the consequence are of not being respectful, so I'm not sure that answers your question. My guess is that the statement had two meanings: the first is that "friend" is untrue, i.e. the Tathagata is no longer the person they once knew; and the second is that the audience needed to put aside their preconceptions, of him as an unenlightened person, in order to hear properly.

A very open heart answer @ChrisW . Sadhu! How ever, it fits more to veneration and respect. The question here is more a very active opposing and further not just an occational, while a not showing signs of does not nessesary cause anything up or downwardly by having a "neutral" mind. So not sure if it really fits the question. It would be good to have this answer in a veneration question. What does Upasaka think?

Just remembered that Atma once made an answer in regard of Respect and Veneration, also listing the Backward of disrespect of what is worthy of respect.

You're right that this answer does not really fit the question. One more example of a consequence is in the Maha-parinibanna sutta (DN 16): -- "Ananda, when I am gone, let the higher penalty be imposed upon the bhikkhu Channa." -- "But what, Lord, is the higher penalty?" -- "The bhikkhu Channa, Ananda, may say what he will, but the bhikkhus should neither converse with him, nor exhort him, nor admonish him." (apparently Channa was "difficult to admonish", i.e. impossible to speak to: one who cannot stand being criticized or who does not mend his ways after his faults are pointed out to him).

A sample for community penalty, yes. But such is also not in regard of the question in regard of kammic effects. Thanks for the thought, if it was that, to add a "what to do if one is respectless" part. Not sure. The Buddha did not encouraged much to such actions, especially not between monasitcs and laypeople. Dangerous, people do such anyway.

An enlighting Vesakh Pūjā. Don't miss to visit the monks, a monastery, if having the possibility, Nyom Chris and also who ever reads that.

It wasn't only a "what to do" thought, it was a "what consequence to expect" thought -- i.e. the consequence which Channa faced was that he had to work alone, unaided. I agree my answer doesn't describe "kammic" effects and other aspects of your question: that's because I'm not confident in my own ability to predict kammic effects and, as I said, I don't know of suttas which describe it. Thank you for kind thoughts and good will, today as always.

What can be expected for oneself, if one is opposing, fighting or even reviling the Noble Ones, Right View or those following this line, here or/and here after?
Once when Ven. Sariputta told the Buddha of what Sunakkhatta, son of the Licchavis, said of Him – that Buddha preaches Dhamma (merely) hammering it out by reasoning, and not through superhuman states – He explained to Sariputta of the ten Tathagata powers. One such was:

"Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathagata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions thus: 'These worthy beings who were ill-conducted in body, speech and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell;…”

An ānantarika-kamma is a heinous crime that through karmic process brings immediate disaster. They are called ‘anantarika’ because they are ‘an’ (without) ‘antara’ (interval), in other words the results immediately come to fruition in the next life. Of the five such crimes, the fifth crime is “Creating a schism within the Sangha, the community of Buddhist monks and nuns who try to attain enlightenment.”
As to what is this creating division among Bhikkhus, or “Sangha Bedha”, is described in Sangha Bedha Sutta (AN 10.1.4.7). Here Buddha’s instruction is to look into the matter and to side with the faction on the side of the Dhamma. The Buddha does not advocate superficial unity for its own sake at the expense of the Dhamma, but instead encourages that the Dhamma be clearly defended against non-Dhamma and that the distinction between the two be kept clear. According to the Vinaya, a speaker of non-Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …
Thus the ability to take sides requires that one be well-informed about the Buddha’s teachings. A schism can be rightfully ended only if both sides are able to investigate the grounds (i.e., the point of dispute around which the schism crystallized), get to the root, and then resolve which side was right, based on the Dhamma and Vinaya.
There are cases where Bhikkhus have started or joined a schism rooted in corrupted intent, knowing or suspecting that their views and actions deviate from the Dhamma-Vinaya. Then those who joined the schismatic faction through ignorance should be won over to the Dhamma side by explaining the true Dhamma-Vinaya to them.

Ven. Sāriputta: “How am I to behave with regard to these (schismatic) bhikkhus?”
  The Buddha: “In that case, Sāriputta, take your stance in line with the Dhamma.”
  Ven. Sāriputta: “And how should I know what is Dhamma and what is not-Dhamma?”
  The Buddha: “There are these eighteen grounds by which a speaker of not-Dhamma is to be known. He explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ …

