text:
What are "Supernatural mental abilities" in relation to Buddhism?
In this question How to help non-Buddhists understand a young person's desire to be ordained as a monk?, one of the "selling points" listed was:

5) Supernatural mental abilities (astral travel, reading minds, remembering past lives, etc.)

Could someone explain this is more detail? I had thought this was more of a pop culture point rather than what seems to be a core concept.
Do such "abilities" actually exist, and if so what is their implication in the practice of Buddhism or proceeding in one's daily life? Do monks or others actively practice them?

What sort of explanation are you looking for? As to why it is a benefit? As to what the mental abilities are? Or as to what their role is on the path?

Not clear what you are asking for. There are a lot of practices and beliefs like this that are scattered throughout many different Buddhist sects.

@yuttadhammo Basically what is their role on the path. I added some clarification to my question.

@user3169 If one of the answers looks good to you, are you willing to accept it or provide feedback? ^_^

@Hrafn I think your answer is the most complete and you linked good reference info. though all the answers have useful info. It all seems to be so subjective, based on one's mental abilities, perception and second hand observations.

The question is slightly broad and asks about several different facets.  I'm going to focus on "Do monks or others actively practice them?"  The answer to this is "yes, some do."
There are a variety of beliefs and practices in a wide array of different Buddhist traditions which could be considered to be "Supernatural" in some way, shape, or form. They could also be considered wholly "natural" depending on your point of view of the mechanics behind what is happening.
There are practices such as tummo which have received some amount of study that allow for increasing the core body temperature.  This may or may not count as "supernatural" but it would certainly seem that way to an outside observer with no experience in the practice.
There is a belief among some practitioners of certain sects that there is a literal rainbow body phenomena wherein the body releases light and, sometimes, shrinks (my source on this is a conversation with a monk, if someone knows of something written down I'd be interested).  It is believed that this can be attained through the practice of dzogchen.
Information on belief in various forms of an "energy body" or "subtle body" are everywhere in various Buddhist traditions.
There's a practice called dream yoga which includes something that could very well be considered "astral travel," though it is notoriously difficult to take a classification system derived from one system and apply it to another, so whether you count it as "astral," "illusory," or "supernatural" or just something related to what others call that may be tricky. These practices certainly have been used historically for divination (as described by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche), among other purposes.
This isn't even getting into the phenomena of emanations and other such beliefs.
Basically: There are certainly beliefs and practices, engaged in by both monks and non-monks, that can be interpreted this way.

In my opinion, supernatural abilities are metaphors for various mental/psychological skills. This seems to accord well with Chogyam Trungpa's interpretation of Six Worlds as psychological states, and his other teachings.
Reading minds is a metaphor for a highly refined ability to read person's hidden intentions/judgements from context, background info, and non-verbal queues.
Remembering past lives is a metaphor for clearly understanding the patterns of behavior that carry on from generation to generation.
So-called Heavenly Eye is a metaphor for being able to see things objectively, without a personal bias.
Ancients were rather rational people, but they had their way of talking about things, which may look weird to a modern person.

Thomas [Aquinas] defined a miracle as "whatever God does outside and beyond the order commonly determined or observed in nature". Buddhism would agree with this definition except that it would replace the word 'God' with the word 'mind'. The development and purification of the mind through ethical and meditational training can unleash powers not normally apparent which would usually be described as miraculous. The miraculous powers (abhinna iddhi / siddhi) often mentioned in the Buddhist scriptures, and sometimes manifested by the Buddha himself, include being able to multiply oneself, fly through the air, hear things over a long distance, read other people's minds, remember one's former lives and know how to destroy the defilements of the mind. Only the last three of these is considered to be important. There is little doubt that the Buddha had a cautious attitude to these and other miraculous powers. He pointed out that they could simply be due to magic or fraud rather than genuine spiritual accomplishments.

Source: "Dharma Data: Miracles" at BuddhaNet
When asked to perform a miracle in order to impress and thereby convert people, he refused saying that education was the greatest of miracles. So from the Buddhist perspective, the ability to perform miracles is not proof of holiness and it need not have a spiritual value although it may be used for the benefit of others.

The Buddha's Attitude to Miracles
Miracles of Gautama Buddha on Wikipedia

Superhuman abilities are described many times in the suttas like the Iddhipada-vibhanga Sutta and many others.
Of course they are real and not metaphors or vain myths. But there are many other abilities outside the basic categorizations (as mentioned by The Buddha himself).
Once one achieves a certain level of concentration they can experience all types of superhuman abilities. They are categorized in a certain manner in the Pali canons called the "six higher knowledges" or "Abhijñā".
I saw a documentary a long time ago, called something like "The KGB Paranormal Files" about the Soviet Union researching psychic powers encountering Tibetan monks rumored to have all types of psychic powers. They did experiments with some monks and asked them to concentrate on breaking a skull and within moments it really happened. I found the video, here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CH0VyYbwuk&feature=youtu.be&t=3741.
For me personally I've only experienced subtle powers like sometimes knowing the minds and perceptions of others, healing myself, and experiencing extreme enjoyment from the destruction of asavas.
I know that with practice almost anyone who develops concentration would be able to achieve superhuman powers with little difficulty, it's not as a hard as it seems. With proper training it would probably only takes months or less of practice.
But I'm not very interested in developing superhuman abilities right now because it seems unnecessary and not useful to me given my current state.
I'm only interested in the ending of mental fermentations (asavas) because it's very useful to me to experience such enjoyment and put an end to the perpetual cycle of misery.
The thought arose in my mind "What is the point in having all types of superhuman abilities if one still experiences fear, anger, sorrow, boredom, and other miserable states?". With the destruction of asavas I would experience extreme enjoyment, stand fearless, doubtless, sorrowless, just enjoying this eternal moment. So what greater power could there be?
Right now I'm focusing on developing mind-exercises to end mental fermentations (asavas) since exact precise methods seem to have either completely disappeared or are hidden well during this time-period. All that's leftover now in modern times are vague teachings and ideas, not exact precise methods. I hope to become an arahant or paccekabuddha in this existence.
After that achievement I would be able to develop other superhuman abilities easily if I wanted.
Here are some of my personal experiences:

I concentrate on healing myself, after a few seconds or minutes of concentration I feel tingling vibrations coming out of my body, my nose becomes unstuffed, my vision improves slightly, and my overall health improves
I concentrate on destroying painful feelings inside of me, I see that in the past I insulted others harshly which is one of the vain trifling deeds holding me back
I concentrate on destroying painful feelings inside of me, I feel a type of energy go into my forehead third eye area and experience bliss, I try harder and the energy goes above my third eye to the top of my head and experience such an extreme form of enjoyment that I see no other greater pleasure

I also believe that in the past I practiced mind-exercises in early pre-ancient Egypt a long long time ago, which unconsciously unknowingly I revived now in modern times. It seems that the earlier Egyptians were highly interested in mind-exercises and meditation, many from that time are now here during this time-period. Also sometimes I see spirits of deceased relatives, heavenly and hellish beings.
Certainly this extreme form of enjoyment is the greatest gain, greatest pleasure, the only noteworthy goal in life.

I'll talk about remembering past lives specifically, but first I want to comment more generally on the "supernatural" in the question. It creates a small problem in that it implies there is a "natural" and then something else (the "super" version). The reason that's problematic is that if we're not careful it could lead us to unwittingly assume something that Buddhist practice is intended to dissolve -- i.e. the illusion that we unenlightened dudes are victims of. Too much to go into here, but I just wanted to point to something to take care of in the question itself. Onto remembering past lives.
I've no idea if the concept is in any way true, but I have no problem believing it is. More than that, it seems to me exactly what I'd expect to be the case, given what I have figured out so far (not much) about Buddhism. In fact, for me the question is not "Can people remember past lives?" but rather "How come I cannot remember my past lives?" (to which the answer is, "'Cos you're still asleep!" :-) )
And why is it relevant to (my) practice? It encourages me to keep going, that's why. Based on my slow progress, my general struggles in this life, and the overall suckiness of humanity (a.k.a. dukkha) I find it a source of hope that I don't just have 75-ish years to get myself sorted out. If I thought I had only one shot, and if I hadn't made it by the end ... well that would really suck.
Again, to be clear, I don't know that the remembering past lives thing is factual, but I'm increasingly of the view that it makes sense. I have an analogy I use to help myself.

I exist, always and forever, outside of time. But I am asleep. (Care needed here, since that word "I" is problematic too. But allow me some leeway.)
While I'm asleep, I have a serious of dreams, some pleasant, some neutral, and some downright nasty nightmares. Time itself is part of that being asleep. Also, and crucially, suffering is part of being asleep
Each dream corresponds to what we sleepers call a "lifetime", but that in itself is just part of being asleep. The "real" me (again, careful, even the idea of "me" is subject to illusion), is merely "having" the dreams, but I also affect them too.
What we sleepers call "death" is merely the moving from one dream to the next, without waking up in between. But death is therefore not "real" any more than the dreams themselves are
At one point, based (for reasons I don't yet understand) on my actions within my dreams, I will wake up. At that point, I'll remember all my dreams (i.e. my "past lives"), everything that happened in between dreams, what dreams are all about -- the whole shebang basically. And, crucially, I will be free from suffering (because suffering is nothing more than a function of sleep)
As I get towards the last few dreams in the sequence, before I wake up completely, I may get a glimpse of past dreams -- not hard to believe because "in reality", it's the same "I" (again, danger, anatta alert!) or "mindstream" that has been having all those past dreams.

Overall I find that an immensely hopeful view of the nature of things and spurs me on to practice. I confess it's frustrating that I'm stuck in the sleep state, but wonder of wonders, some dude from about 2,500 ago appears to have figured out how to wake up. Awesome! (If it's true.)

This is a very interesting description. Are there any references to Buddhist teachings for such phenomenon?

Not that I'm aware of. It is absolutely nothing more than an analogy I use to help my understanding. I find it useful, but any relationship to the Buddhist canon or primary commentaries is purely accidental. In other words, caveat lector.

@user3169, it turns out I'm not the only one to use that analogy after all. I've just been reading Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's "The New Meditation Handbook", and in the Introduction to Part One he uses pretty much the same analogy I just did (page 14 of the hardback).

Some of these have been actively researched in Parapsychology. The Wikipedia link directs you to research efforts around this subject.
These powers are not generally encouraged other than for teaching (Desana Pratihara).


text:
Is it possible to recognize a person who has achieved Arhatship?
As per the Wikipedia article "Arhat":

In Theravada Buddhism, an Arhat [...] is a "perfected person" who has attained nirvana.