If somebody does not know, would that result in harder consequences, or equal, or even lessen such a fault?
The Buddha formulated two saṅghādisesa rules (Sg 10 & 11) to help intercept attempts at schism, and gave special allowances for bhikkhus to try to avoid, prevent, or end schisms, even if it means breaking their Rains-residence. So the Sangha cannot be ignorant of such fundamental basic fact of the doctrine.
Again it is said that "Chetahan Bhikkawe Kamman Vadami” - Volition is the prime factor for good or bad kamma. In the Parajika Paliya of Vinaya Pitaka it elaborate over 75 incidents of man slaughter during Bud dha's time, endorsing how only the volition is the root for all Kammas. A very prominent and well respected Monk has once said that intentionally or unintentionally if you have committed the crime it is punishable. But he has shown no sources from Tripitaka for cross reference. Once I remember a Bhikku stating that if it is un-intentional, the crime is greater and not less. Such views are based on what is discussed in the Kathavattuprakaranaya that says it will be an anantariya kamma. However, they are not direct words from Lord Buddha. On the other hand there are stories where you may do a good kamma not knowing the strength of it, but yet you will earn the good kammapala in full strength. Thus it should be the same when doing a bad kamma.
What are the personal consequences for others and for many, who approve, accept and even follow such?
Buddha categorically states that once a person attains sotapanna or become a stream winner (person of integrity), s/he will not indulge in any such actions. S/he will recognize a speaker of non-Dhamma as such if he “explains not-Dhamma as ‘Dhamma’ … Dhamma as ‘not-Dhamma’ … not-Vinaya as ‘Vinaya’ … Vinaya as ‘not-Vinaya’ … what was not spoken, not mentioned by the Tathāgata as ‘spoken, mentioned by the Tathāgata’ … what was spoken, mentioned by the Tathāgata as ‘not spoken, not mentioned by the Tathāgata’ … what was not regularly practiced by the Tathāgata as ‘regularly practiced by the Tathāgata’ … what was regularly practiced by the Tathāgata as ‘not regularly practiced by the Tathāgata’ … what was not formulated by the Tathāgata as ‘formulated by the Tathāgata’ … what was formulated by the Tathāgata as ‘not formulated by the Tathāgata’ … a non-offense as ‘an offense’ … an offense as ‘a non-offense’ … a light offense as ‘a heavy offense’ … a heavy offense as ‘a light offense’ … an incurable offense as ‘a curable offense’ … a curable offense as ‘an incurable offense’ … a serious offense as ‘a not-serious offense’ … a not-serious offense as ‘a serious offense.’” A speaker of Dhamma is to be recognized as such if he explains not-Dhamma as “not-Dhamma,” Dhamma as “Dhamma,” and so forth.
Buddha explained in Sappurisa Sutta of Anguttara Nikaya a simple way to identify person of integrity, honorable person, person worthy to be associated with. We can use this Sutta to identify our flaws; to what extent do I have these qualities and am I a person of integrity? And if not we can learn how to become a person of integrity…how to become a person who noble ones considered to be honorable and worthy.
It is not easy. A great deal of self-discipline is needed to be such a person. Trying to live according to noble Dhamma is like swimming against the current, it is not easy, because our mind is disposed towards bad, towards unwholesomeness. That is why the Lord Buddha has stated that three things are essential in practicing Dhmma. What three? Wisdom to know good from bad, effort to defeat defilements and mindfulness. In Satara—satipatthana they are explained as “Atapi, Sampajana, Satima”. In Panca-indriya and Panca-bala they are explained as “Veeriya, Sati, Panna”. In Sapta-bojjanga it is, “Sati, Dhamma-vicaya, Veeriya”.  In the noble Eight-fold path they are explained as “Samma ditti, Samma vayama, Samma sati”.
Therefore, let us be humble disciples of the Buddha and strive to be a person of integrity. Otherwise the personal consequences for those who approve, accept and even follow such Adhamma – non-dhamma- is that they will be barred from heavenly realms, and from the dhamma path.

Sadhu! Maybe some useful additional practical food for thought: How to address wrong view?


text:
Does "Connected Causes" mean the same thing as Dependent Origination?
I prefer the phrase "Connected Causes" to Dependent Origination or the alternatives such as Dependent Arising, Dependent Co-arising and so on, I feel that it is more direct and understandable. But I am not sure if it means exactly the same thing? I do not see this phrase on this site.
Here is a quote from The Biography of Milarepa, I do not have that book anymore, but found this online:
"The clear perception of the Mind Unmodified, and the noble impulse to serve others, appear to be alike, but beware, and confuse them not.
"The spiritual boon which shineth on one as a resultant of Connected Causes, and merit temporal, which bringeth much of worldly goods, appear alike, but beware, and confuse them not."

A good question @no comprende. It is more plausible to say "Connected Causes" than Dependent Origination. To tell you why, I will have to quote the original scriptures. It will take time. So you will have to wait at least 2-3 months to get an answer from me. It will take that long to formulate a good answer as what I will write will go against other interpretations of this Pali word “Paticca samuppada”.

@SapthaVisuddhi I very much appreciate your effort and am willing to wait for the answer. Thank you!

In discussing things with people it helps to use the terminology they use. So even if 'connected causes' is a better way to explain 'dependent origination' - the latter has become a common phrase in English Buddhism. The former is rare.
Without the precise quote it is impossible to determine whether the two are precisely the same thing. However, if the source is a biography, I would think that the meaning is likely close enough within that context.

edited in response to elaborated question:

In this case I would understand the phrase 'Connected Causes' as very simply all the causes that  create good circumstances (aka 'worldly good'). The sentence merely states that while it is great to experience the result of good karma, that doesn't mean you should rest on your laurels.
In other words: 'Connected Causes' is simply karma here, I think. And while the spiritual boon may seem the same thing as those great circumstances, it's not. For one thing: good circumstances are rarely used to good spiritual effect.

I suppose they're similar but not the same.

One difference is, the difference between "cause" and "condition". For example, for a plant to grow, it needs a seed, rain, sun, soil, to be undisturbed, and so on. Is it true to say, for example, that "the soil caused the plant to grow"? I'd say maybe not: instead of the soil being the cause, maybe the seed was the cause ... or maybe the sun ...
To avoid that kind of [slight] misunderstanding, I think it might be more accurate to say that these are "conditions" rather than "causes": that the plant grows "on condition that" it's sunny, that it rains, that the soil is good, that there's a seed, and so on.
So I prefer "condition" instead of "cause".
I find that people also sometimes use "condition" as a verb, even though that's slightly inelegant or uncommon in normal (non-Buddhist) English: they say for example, "the rain conditions the growth of the plant" (instead of "the rain causes").
For I think a similar reason people say "depends on" rather than "caused by": i.e. a plant's growth (and thus the plan't origin or coming-into-being) depends on sunshine, even if it isn't caused by sunshine.

The second difference is, what is it that is being caused or conditioned? When people talk about "dependent origination" based on the Pali canon, I think they're often talking about the 12 Nidanas (the topics of which include Ignorance as a condition of Birth of Death), or maybe the 4 Noble Truths (including craving as a condition of, or origin of, suffering, ad the origin of cessation of suffering).
Conversely I suspect that in a biography of Milarepa, it might be that the term is used to describe the causes or cultivation of boddhicitta.
If that's so then perhaps the "cause" that's mentioned is closer in meaning to the Pali word Bhavana.

I think your last sentence is correct, I found a quote and will revise the question to include it. In that sense the phrase might just be a formal designation, but all causes / conditions are equivalent in that we do not have a special term for beneficial results versus harmful ones. Science just says 'cause'. The word 'Origination', to me, is far more powerful and definite than 'cause', so I don't think it is more of an everyday term for what conditions our experience. To me 'conditioning' is associated with physical exercise. Words: can't live with em, can't write on the internet without em!

Since the last sentence is correct, I edited the answer to mention "bhavana". I think "origination" refers to the "caused", not the "cause": i.e. things 'originate' (a.k.a. 'are originated' or 'come into being') when they're caused and/or when the conditions or prerequisites for their existence are present. I think that condition implies not "cause" but sine qua non. Western logic and/or law distinguishes different kinds of "cause": proximate, ulterior, final., material, etc.

The 'cultivation' etymology in your link is beautiful thank you. I guess we are dealing with words scriptures, references that are thousands of years old, so precise definitions are hopeless. We can only dig for insight.


text:
What does Robert M. Pirsig's "Quality" correspond to in Buddhism?
The concept of "Quality" relates to the direct experience of the moment, as described in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I was wondering if this has a parallel in Buddhism? To me, the idea of Quality seems to be like Sunyata turned inside-out.
Here is a quote from the book:

Quality ... you know what it is, yet you don't know what it is. But
  that's self-contradictory. But some things are better than others,
  that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the
  quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof!
  There's nothing to talk about. But if you can't say what Quality is,
  how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If
  no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it doesn't
  exist at all. But for all practical purposes it really does exist.

What would we call this idea?

See also https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2078/has-zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance-got-anything-to-do-with-zen

@CrabBucket thank you, I did take a look at that one, but I felt that this is a very specific question with hopefully a useful answer. Maybe it will bring some interested visitors to the site.

Actually, this question might have the answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11656/what-is-the-buddhist-term-for-each-moment-being-subtlety-unique

I'm not sure but I guess it's an expression of "feeling" or Vedanā -- e.g. the feeling that, "This is pleasant" versus "This is not pleasant".
I say that because the book starts with discussing whether you should maintain your motorcycle, based on whether your doing so leads to your having a good time when you're riding (I think there's a passage with an analogy about riding on a sunny day on a well-tuned machine versus riding in the rain on a machine that's breaking down). The word "feeling" shows up frequently in the first chapter,
Another memorable passage, near the climax, is when he explains the Greek idea of arete -- I think that the example which he gives, i.e. "And
may they say, as he returns from war, ‘He is far better than his father.’" appears to be an example of pride or conceit.
I'm not sure whether all that is what Buddhists would call "the direct experience of the moment". I couldn't tell you about Zen but the practice of "guarding the sense door" might (I'm not sure) involve being aware of what you sense (e.g. aware of contact: contact between light plus eye plus consciousness-of-seeing, and so on for all six senses), without becoming over-involved in how you may feel about that, in the feelings which you develop as a consequence of that sensory contact.
On the other hand part of what I think is good about the book is when he decides that the question "What is good?" is a more important or fundamental question than "What is true?" (i.e. when he contrasts the Sophists with Aristotle). I think the question of "What is good?" (i.e. Quality) corresponds not only to "feelings" but also "virtue" (right behaviour, righteousness, morality) ... and not only "virtue" but also the question of whether things are "beneficial" or "skillful" instead of harmful. And I think that corresponds to Buddhist concepts -- one of which is sila, which isn't just elemental but fundamental to Buddhism-as-it's-taught -- and another is the Buddhist term "ariya", which is translated "noble" or right, and is used when naming, "the noble truths", "the noble eight-fold path", "the noble sangha".

Well said. Whatever the moment of experience might be, it unfolds in to everything we know of. There is a similar question about Volition: how does it 'happen'? I suppose these things are not explainable, except as how the scriptures have already done.


text:
What is the Buddhist text quoted by the Hindu philosopher Yogaraja?
Kashmiri Shaivism is a sect of Hinduism that used to be popular in the Kashmir region of India.  Now this excerpt from the Paramarthasara Vivriti, a work by the 11th century Kashmiri Shaivite philosopher Yogaraja, discusses the delusion that arises from confusing that which is Self from that which is not Self:

Yogins, not being able to grasp the real Selfs nature as pure consciousness, remain immersed, as it were, in the cave of dreamless sleep, regarding the Selfs nature to be the void. They thereby bind their Self, whose nature is pure consciousness, by a web of insensibility, deluded by the identification of the Self with something dumb. One would think such delusion should be the cause for surprise or distress, which no individual could possibly wish to cause to himself. Citing an example from everyday experience, the author says that just as a spider binds its omnipresent Self in the form of a body with the cobwebs made by itself out of its guts and subsequently perishes therein, so the individual being, regarding his body to be his Self, binds himself by imaginary concepts (vikalpa) in the form of "I" and "mine."  This has been beautifully expressed by the Buddhists thus: "When one looks upon himself as the Self, he regards himself as a unique being due to the distinction between the Self and another being [i.e. the not-self]; this causes bondage and hostility [between the Self and the not-self]. All evils ensue from the assumption of such bondage."

The part in bold caught my attention because I found it interesting that a Hindu philosopher would praise Buddhist thought in this way.  But my question is, what Buddhist text is this quote from?
I don't have Yogaraja's Paramarthasara Vivriti in Sanskrit, so I can't give the exact Sanskrit quote.  By the way, for the Hindus in the audience, I should mention that Yogaraja's work is a commentary on Abhinavagupta's Paramarthasara, which is in turn a reworking of Adisesha's Paramarthasara.

"This passage caught my attention because I found it interesting that a Hindu philosopher would praise Buddhist thought in this way" - Buddhist thought is in accordance with KS ( thought on Shuddha Vikalpa) even it is in accordance of Sankara Vedanta (Viveka). There is no rule to deny the truth just because it is said by someone else.