And I saw somewhere that one is not allowed to say one is an Arhat. So my question is: how do you identify a person/monk who has achieved Arhatship?

just as a thought: Dunning-Kruger effect

if you're not a monk, e.g. organising monastic duties, why would you need to? charisma, self confidence, and the qualities of the 8-fold path are fine attributes. but they're not the same as leadership qualities, and i struggle to think why a buddhist saint would need anyone's blessing, especially in the theravada tradition, i guess

The Buddha gave some specific advice about this. In the Canki Sutta (MN 95):

How is truth discovered? Here a bhikkhu lives near some village or town. Then a householder or his son goes to him in order to test him in three kinds of ideas, in ideas provocative of greed, of hate, and of delusion, wondering, "Are there in this venerable one any such ideas, whereby his mind being obsessed he might not knowing, say 'I know,' unseeing, say 'I see,' or to get others to do likewise, which would be long for their harm and suffering?" While thus testing him he comes to find that there are no such ideas in him, and he finds that, "The bodily and verbal behavior of that venerable one are not those of one affected by lust or hate or delusion. But the True Idea that this venerable one teaches is profound, hard to see and discover; yet it is the most peaceful and superior of all, out of reach of logical ratiocination, subtle, for the wise to experience; such a True Idea cannot be taught by one affected by lust or hate or delusion."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.nymo.html

In the Vimamsaka Sutta (MN 47) he even provides means of testing a Buddha:

Bhikkhus, by the bhikkhu who could examine the thought processes of another the Thus Gone One should be examined on two things. On things cognisable by eye consciousness and ear consciousness. Are defiled things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness evident in the Thus Gone One or are they not? When examining he knows. These defiled things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness (*1) are not evident in the Thus Gone One. Then he should make a further examination: Are mixed things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness evident in the Thus Gone One or are they not? When examining he knows. These mixed things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness (*2) are not evident in the Thus Gone One. Then he should make a further examination: Are pure things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness evident in the Thus Gone One or are they not? When examining he knows. The pure things cognisable by eye and ear consciousness (*3) are evident in the Thus Gone One.
http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=81

Finally, in the Thana Sutta (AN 4.192):

"It's through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.
"It's through dealing with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.
"It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.
"It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.192.than.html

There's a story Mahasi Sayadaw told about how when asked by his attendant whether he was enlightened, an arahant himself said, "It's difficult to know whether one is enlightened. Even a monk attending on an arahant wouldn't know it." Or something like that; it was an oblique means of telling his student that he was enlightened. Can't find the story, sorry.
The point is, it is difficult to tell whether someone else is enlightened. It is much easier to tell whether someone is unenlightened, because if they get angry, greedy or deluded, you can be sure they are not enlightened.

I believe I've heard a number of stories (no reference sorry) whereby the person that cooks the rice in the Zen monastery is actually enlightened. I appreciate this is a different tradition from Theravada but it points to a similar thing, maybe. So on that basis one might be tempted to say no, you can't tell.
However Daniel Ingram openly states that he is an Arhat. So on that basis yes - if they tell you. Which again perhaps doesn't seem helpful - but raises the notion of why an admission of attainments such as these is seen as taboo - in my experience anyway.
On a personal note - I saw the Dalai Lama give a talk in Manchester (different tradition again sorry). Initially he came across as fairly unimpressive but myself and several others were completely lit up after the talk. It felt like quite a strange experience - so on that basis I would maybe say that you would definitely be aware of something about that person.
Not a straight forward answer but maybe give you a few thoughts and a reflection. Interested to hear others.

This could be improved by citation of source material. Best :)

Ingram's claim is on his book, published several years ago. In some forum conversations he has explained that he was not fully convinced that saying it was the right thing to do, but one concern he had was to raise that very question you mention -- why is it taboo? In that sense it looks like he succeeded! But I'd soften your statement slightly to say "Daniel Ingram once stated he was an Arhat" -- I'm not sure he'd do the same thing today. In fact he's preparing a second edition of his book, and I'm not sure we'll see the claim repeated there. Shrug.

the ingram case is really odd. i think i get why he claimed it, something to do with having a very in depth analysis of the path etc., but i likely don't buy it having read about e.g. chinul's (i would call it) quite profound peity. i guess his conscience is clear when he says it, anyway

I'm not sure how unaware he is as to why making such an announcement over the internet really is meaningless. Its only one of his many claims of attainment, some of which are completely outside the teaching tradition he says he's a part of. It makes me feel that no matter what i do, he's already done it better. He comes off as an narcissist. I could be totally wrong, as i'm not a psychologist, but that certainly is the impression he makes on me.

I would say that the most efficient way would be to follow the advice given in the early texts because in my experience the advice given there is morally irreprehensible.
For example, I would heed the advice given in:

AN 9.8, To Sajjha (Sajjha Sutta)
MN 47, The Inquirer (Vīmaṃsaka Sutta) (For ease of comprehension, I'd change the word "states" for "behaviors" or "conduct")
AN 4.192, Traits (Thana Sutta) (Not directly related to an Arahat but the advice is coherent)

Bear in mind, that this advice does not guarantee one finds an Arahat but are good indicators. There are more indicators in the texts but these seem to be the most direct.

Sup,
I just want to give my two cents even though this question is old.
Long time ago (like during the time of the "Early Buddhist schools" old) there was a lot of debate as to the fallible nature of arahats. In the historical narrative a contemplative named Mahadeva compiles a list of five points speaking to some flaws an arahat can possess, you can find these via "mahadeva five points" on Google etc.
Some of these points were extremely ambiguous (in terms of interpretation) and the list seems to vary a lot. But they basically speak to the fact that arahats can have wet dreams, can be arahats and not know it etc.
Anyways my own opinion is that these ideas offended the sensibilities of some of the more conservative monastics, who decided to stick with the "word" of their teacher (the Buddha).
As time went on the conservatives became the modern Theravada school whilst the majority of the other early schools (who held the fallible nature of arahatship) died out.
This is probably why Theravada dogma specifically reflects the inability of arahats to perform certain actions and experience certain emotions (you can google the list of nine things an arahat cannot transgress), whilst the other schools recognized the ambiguous (and thus not "clear cut") nature of the attainment.
Anyways, the reason I say all this is because, yes:
Arahats will not agree with each other on everything (which may have resulted in the split), arahats can be ignorant, arahats can have strange habits (see Sariputta and his stream-crossing (like crossing actual streams, as in rivulets of flowing water) strategies) etc.
Because of these ambiguities, and how personality is not changed after awakening, it is highly doubtful that one will be able to recognize an arhat snaps fingers, just like that
Awakened people don't come out like cookie cutter sheets, which is probably why our teacher often referenced the need for discernment, and a long period of getting to know the person before determining their attainment
Cheers.