I've said this only in this answer. https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/18157/8696

The works of Yogarāja being very old clearly tells Anatta (not self) means not self of 'I' which is psycho-phyical. The term self in the 'not self' doesn't mean lack of super consciousness but lack of psycho-phyical consciousness. E.g, When we say - I'm doing, I'm eating, I'm playing etc. Here 'I' is psycho-phyical not real 'I'. Real 'I' is unchanging & permanent which is not supposed to do something, eat something, or play etc. This psycho-physical I is called as not-self because it is not our real self. That is what meant by Yogarāja, that I can say as I belong to the system you have mentioned Kashmiri Shaivism. So there is no conflict between Buddhists & Kashmiri Shaivism here. I've explained similar concept here. Also, read this one as well.
Following is an excerpt from Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic.
There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not
  lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be
  thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it
  leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be
  thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then
  this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it
  of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness
  be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to
  affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my
  consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...
"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable
  sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful,
  venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since
  subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I,
  this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or
  presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or
  external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with
  right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine,
  this is not I, this is not myself.'
"Any kind of feeling whatever...
"Any kind of perception whatever...
"Any kind of determination whatever...
"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently
  arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external,
  whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right
  understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is
  not I, this is not my self.'
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus,
  he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he
  finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in
  determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.
"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of
  passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he
  is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has
  been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more
  beyond.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.
Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.

Note - Consciousness meant by Gautam Buddha is psycho-phyical self explained above, not real self.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

The chat is not working. The Sutta you quoted is from Pali Nikayas translated to English. The Chinese Agama Sutras kept the equivalent collection from other pre-sectarian Buddhist schools. Happened I was doing this post I translated these verses, which is quite different from the English version.

I can find a "reverse" message in Udana 5.1 to "When one looks upon himself as the Self, he regards himself as a unique being due to the distinction between the Self and another being [i.e. the not-self]; this causes bondage and hostility [between the Self and the not-self]. All evils ensue from the assumption of such bondage.":

When the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One
  and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was
  sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone
  with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is
  there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there
  anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one
  dearer to me than myself.'"
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that
  occasion exclaimed:
Searching all directions with your awareness, you find no one dearer
  than yourself. In the same way, others are thickly dear to
  themselves. So you shouldn't hurt others if you love yourself.

I'm not sure it is a Buddhist message; though it's hard to be sure, something may be added or lost when it's translated.

When one looks upon himself as the Self, he regards himself as a unique being due to the distinction between the Self and another being [i.e. the not-self]; this causes bondage and hostility [between the Self and the not-self]. All evils ensue from the assumption of such bondage.

I think that Buddhism talks about skandhas and, instead of "When one looks upon himself as the Self", it's more likely to say something like, "When one looks upon upon the body as the self ... When one looks upon upon the perceptions as the self ... etc."
Your quote implies that there is a "himself" to look upon, and a "Self" that he can mistake himself for. That quote, with a capitalized S for Self, seems to me more at home in Shivaite doctrine than Buddhist.
As well as from doctrine about the aggregates being "non-self" (anatta), Buddhism also has doctrine about "pride", "arrogance", or "conceit" ... maybe this is part of the doctrine, or the kind of doctrine, that the quote is referring to.
Also, non-hostility is core to Buddhist doctrine (see e.g. adosa and the brahmaviharas).
Finally, people's answers to your question are quoting from the Pali canon; but an "11th century Kashmiri Shaivite philosopher" might be quoting from a different school of Buddhism (perhaps from the beginnings of what became Tibetan Buddhism).


text:
Unchanging Awareness
I listened to a short talk by  Mingyur Rinpoche and he said how thoughts and emotions etc are like clouds and Awareness is like space.  The clouds come and go but Awareness never changes. But I thought that everything is impermanent and therefore changes?  How can awareness never change? If I am not aware is awareness still there unchanging?  I would say no it is not. It arises and falls like everything else

There is no unchanging awareness. When he speaks of "unchanging awareness", Mingyur Rinpoche does not mean that there is an awareness that does not change. He means that all consciousnesses have characteristics in common. The more we understand (Mahayana) Buddhism, the more we are able to understand this and not take things literally.
Generally, when Mingyur Rinpoche says that awareness does not change, he refers to the nature of consciousness. He means that consciousness is clear and knowing by nature. Whether we speak of anger, attachment, mindfulness, joy, an eye consciousness apprehending blue or an ear consciousness apprehending a birdsong, we speak of phenomena that (1) are not form (2) are clear and knowing. Even anger has the nature of clarity and the function of knowing.
Mingyur Rinpoche is a Kagyu and mainly practices Mahamudra, concentrating and analyzing the conventional and the ultimate nature of the mind. Contemplating the analogy of the mind being like the sky is a way to get at the conventional nature of the mind (clear and knowing) that all instances of consciousness have in common. The idea is not to dive in the object of consciousness, but to find that which characterizes all instances of consciousness and to concentrate on that. It is an object that is always there, at reach, just like the breath, because we are always aware of something. If only we could find what is common to anger, desire, pride, an eye consciousness apprehending shape and color, etc. we would find the conventional nature of the mind. If we look for it and know how to find it, we will. On the other hand, if you were to focus only on, say, anger, then it would be different because there is not always manifest anger arising in your continuum.


text:
What does Buddhism say about pragmatic retribution?
I'd really like to buy into the ideas of understanding and patience even for those who hurt us. However my concern is that sometimes failing to engage in the tit-for-tat teaches that there are no consequences. Two different examples:
1) If a diplomat is expelled, should the other side expel also?
2) In a post divorce situation, if one side initiates legal action should the other side withhold previously allowed concessions?
It's not clear to me how one can avoid engaging in retribution in some cases.

There are countless examples of non-retaliation being depicted as admirable.
One that comes to mind is this one: Is That So?
Not that you'll necessarily find the mere fact that it's "admirable" is necessarily a good or sufficient reason -- instead a good reason includes to minimize suffering, allow the cessation of suffering, of those involved.
I don't want to answer the part of the question about diplomats (that seems to me a matter of politics rather than Buddhism).
"Pragmatic retribution" is what I'd call, Tit for tat. It's a popular game (or model, strategy, game theory), but simplistic to the point of stupidity, and I think not Buddhist.
On the subject of divorce, I'd suggest (from experience) that maybe both parties in a divorce should have legal counsel, and perhaps avoid making agreements and concessions without legal counsel (or at least, I think that's the way it works in "my country"). That's not a matter of retribution though, it's a matter of being equitable and finding a division (a "separation agreement") that's fair or as beneficial as possible to both parties.
Also I'm not sure that I agree with the premise of "understanding those who hurt us". Apparently there's a proverb that "to understand is to forgive", but maybe Buddhism has a different take on that subject. I'm thinking of the opening lines of the Dhammapada:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

The first line is about intention: your intention matters (for example whether you intend to hurt someone, or don't intend to hurt someone).
The third verse seems relevant though. Rather than "understanding those who hurt us" maybe it's better to understand (i.e. maybe "Buddhism would recommend" that you understand) yourself (or the things which you take to be yourself): how and why you're "hurt", what the nature of that hurt is, maybe what "views" you might change (or "abandon") to not be hurt in future. Maybe hurt can be caused by attachment (to something impermanent); considering something (or someone) as "yours"; hurt "pride"; and so on.
I recommend the truth of the sixth verse to you.
It's not clear to me how one can avoid engaging in retribution in some cases.
That's one of the reasons to have a lawyer each, or a mediator in common (or even two lawyers and a mediator). They can be a bit more dispassionate, professional, in dealing with the other party (and you can be more professional when you're dealing with them).

The word 'retribution' means:

...punishment inflicted on someone as vengeance for a wrong or criminal act.

The examples provided are not retribution but are matters of equity & justice.
From a Buddhist perspective, one should proceed in a manner that does not harm oneself or the other. Focus on protecting oneself & one's assets rather than hurting & punishing the other.

It is one thing to be patient. It does NOT mean you have to always be a doormat.
In other words: wisdom over compassion.
Don't make the mistake of reading 'turn the other cheek' whenever you read the word 'compassion'. That is not how Buddhism works.
A good parent knows that for their child to learn, they have to learn boundaries. Similarly, it is not always wise to give into someone else's demands.
One can very compassionately tell someone they're wrong, for instance. Or one can give back a toy to child A after child B has taken it from child A. Child B may throw a tantrum, but that doesn't mean the compassionate action is to give the toy to child B.
Both your divorce and your diplomacy case are not really about compassion. Compassion is about wisely managing your emotions and actions around injustice and suffering.
A diplomat is in the business of managing the relationship between two countries. They have to wisely handle things in such a way that war is averted, concessions are not made without due policy and so on. Compassion can be a  tool in that case, but it has to be compassion with the citizens of both the countries involved.
Similarly in a divorce the main objective should be that both parties and any children end up with a livable situation.
There are examples of extreme sacrifice in Buddhist literature - but they're mostly in the context of karma. As in: 'if you sacrifice greatly now, you will get great reward in a future life!'
BUT in the context of karma motivation is always key. If you sacrifice with the motivation that it will get you great reward in future, the great reward won't be there, because your motivation was in fact greed.
So the practical way of dealing with conflicts of interest is simply (not that it is often simple) to do what you think is best for all parties concerned, including yourself.
Or to put it different again: be true to yourself and your values. Those values probably include fairness. That way you will be able to live with the results.
The opposite of 'turning the other cheek' is 'an eye for an eye' - that also doesn't work very well. Both are extremes.
Try and find a way of dealing with the other party in a way that is fair, but doesn't escalate things.

When we start thinking about a hateful person or a thing, it is ourselves that suffer. The mere mention of the name of someone that we despise will immediately make us think about those bad things that the person did, and get “worked up”. We cause this suffering to ourselves. If we retaliate, then things get even worse. So it is always better to think that things happen for a reason.
We need to keep in mind that someone may be doing something bad (getting in our way), because we may have done something bad to that person in the past. Things always happen for one or more reasons, and we may not be able to see the reason (or the cause) in many cases, because the rebirth process keeps things hidden from us.

Atma feel the "need" to share a little story to it, Upasaka Saptha: "Somdet Toh said, “Well, you hit him first.” The monk replied, “No, no, he just came up and hit me over the head and I hadn’t done anything at all.” " more: Justice vs. Skillfulness - Gerechtigkeit vs. Geschick, Bhante Thanissaro. Much joy in reading.


text:
Moderation of sensual pleasures?
In SN 56.11 we find a famous passage:

“Bhikkhus, these two extremes should not be followed by one who has gone forth into homelessness. What two? The pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldlings, ignoble, unbeneficial; and the pursuit of self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata has awakened to the middle way, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.

Laity frequently interprets the above as moderation of sensual pleasures, even though the above passage seems to refer to monks (those "gone forth into homelessness").
Are there suttas where the Buddha or his disciples teach specifically laity on the subject of sensual pleasures (e.g. to be in anyway cautious about them)?
Also, a minor curiosity: how the above passage is interpreted by the Theravada tradition, since the suttas clearly teach the abandonment of sensual pleasures for those who become monks/nuns.

Thanks for this neat question. It highlights the fact that "lay person" is a very broad term in the context of steps on the spiritual path. Think of someone who is frequently in bars and nightclubs and another person who is in mediation centers at every chance.  Passages like the first one that @ChrisW quotes are addressed to people closer to the former. And then there are statements addressed to monks. But what about lay people who are keen on leading a Dhamma life, right?

If there were such a sutta then maybe AN 8.54 would have been a good place to put it. It begins,

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One,

"We are lay people enjoying sensuality; living crowded with spouses & children; using Kasi fabrics & sandalwood; wearing garlands, scents, & creams; handling gold & silver. May the Blessed One teach the Dhamma for those like us, for our happiness & well-being in this life, for our happiness & well-being in lives to come."

But that sutta only warns against debauchery in sex, drink, gambling, and evil companionship; and against improper or immoderate use of wealth; and not against sensual pleasures per se. Also the warning is that these are "drains on one's store of wealth".
Conversely it also doesn't recommend sensual pursuits as being "qualities that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life" (instead it recommends good work, good friendship, etc.).

The more famous DN 31 is a little more wide-ranging -- it warns against frequenting "theatrical shows":

"There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in frequenting theatrical shows. He is ever thinking:
(i) where is there dancing?
(ii) where is there singing?
(iii) where is there music?
(iv) where is there recitation?
(v) where is there playing with cymbals?
(vi) where is there pot-blowing?

Playing with cymbals is a major drain on our intellectual capital these days. Oops, I meant symbols. Darn spellchecker....