Personality is not changed? Really? That seems weird. What do you mean by that?

i've read it said that arhants have completely eradicated emotional obstructions etc. which to me does imply a change to 'personality' @AlexiaL , in zen i suppose that's meant to resolve, "the mountains are mountains again" but doubt that things remain unchanged. my advice is to seek the answers rather than have them. wheeras if that sounds like "spiritual shopping", then just try it differently. just my two cents

As a rule of thumb, they will be
Very calm (stable). Not swayed by pleasurable/exciting things, not upset or frustrated by pain/failure/disagreement.
Immovable. Impossible to disturb. Solid like a rock.
Not doubting themselves but not arrogant either. In other words, extremely open-minded AND very confident at the same time, which is an almost impossible combination for a regular person.
Basically, always in a good mood. Bright, alert.
Moving with grace.
Precise in their use of language.
Seeing through noise into the gist of things.
Exceedingly reasonable.
Very careful with generalizations, not prone to careless overgeneralization.

I asked an enlightened monk that I had a strong feeling was an Arhat about this and he said he was enlightened when he was a layman. He just put on the robes to help him teach the message and he was completely unconcerned with such delusions. He was continually mindful of annica  and had reached a state of anatta. He still got angry and would often shout at his followers but with equanimity.

if anyone, layman or worse a Bhikkhu, claims he/she an Arahat, definitely this is the opposite!

Lol an arahant wouldn’t shout because he would be free of anger.

@TheDBSGuy - No, but they might choose to appear so for the sake of conveying a message.

So, an arahant would speak loudly not shouting right? An arahant would speak with no emotions right?

An arahant would be impossible to have anger.

In Udana 7.2, Ven. Sariputta (the Arahant) tried to teach Ven. Bhaddiya without realizing that he too was an Arahant.
The Buddha saw this and exclaimed the verse, describing Ven. Bhaddiya:

He has cut the cycle, has gone away to freedom from longing. The
  dried-up stream no longer flows. The cycle, cut, no longer turns.
  This, just this, is the end of stress.

This shows that the Buddha could recognize who is an Arahant, but not another Arahant.

If a layperson becomes an Arhant, he will automatically leave his home and enter the monk hood otherwise he will pass away into Nibbana within 7 days.
Also, it is very rare for any one to proclaim he or she is an Arhant if he is truly a real Arhant.  An Arhant will remain silent and will not brag his or her achievement.
There is one case in Thailand where a temple was well known and many devotees flooded the temple every Sunday to do Dana or Charity to serve foods to the monks. In the Temple area there was a lone monk who stay within the vicinity and sweep the ground every morning and afternoon without a sound or utterance of any kind since he noticed most devotees will come to the Temple and go straight to the main Temple to visit the chief monk for the blessing.  Little attention was given to the lone monk whom no one pay attention at all.  Over time, the lone monk passed away and was cremated.  After the cremation was over, the lay people was shocked to find the monk relics like gems and pearly white pearls.  Then, they realised that this lone monk was indeed an Arhant who keep to himself with little talk to other monks too.
So, it is hard to judge a monk whether he is an Arhant or not.  Only upon their demised will one come to know whether the monk is an Arhant or not.
The Watcher2

That's a very bold statement in the first sentence. Are you sure this is always the case? Or did you read it but not give the source?

I don’t believe layman claiming to be arahant unless they are planning to ordain as soon as possible within 7 days or on that very day.

@PeterJ I think that's Theravada orthodoxy, e.g. here , "The Milindapanha, which is almost as old as the [rest of (Burmese ed.)] Pali Canon above implies that lay people do/did attain enlightenment. It is just that they all ordained or died within 7 days or less."

@ChrisW - As you know I have a serious problem with this approach. We should not speak as if we are omniscient when we are merely restating an orthodoxy we have learned from a book, Buddhists should not be 'people of the book' and I'd be genuinely surprised if anyone here disagreed.   .  .  .

Layman(non-Arya) is blind with lobha, dosa and moha , so no wonder cannot see through Arhat, but if you follow his teaching and get enlightened, you have no more doubt. Exactly to say, Sotapanna can teach one to be a Sotapanna, Sakadagami can teach one to be a Sakadagami, Anagami can teach one to be a Anagami and Arahat can teach one to be a Arahat. If you follow his teaching and get enlightened, you have no more doubt. Nowaday, still there are Arya. Try to catch the train if not will be left.

I get this from The Duration of Gotama Sasana (Dispensation)

The Buddha said that after His parinibbaana, only for 1,000 years will the monks be able to acquire the analytical knowledge (Patisambhida), or what we know as Arahanthship or deep knowledge.Then, as time goes on, they will only be able to attain Anaagami (Never return). And then only Sakadagami (Once return), and finally, only Sotapanna (Stream enterer). With the death of the last disciple who has attained Sotapanna, the attainments will disappear.