This is great! Thank you @ChrisW. I also found AN 4.62 which speaks of "four kinds of happiness that may be achieved by a layperson who enjoys sensual pleasures".

I feel so free after giving up the incessant search for pot-blowing venues.

Above does not say moderation of sensual pleasures though it is implied since you should not see it. What it explicitly says is The pursuit of ... which is you should not seek either extremes. The Middle Way, in this case, is to accept both, whatever that comes, without seeking.

A Deva – Laity of another kind – once asked a Bhikku, “O Monk, why don’t you enjoy sensual pleasures?”, and the Monk replied:

”I don't know my time. My time is hidden. It can't be seen.
  That's why, not having enjoyed, I go for alms: Don't let my time pass me by.
  Samiddhi Sutta: About Samiddhi - SN 1.20

This Sutta is a good example of pointing out the difficulties of teaching more advanced Dhamma to a normal being who is obsessed with sensual pleasures.  The noble ones have eradicated sensual desires, and are entirely free of sensual desires. That is why a disciple would recollect the qualities of the Noble Ones from time to time. Then the mind would not get afflicted with sensual desire, with hatred or with delusion. In recollecting such, the mind becomes unshaken towards the Triple Gem. With perfect confidence in the Blessed One, inspiration is gained from the truth of the Dhamma. Gladness arises in the noble disciple. With gladness towards the Dhamma, rapture and joy are born. With joy, the body becomes tranquil. With a tranquil body, the noble disciple feels pleasure. With pleasure, the mind becomes concentrated.
Once there was a dissatisfied young Bhikkhu. He was not yet part of the Sangha, as he has not yet attained Sotapatti Fruition. The Buddha uttered the following Dhammapada (186-187) to this young bhikkhu who was unhappy with his life:

Not by a shower of coins can sensual desires be satiated; sensual desires give little pleasure and are fraught with evil consequences (dukkha). Knowing this, the wise man, who is the disciple of the Buddha, does not find delight even in the pleasures of the devas, but rejoices in the cessation of craving (i.e., Nibbana).

When the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta was explained for the first time there were no Bhikkus, but Devas – Laity of another kind – who were present. In that Buddha explained to those present of the two extremes thus:

The pursuit of sensual happiness in sensual pleasures, which is low, vulgar, the way of worldliness, ignoble, unbeneficial, and the pursuit of self-mortification, which is painful, ignoble, unbeneficial.

Then in the Mahadukkhakkhanda Sutta, Buddha explain about our distorted perception of the world. Is it possible for a wise person to turn away from the lures of sensuality, once we are shown the flows of the worldly life?
In the Dānupatti Sutta – AN.6,  Buddha shows how helpful it is to have deeds full of merits when one goes to a birth as a result of one’s own Kamma.

“Dear Monks, let’s say someone donates things like foods, drinks, cloths, seats, flowers, scents, and houses to monks (ones who attempt to free from defilements). He likes to get things that he donates as a result of that good deed. He heard something like this: ‘Deities who live in the divine world called Chāthummahārājika have long lifespans. They have great pleasures.’ Then he feels this way: ‘I would also like to get a birth in Chāthummahārājika divine world after my death here.’ He then focuses his mind on to that expectation. He develops that mind. Because he focused his mind to this this crude sensual world again, his mind will take him to a birth in the Chāthummahārājika divine world after his death. Even this kind of birth is only for a virtuous person and not for an impure person. Dear Monks, the virtuous person’s hope will be fulfilled because of his pureness.”

In Theragatha - Verses of the Elder Monks 16.4, Ven. Ratthapala explains why he's not in the least bit tempted to return to the lay life. The verses here fall into three sections, with the first two relating to Raṭṭhapāla’s story as told in MN 82. In the first, Raṭṭhapāla is addressing his father after the latter had tried to use wealth and Raṭṭhapāla’s former wives to lure Ratthapala into disrobing. In the second section, Raṭṭhapāla is talking to King Koravya, who had asked him why he had ordained when he was still young and healthy, and had suffered no loss of relatives or wealth.
The Way to end all suffering is called the Majjima Patipada – Way to Relinquish Attachments to this World -
 because it avoids the two extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. Then only the mind has the clarity and strength to meditate deeply and discover the Truth. This Majjima Patipada consists of the diligent cultivation of Virtue, Meditation and Wisdom, which is explained in more detail as the Noble Eightfold Path.
In the Maha Chattarisaka Sutta (Discourse on the Great Forty) discusses two eightfold paths: A mundane path that leads to rebirth in the “good realms” (at or above the human realm) and the Noble Eightfold Path that leads to Nibbana. Thus majjima patipada is “middle path” in the conventional sense; and it is a good first step. But the lokottara meaning is much different, and this sutta lays out the basic structure of how to explain the deeper meanings. Throughout his 45 years of his ministry, Buddha  explained the details in various ways.
One lokottara meaning of majjima patipada is to “avoid being intoxicated by sense pleasures”.  It is a gradual process: High levels of intoxication is removed via removing micca ditthi when attaining the Sotapanna stage. After that, lower and lower intoxication levels removed as one gains more wisdom in steps. It means “voluntarily giving up” and not to give up attachments to this world by sheer will or force. The mind will not give up things that it considers pleasurable, unless there is a good reason. Those reasons are what Buddha Dhamma is all about. One becomes a Sotapanna by truly comprehending why it is not only unfruitful, but also dangerous to attach to things that one perceives to be pleasurable. But even a Sotapanna only has “seen” the truth of the “anicca nature” of this world.
The actual “giving up” comes next, when one slowly start “giving up” voluntarily and progress through the next two stages of Sakadagami and Anagami, and eventually gives up all attachments at the Arahant stage. Thus one does not need to worry about giving up anything until reaching the Sotapanna stage. Giving up happens automatically when one realizes the true nature of this world.

I'm not sure what you're saying in this answer nor how this answers the question. I think you're saying that the Uttara Sutta is addressed to lay people. But does the Uttara Sutta mention "pursuit of sensuality"? And why is it relevant to mention that you don't think translations from the Pali are accurate (how is the non-translated version "very different")? And how does the paticca samuppada differ, for the sotapannas (ariya upasaka/ika) than for "anariyas"?