Being in Nirvana permanently is a unique situation, so I think it would be recognizable but not easy. I watched Arahant Ajaan Tong Sirimangalo's videos and I saw a complete pure divine being.
Achieving Arahantship, entering Nirvana permanently before the physical body dies is a very rare event I think. Because the physical body's life time is not long enough for most people to achieve that goal. I think what is more common is achieving Sotapanna and Sakadagami stages before the body dies. Maybe some Anagamis can also been found around the planet but I think their number would be few like Arahants.

The person who became Arhat, he doesn't have Three poisons
He also removed Kleshas so his existence no longer valid cos there is no "I"

@JanithChinthana I'm also talking about a person who is living and I believe you are a Srilankan so please watch this video

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Can environmental degradation be used as a justification for the culling of an invasive alien species?
We have a lot of feral foxes in Australia which decimate the local wildlife. Foxes are not native to Australia but where introduced by humans. Local wildlife is not adapted to these predators and are an easy prey for foxes. What is the Buddhist view on killing an invasive alien species destroying the local environmental life cycle?

Thank you for your reply, I have read this post. The main difference is that foxes were introduced by humans and not part of the native wildlife. Are we, as humans, responsible for the extinction of native wildlife because we introduced them? I am really struggling with this because we have many foxes on our property and I find dead native animals almost every day, killed by foxes. I spoke to an expert and he told me that many native animals are at risk of becoming extinct in our area. Are we responsible if we let this get out of control?

From a Buddhist point of view, that's not really relevant - killing is killing. But I still think that can be discussed within the framework of the other question. The question is still 'can killing ever be justified?' We don't really need a question for every example, I don't think...

Thank you. I am sorry that I asked such a specific question but I am struggling with this for many years and I am still hoping that one day someone will understand my dilemma. I have spoken to several monks and they all say the same as you say: "killing is killing" but it hurts to see so many dead native animals when I walk in the area. I can understand that this is probably not the right place to get an answer for this. Thank you.

Practice compassion on the feral foxes as well as local animals. In any case, it hurts because of your clinging. Compassion does not hurt.

@Eric Maybe this answer helps: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/199/18

Aw, I was about to answer this: there's one key difference between this question and the other, which is that these vermin are human-introduced. It's easy to feel responsibility for having introduced a pest which is decimating other animals. But nature is just lots of animals killing other animals. You don't have to maintain the balance so that the "right" kinds of animals are killing the other ones. You certainly shouldn't kill some animals so that other animals have the chance to do some killing. Speciation and extinction are instances of impermanence the same as everything else.

While I see the answer here as similar, I view the origin of the question very differently and it leads to nuances in the answer which are important. I'll vote to reopen.

I think the question should be reopened, if the question is reformulated to ask "if killing can ever be justified."

The question has been reopened based on community voting. The edit does help clarify things as well.

This is a complex question to which there is no right answer.
Karma is created by our intention.  The intention with which we engage in an action.  You can look at your intention.  Are you engaging in it for your own convenience or a well considered belief that it will ease suffering?
Do you know enough to make a decision about the situation?  Will the suffering of foxes you kill be less than the suffering of the native animals?  Do you know that the environment should be restored or is that just your own attachment to how things should be?
When I consider situations like this and the questions that arise it becomes clear the world we live in is messy and there are situations for which there is not a right answer.  Purity within samsara is not possible.  What I can do is work to purify negative karma, accumulate good karma, and develop wisdom.
Ultimately, killing is killing and most of us have ignorance of self-grasping.  Killing invasive foxes with self-grasping ignorance creates its own karma.  Very strong conviction that it was the best course of action would be required before I took on such karma.

The 1st precept has already been covered.
I think there is another interesting Buddhist angle to this, which is samsara.  Western Buddhists generally don't take samsara very seriously-- our life is comfortable and it's hard to convince us otherwise.
If samsara is a real thing, then the world we are in problematic and can't be solved with technical solutions. Interventions to improve the world by adding, say starlings to the US, rabbits to Australia, or the nutria to Louisiana-- all of these attempt to improve things were disasters. Someone who takes samsara seriously would expect the solution of slaughtering all these starlings, rabbits and nutria to be a disaster as well. An example waiting to happen is the suppression of disease with vaccinations (the equivalent of wiping out a problematic species). It works, but we only need public health to lapse for a short for a generation or so, and I imagine the death toll will be huge as we aren't no longer protected by the old fashion defense of darwinian survival of people with selective genes. I'm not advocating stopping vaccinations, just trying to illustrate how samsara is sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
In the Buddhist system, the solution to samsara is nirvana, we stay and suffer or we exit the whole realm.
One of the monks I like to read clearly does take samsara seriously and is highly skeptical of modern attempts to improve samsara from within it. Personally I hope he is too pessimistic, but I have to admit his line of reasoning is very Buddhist.
Ref:
http://indrajalapatha.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-violence-behind-non-violence.html
http://indrajalapatha.blogspot.in/2013/08/the-failure-of-eco-piety.html

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


text:
The Seven Factors of Enlightenment
Are the Seven Factors of Enlightenment understood to happen as specific phases in a linear progression in one's journey or are they understood to happen in a circular manner with ever deepening understanding?

I like to teach them as linear, but it's not really that simple. The Buddha said (SN 46.53) that when the mind is agitated you should cultivate the last three (tranquility, concentration and equanimity), and when the mind is sluggish, the second through fourth(investigation of dhammas, effort and rapture):

"At such times, monks, as the mind is sluggish, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor[265] of tranquillity, the enlightenment-factor of concentration, the enlightenment-factor of equanimity. What is the reason? A sluggish mind is hard to arouse by these factors.
...
"Monks, when the mind is agitated, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of rapture. Why? An agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors.