This is only half of the answer. I will complete the first draft/initial thoughts when time permits. What I meant to say was by Bhikkus, what the scriptures mean is the FOURFOLD SANGHA. Then the laity would include all those who have not attained even the Sothapanna stage. The majority of the present day Bhikkus would fall onto this normal humans (Anariyas) category. The paticca samuppada as interpreted in almost all books are meant for this group. This is another discussion for another day. This is a busy week for me. When time permits I will complete my answer. With metta...

I will take what you said in good faith @ Dhammadhatu, and I will do my very best to try to not create such friction. But to tell you, I am the very opposite of what you think of me. This Dhamma path is such a simple, beautiful straightforward way that we have unnecessarily complicated. It is all because of Buddhaghosa and Visuddhimagga. Sadly you and I are still stuck in the way that he has interpreted things, and continue to see things the way he got us to see. That's why the path is closed for a great many of us. In future whatever that I write I will refer to the original suttas. w/ metta!

Thank you @SapthaVisuddhi for your answer and the sutta references. I'm indeed not confused about the mundane or noble paths, but am looking for explicit passages where sensual pleasures are a topic where the listeners are beings that are not inclined to be renunciants. I fear, though, there are no passage where the Buddha instructs someone to be moderate in sensual delight -- instead of instructing to abandon it.

@Thiago Silva... Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: Conditions of Welfare comes to mind if friendship, companionship and intimacy with the good can be taken as moderate in sensual delight.  There are SUKHA vipaka vedana.  They include sukha vedana such as bodily comforts one feels sleeping in a luxurious bed, eating tasty food,  smelling nice odors, seeing something attractive, etc. They arise via the five physical senses. If someone can be without generating somanassa vedana, it is OK. An Arahant will not generate such because there is no attachment to anything or anyone for an Arahant.

In AN 8.21, the householder Ugga says the Buddha gave him "a talk on giving, virtuous behavior, and heaven; he revealed the danger, degradation, and defilement of sensual pleasures and the benefit of renunciation."


text:
What would a Buddhist country's law be?
Does Asian countries has Buddhist law in their parliament/government?
Is there thing like this?
As we can see that Asian countries like Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Mongolia, South-Korea, North-Korea, Hongkong. In these counties mostly people are Buddhist so I've to know if there is Buddhist law for parliament or government for Buddhist country. And if there what is it or what it'd be?

The guiding principles of an ideal king it to follow is the Dasavidha-rājadhamma

Dāna (charity) — being prepared to sacrifice one's own pleasure for the well-being of the public, such as giving away one's belongings or other things to support or assist others, including giving knowledge and serving public interests.

Sīla (morality) — practicing physical and mental morals, and being a good example of others.

Pariccāga (altruism), being generous and avoiding selfishness, practicing altruism.

Ājjava (honesty) — being honest and sincere towards others, performing one's duties with loyalty and sincerity to others.

Maddava (gentleness) — having gentle temperament, avoiding arrogance and never defaming others.

Tapa (self controlling) — destroying passion and performing duties without indolence.

Akkodha (non-anger) — being free from hatred and remaining calm in the midst of confusion.

Avihimsa (non-violence) — exercising non-violence, not being vengeful.

Khanti (forbearance) — practicing patience, and trembling to serve public interests.

Avirodhana (uprightness) — respecting opinions of other persons, avoiding prejudice and promoting public peace and order.

King Asoka incorporated this into his rule and perhaps some other monarchs historically.
Sri Lankan constitution does gives the following provision.

The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the
foremost place and accordingly it shall be the duty of the State
to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all
religions the rights granted by Articles 10 and 14(1)(e).

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA (As amended up to 15th May 2015) Revised Edition – 2015
Thai Monarchy seem to have it engrained:

Thai concepts of monarchy have their origins in Sukhothai, founded in the early part of the 13th century and generally regarded as the first truly independent Thai kingdom. Here, particularly under the reign of King Ramkhamhaeng the Great (1275-1317), was born the ideal of a paternalistic ruler alert to the needs of his people and aware of the fact that his duty was to guide them. Such forms part of Dasavidha-rājadhamma, or the ten precepts of kingship, which – rooted in the tradition of Theravada Buddhism – encompasses such virtues as willingness to give and sacrifice for a greater good, morality, honesty, open-mindedness, diligence, compassion, perseverance and righteousness.

Thai Monarchy
But not sure the Dasavidha-rājadhamma is directly found in the constitution or any legislature any of the modern day Buddhist countries. At least it is not the case in Sri Lanka. Mainly because the constitution and legislature is modeled what was inherited from the British rule and constitutions and legislation of other countries.

Sorry if this is a contentious question but does it mean when you say that, for example, Thailand or Bhutan "do not have Buddhist law in their parliament/government"?

@ChrisW I mean, I want to know if there's Buddhist law for Buddhist country and if there then what is it.

@Swapnil That is why I'm asking Suminda to explain why he claims that countries "don't have this in law".

@ChrisW I think there's no regulation and compulsion to follow law/rules because Buddhism is peace and liberty. Isn't it? And maybe because of politics.

Buddhism is not a law imposed. There are Sheela or 'way of life' which Buddhists voluntarily follow, which would help in realizing Nibbhana. One follows because s/he wants to. If everyone in a country follows Buddhist way of life 100% there would be no need for laws. Self discipline through understanding is the key.

Upasaka Swapnil,
Upasaka asked 'Does Asian countries has Buddhist law in their parliament/government?'
Not sure (possible worthy a question and research) but as far as my person perceives it seems to be that the Kingdom of Cambodia, the land of the Khmer (khema, meaning land, person at peace, refuge) is actually the last/only country left which tries to stick firm to Dhamma-Vinaya and always proves laws agains Vinayas objectives but of course going in many ways against modern values and modern tendency, jet tolerating all as far as possible and not causing inconsistency and splitting, not to speak about violence. Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena listed good qualities have great value in the frame of possibilities.
Not sure in how far such can be still traced in Sri Lanka (which is since longer social democratic, if right informed) and Burma (possible similar to Sri Lanka). Thailand has already given up sticking to precepts and upholding Dhamma-Vinaya, as far as perseived. No idea about Laos.
But my person is not much informed about such things and didn't made any detail researches, so just as far as personal perceived.
Generally it's clear that it gets darker an soon this religion will have disappeared with only trading copies left.
(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment, but as means for liberation)

Thank you "Bhante" for your invaluable time and efforts.