Mindfulness, the Buddha notes, is to be always cultivated:

"But as for mindfulness, monks, I declare that it is always useful."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/walshe/wheel318.html#passage-58

If we will be able to free our minds from other external objectives and concentrate on the Satara Satipatthāna (The four foundations of mindfulness), if one could do it, then it is the Sapta Bojjañga (the Seven Factors of Enlightenment) that is going to get developed in him. That is, the items that aid attaining realization will start to get developed in him. There are seven items that aid realization.
Sati (mindfulness)
Dhammavicaya (investigating the Dhamma)
Viriya (effort; energy)
Pīti (happiness)
Passaddi (tranquility)
Samādhi (concentration)
Upēkkā (equanimity)
We will start to understand that cultivation little by little (Sati). When a mind concentrate on the Dhamma in this manner, one will develop the talent of investigating the Dhamma by his wisdom (Dhammavicaya). When the talent of investigating Dhamma by his mind is developed, his effort gets cultivated (Viriya). When effort is developed, happiness gets cultivated (Pīti). When happiness is formed, alleviation/tranquility with respect to his (physical) body and mind gets cultivated (Passaddi). When he feels that relaxation with respect to his body and mind, his mind gets concentrated (Samādhi). A concentrated mind will become temperate since it is cultivated by wisdom (Upēkkā). This mind we have can be cultivated to that level. So with the purification of one factor helps achieving the same for the next factor. At the same time it is not strictly a linear process. Take the following as an example.
Proper Concentration (Samma Samadhi) is one of the 7 factors of enlightenment (bojjhanga), and one of the five spiritual abilities and powers (bala).  Concentration the last link of the 8-fold path. In the 3-fold division of the 8-fold path morality, concentration and understanding, it is a collective name for the three last links of the path. Proper samadhi has the qualities of purity, clarity, stability, calmness, readiness, and gentleness. It is perfected in one-pointedness (ekaggata). The supreme samadhi is the one-pointed mind (ekaggata-citta) which has Nibbana as its sole concern. In a broader sense, samadhi can be translated "meditation," meaning development of the mind through the power of samadhi. A very good sutta that fully explains of this Supreme Samadhi is Rathavinãta Sutta. It explains in full the seven purifications (SAPTHA VISUDDHI) taught by the Buddha. Try to understand what these seven purifications are, that is found in the Rathavinãta Sutta (M.I,145).


text:
What is meant by Namu Amida Butsu and also Nam-myoho-renge-kyo?
In two schools of Buddhism, an important part of the practice is the repetition of special mantras which sound like simple expressions of honor or gratitude to those of us outside of the sects, but which have profound meaning to the practitioners. Is it possible to explain the deeper meaning of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo ("Homage to the Lotus Sutra") as Nichiren Buddhists understand it or Namu Amida Butsu ("Homage to Amida Buddha") as Jodo Shinshu Buddhists understand it or must these thing be understood only through experiencing them?

My answer is from the Shin perspective, I'll let someone else answer for Nichiren. Indeed you're right in saying that there are "two" meanings of Namu-Amida-Butsu - and that for the person of faith, it has a special meaning. However, in Shin, Namu-Amida-Butsu is not a mantra. It is understood within an entirely different framework from that of Esoteric mantras. For a person without the mind of faith (jp.: shinjin), "Namu-Amida-Butsu" is an effort of calling to Amida for salvation. As you probably already know, the Original Vow of Amida is that people who will sincerely and joyfully entrust themselves to Amida and call upon his Name, they will be saved and will be reborn into the Pure Land. So for a person without shinjin (which means having no doubt whatsoever about Amida's Vow), "Namu-Amida-Butsu" might still be a practice like others in Buddhism, an effort of self-power. For such a person, calling Namu-Amida-Butsu is a willingness to rely on the Other-Power of Amida (on his practice of saving sentient beings). But from the perspective of a person of shinjin, a true person of faith, chanting or reciting "Namu-Amida-Butsu" thinking that this is what will get you to the Pure Land is still caught within the logic of calculating mind, calculating merit ("the more you say it, the more chance you will have to be reborn in the Pure Land"). This mind that "does religious deeds" is the very mind of self-attachment! For a person of shinjin - for Shinran - this logic has to be absolutely abandoned. "Namu-Amida-Butsu" is then understood entirely differently: not as something we do, not as our own practice, but as an embodiment of Amida's practice. Another way to put it, once one totally abandons the idea that it's possible to "save yourself" through enough effort, one totally relies on Other-Power and so there is nothing to practice anymore on our part. There's just an absolute passivity of "deep listening to the Dharma". One realizes that Amida already accomplished all practices so there's nothing to do on our part except to listen to this truth and to rely on it fully. This reliance is true faith, the diamondlike mind, and "Namu-Amida-Butsu" is just the verbal expression thereof. It's the "linguistic embodiment" of our already-having-been-saved by Amida. One is then only a witness of this salvation event, not someone who is practicing to achieve one's own salvation. To practice anything after the salvation-event is to not understand that event. Practising anything after having been saved by Amida would be like looking for a job after you've already won $10 million in the lottery, to give a mundane example.
I realize I didn't do a good job at explaining this here ... it's hard to do it in this format, but I hope that at least it became clear that the Pure Land Way of Master Shinran has nothing to do with Esoteric Buddhism or Mantrayana / the Way of Mantras. It's a wholly different paradigm.

@ Methexis, thank you for a very thorough explanation from the Shin pov. And thank you for the correction on my use of the term "mantra". Is there a more appropriate term to refer to words themselves or the practice of speaking them?