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


text:
What is the consequence to living life with self realism behavior?
It is very typical to live life with self realism behavior and aware every time with our daily routine. When i sit and think about my past life i just found, there was a time which has been gone and never will come back, things has been happening and passing from our eyes, we are just going, going and keep continuing. I am just feeling sad about passing time, where am i going and where will i reach. We just follow daily routines as per humanity following. I  want to know what should we our work, which could give us a full flicit and after following that way, there should not be any sadness and should be full of awareness.

This is a good question but I don't understand the phase, "self realism behavior" or "self realism"?

Any seed's highest behaviour is to blossom into a full-fledged state which is fruit, flower etc similarly Humans can be full-fledged beings which are in the state of Blissfulness and other pleasant states if he/she gives proper attention to achieve this.
I must tell you this when you are thinking about the past there is only one moment which the moment we are living now there is no other moment cause past and future are just a phrase one can never go to future (and yes we should prepare for future) or the past so it's just in our mind only.
If you are aware enough then there should not be any thoughts come into your mind about sadness you just feel joyful about being alive. Most of the humans unconsciously think they are immortal but once you know or understand that you are mortal, you will do things only which are precious or important to you in life.
Thanks for reading.

It is a good question that you asked @singhindolia. You and I and every one and everything that exists within time and space go through five stages in life. This is inevitable. This is certain to happen and unavoidable. For example, a seed germinates and starts a bud; this is the arising stage. Then it grows to a healthy young tree; this is the growing stage where there are no flowers or fruits yet. Then comes the  optimum stage where the tree is flourishing and is full of flowers and fruits. But then with time, the tree will give less fruits and is on the way down; this is the  decaying stage where it can come down with various diseases too. This process continues until it dies.
It is no different for you and me. A human or animal will go through the same process. A human life starts not as a baby but a single cell in the womb; from there to a baby of couple of years is the arising stage. Then comes the growth stage until about 15 years or so. Life peaks from there to about 30-35 years, and that is the time one really enjoys life, the optimum stage. But then inevitably, the decay process starts and one starts feeling aches and pains, diseases, etc in the middle ages. This stage is continued in the final stage leading to death.
This is the underlying nature of this anything in this world, and that is why it is anicca: no matter how much we try, we will not be able to maintain anything to our satisfaction over long times. Thus we can see how  suffering arises due to the transient nature of our lives, which in turn leads to the conclusion that one is truly helpless (anatta) in this samsaric journey. If one truly understands this fact, that itself leads to the Stream Entrant stage of Nibbana.

Yes and I pretty much like your answer, what you call as anatta we say it "anahata" in India which is one chakra(wheel) I guess that's what you are referring to!!?

@Nisarg,  if you assume that “anatta” is the same as “anäthma” which is a Sanskrit word, it gives a totally different meaning. (as “self”). Buddha has said,”Sabbe Dhamma anatta“. So, what does “all dhamma are “no-self”” mean? Dhamma includes everything, that means inert things too. Does it make sense to say, “a tree has “no-self”? On the other hand, nothing in this world is of any real substance in the end; they all come into being and are destroyed in the end: and that is anatta. Also it is said six  internal senses are Anatta. It is meaningless to say a 'headache' has no self. - with metta.

We should follow daily routines which will lead to a no daily routine. That is following the Noble Eightfold Path.


text:
What is the real meaning of the third precept?
Can someone explain the third precept? Because most are translating this as "sexual misconduct"; but that it so narrow, and distorts Buddhism.

Please see the answers to these two questions: Trouble understanding “sensual misconduct” ... and How is sexual misconduct explained in regards to the five precepts?

kamesu miccacara means not just sexual misconduct, but also excessive of sense pleasures. One can arrive at this higher meanings by studying 'Nirukthi'. What it means is finding the origins of key words - as to how complex words are put together using key words.

i agree with Saptha Visuddhi.most of are misunderstand as sexual misconduct.that is wrong. The "kama sumichchachara" the word kama mean sensual not sexual.

And these 'nirukthis' are defined by whom? What are the references of these origins? I hope this is not an opinion of a monk who discovered something out of the blue.

This is to have intimacy with someone under the protection of another. A wife or husband would be protective of each other in appropriate advances by another. A mother, father or family member would also do so.

There are four conditions for wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.
i) There must be a man or woman with whom it is improper to
  have sexual intercourse.
ii) There must be intention to have sexual intercourse with such a
  person.
iii) Action must be taken to have such an intercourse.
iv) There must be enjoyment from contact of the sexual organs.
With reference to the first condition, there are twenty kinds of
  women with whom men should have no sexual relations. They can
  be divided into three groups, namely: women under the
  guardianship of parents, family members, relatives and authorities
  charged with their care; married or betrothed women; bhikkhunis
  and religious women observing the Holy Life. For all women, a
  man forbidden by tradition or under religious rules is prohibited
  as a partner. For any unwilling partner who is drugged or forced to
  have sexual intercourse under threat of violence or coercion,
  conditions (ii) & (iv) exclude them from violation of the precept.

Source: FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA) on urbandharma.org

Do you know (or can you guess) where the list of "four conditions" in that definition comes from?

Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami-here is the problem.the word "kama"means not only sexual pleasure.its about all the sensual pleasures.eg: adict to watch tv is violating this perspective. Word kama loka does not mean sexual world.so sexual misconduct not the correct answer.

The 4 conditions perhaps might be from the commentaries.

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena Just a little question responding your reply. Why the object of breach is woman, if we look at the Sutta, Buddha only mentions women as the object of breach, Buddha never prohibits a married man to have sexual relationship with woman. Why is that?