@Robin111 Thank you for your kind words. The practice is simply referred to as "Nembutsu" which means remembering or recollecting the Buddha. "Nembutsu" is a Japanese word. In China, it is known as "nianfo". In Sanskrit, it is known as Buddhanusmrti.
In Shin we call it "Nembutsu" or sometimes "the Name" or "holding the Name" or "saying the Name".
However, the Nembutsu needn't always be vocalized. It can be a "silent Nembutsu" (merely thinking "Namu-Amida-Butsu" without vocalizing it) ...
This is another reason why Nembutsu isn't a Mantra. AFAIK, in Nichiren Buddhism one has to chant.

This is beautiful! @Methexis, thank you very much for this explanation. You have just explained the main point of Pure Land Buddhism.

So, for a person of shinjin, the chanting of "Namu-Amida-Butsu" is similar to a Christian celebrating the Eucharist?

This is a great post.  I'll add something as a Vajrayana/mantrayana practitioner with some background in sacred sound from various traditions.  Nembutsu/chanting is best viewed as an internal evocation of the Amida nature/reality within.  As there is no dualism in the Unity of the Buddha mind, there would not be, from a perspective of sacred sound, an 'asking' of Amida for help.  Rather there is a coded set of sound and light principles/archetypes in those syllables.  Some of this is explained in detail from Shintoism in their use of kototama/kotodama.  Tendai and Shingon Buddhism, also arising in Japan, have much esoteric knowledge and a lot of that involves sacred chanting and sacred sound.  Ultimately the ability to enter into a pure land is because one has cultivated the atmosphere of a pure land within.  Amidas pure land is an exudate of Amidas purified mind.  When the projection of light from Amida enters and passes through other beings (though nembustu/chanting) then they are able to appear in the pure land with more reality than do images projected onto a movie screen.  Nembutsu is the attunement of the resonance of Amitabhas mind/reality into another being.  That resonance and matching when the being undergoes transmigration/transition through death is what would attract a practitioner to entering Amidas pure land.  Nembutsu should be done with a base of compassion and not as a goal.  Pure motivation is the advancement of happiness and the causes of happiness for others.


text:
Does Buddhism have a concept of avatars?
Avatars are a Hindu concept as far as I know, but I have noticed that many of these religions (from places like India) have similar things in common, whether they be symbols, names, beliefs, or whatever.  My question is, does Buddhism have a concept of avatars? Or reworded, does Buddhism have a concept of avatars that is the same as or similar to the concept of avatars in Hinduism?

Because Buddhism denies the notion of "self" it does not have a concept of Avatar, as someone literally being a reincarnation of e.g. Ananda (Buddha's favorite student).
Tibetan Buddhism does have a notion of Tulku though, which is similar. Tulku is a new person that inherits the life stories and responsibilities of a previous person. This is done through teaching this person to deliberately identify with their predecessor, to learn predecessor's history, and to carry on his or her work.
Because the new person's life is so heavily influenced and inspired by the predecessor, we can say that the new person is an embodiment of the abstract energy of the previous one.

Some forms of Mahayana Buddhism teach that Buddhas and high level Bodhisattvas are able to send out multiple forms into the world to help people called emanations, and I would say that for all intents and purposes, is basically the same as in Hinduism, although there are major differences. Mostly it is only great teachers and such who are ascribed to have been emanations like that. For example, among Tibetan Buddhists, the Dalai Lama is regarded as an emanation of Avalokiteshvara, the Bodhisattva of Compassion, whereas in Hinduism mythical heros are regarded as Avatars.


text:
How can I know that I am clear of thoughts while I am meditating?
While meditating, one might try to be aware of their surroundings, to be present in the moment. But how can we become aware of it without thinking that we are aware?
Another example is when one can listen to sounds or silence, and even if one is not trying to put stories behind the sounds, one might find oneself thinking about the wave of the sound, or its variations, its length, etc.

There are multiple kinds of mental phenomena, not all of which can be classified as thoughts.
First and the crudest kind, are visualizations, cravings, and replays. This is when we mentally leave here and now, and are experiencing what basically is a (short or long) daydream about the subject our mind is concerned or agitated about.
The second kind are mental chatter. This is when we think in words, silently saying them in our head. If you look carefully you will notice how the muscles of the tongue and lips are slightly engaged as you "pronounce" your inner speeches.
The third kind is conceptual thinking. This is when we mentally follow a chain of logical relationships between objects or concepts. These are still thoughts.
The fourth kind is labeling. This is when we mentally recognize phenomena we experience and identify them with a category or attribute that makes them distinct, given the context.
The fifth kind is registering. This is when we make a mental note of experience without labeling it to any category. For the purposes of this answer, these are the borderline between thoughts and non-conceptual experiences.
The sixth kind is non-conceptual perception. This is when we experience (see, hear, smell) or feel (a bodily sensation or emotion), without labeling, acknowledging or noting it in any way. Famous technique used by Zen masters to awaken one to this level is to make a sudden noise in the middle of long meditation session.
The seventh kind is perception of energy. This is when we feel chakras and meridians.
The eighth kind is samadhi. This can't be described in words and must be experienced to be understood.
When we say "my thinking has stopped", we usually mean levels 1-4, while levels 6-8 can still function. This said, it is not like in meditation our goal is to stop thinking. Rather, it is to open ourselves to levels 6-8. As we get better at this, thinking can go on "in the background" without affecting our meditation.

Thank you for your answer! These are new concepts for this beginner meditator and new things to think about. A new goal will be to try to recognize each one while becoming aware of them. As well, as trying to open oneself to the last three, though the eighth was not clear, maybe because it hasn't been experienced. Thanks again for your answer!

Mindfulness is a way to develop concentration. This would stop the mind from wandering, thinking and developing stories about the objects chosen for the focus of meditation.
Using mindfulness of breathing as a specific example:
Focus attention on the breath. Eventually the mind will start to wander; at this point the mind can start to create a myriad of thoughts. When this happens recognize it (a moment of mindfulness) and return to the focus to breath.
This can take many hours of practice before getting to a level where recognizing that attention has shifted happens immediately. Eventually after getting to this point it can take many more hours to keep attention from shifting at all. These different levels are called mental abidings, in all, there are 9:

Placement of the mind occurs when the practitioner is able to place his attention on the object of meditation, but is unable to maintain that attention for very long. Distractions, dullness of mind and other hindrances are common.
Continuous attention occurs when the practitioner experiences moments of continuous attention on the object before becoming distracted. According to B Alan Wallace, this is when you can maintain your attention on the meditation object for about a minute.
Repeated attention is when the practitioner's attention is fixed on the object for most of the practice session and she or he is able to immediately realize when she or he has lost his mental hold on the object and is able to restore that attention quickly. Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche suggests that being able to maintain attention for 108 breaths is a good benchmark for when we have reached this stage.
Close attention occurs when the practitioner is able to maintain his attention throughout the entire meditation session (an hour or more) without losing their mental hold on the meditation object at all. In this stage the practitioner achieves the power of mindfulness. Nevertheless, this stage still contains subtle forms of excitation and dullness or laxity.
Tamed attention, by this stage the practitioner achieves deep tranquility of mind, but must be watchful for subtle forms of laxity or dullness, peaceful states of mind which can be confused for calm abiding. By focusing on the future benefits of gaining Shamatha, the practitioner can uplift his mind and become more focused and clear.
Pacified attention is the stage during which subtle mental dullness or laxity is no longer a great difficulty, but now the practitioner is prone to subtle excitements which arise at the periphery of meditative attention. According to B. Alan Wallace this stage is achieved only after thousands of hours of rigorous training.
Fully pacified attention, although the practitioner may still experience of subtle excitement or dullness, they are rare and he can easily recognize and pacify them.
Single-pointed attention in this stage the practitioner can reach high levels of concentration with only a slight effort and without being interrupted even by subtle laxity or excitement during the entire meditation session.
Attentional Balance, the meditator now effortlessly reaches absorbed concentration and can maintain it for about four hours without any single interruption.

Using your example of sounds as the object of focus instead of breath:
Focus attention on the sound chosen as the object of focus. Eventually the mind will start to wander (what you described as putting stories behind the sounds). Simply realize this is happening and return your focus back to the object itself.
Silence would be more difficult than breath or a certain sound. Breath and usually sounds have subtle flow while silence is static. Subtle flow can help to keep attention focused because it more closely resemble the mind, which has subtle flow.
The simple instructions combined with the inability for most practitioners to master them instantly can result in the belief that the instructions were wrong or that they are not complex enough. The process just takes patience and perseverance.

Thank you for your reply, very useful answer. The memories an illustration about what you described come to mind; with the meditator represented as a monk, the dullness as an elephant and the agitated mind as a monkey. However, I didn't feel that this helped me understand how to know one is being cleared of thoughts while meditating. Maybe it is just the little experience one has. Thank you once again!

Being aware of ones surroundings during meditation is a passive behaviour, not an active one. My monk friend has instructed me to do so not by trying, as you stated. The world that surrounds us is fresh and being in the moment brings us back to a natural state of mindfulness. Again I stress that this is passive.
He said to me:

Anything that pops into your mind when you meditate, label it as thinking and quietly let it go away.

The type of meditation that this was related to was called placing focus on the breath (not keeping focus on the breath). I found that placing the focus on the breath eventually lead to a quiet state in which I was aware of my surroundings, truly being in the moment where everything was fresh. I did not think about being aware, I just simply was (here I mean I just simply existed). This was the natural return to a natural state of mindfulness. The only active effort that I had to do was to place my focus on my breath repeatedly and peacefully allow any thinking to depart from my mind. After some time I would start thinking again and repeat the process. This is very beginners level meditation.

I realize that this may seem paradoxical or difficult to understand.  You may need to experience to fully understand it. I have described what my monk friend instructed me and my experience of it. Yours may be different. I suggest seeking meditation instruction from a monk.

Thank you for your reply, it was as the other answers very useful. I have had just few moments like the one that you described. Maybe as the practice progresses, these experiences will be more often. Thanks again!

The longer my answer, the more it would make you think while mediating, so:
Imagine yourself as someone else, who is thinking of you (you as this other person thinking of / imagining what this another person - you - is doing at that moment).
Another way I would like to share:
when you still can't for a period of time,
let it pass. Try it again next time.
It's ok.

Thank you for your reply. How can one imagining oneself without thinking? Isn't imagining a form of thought? Not that your answer is wrong, buy maybe this only exemplifies the confusion of the original question. Thank you again!

(The rest of the answers are rather comprehensive. My answer compliments them with some additional information. )
Your mind's reaction to some sensation is the main cause of your mind wandering away from the meditation object. (Sensations is also the mind conditioner. ) So through Vipassana Meditation it would be beneficial to develop Piti and Passadhi. This will help you stay with the meditation object for a long time.
When you get distracted 2 things are present.

Some contact or sensation is what took your attention away (e.g. a sound)
You experience a mental reaction to the sensation by how you perceive the experience
The sensations are compounded my other associated mental formations (memories, emotions, etc.) that arise (stories behind the sound)

But when you realize and bring your attention to the sensations they dissappear leaving you in Piti, Suka, Passadhi state. As you do this the arising of distractions will loose vigor and frequency.
Concentration on certain points like the upper lip. Upper palate generally tend to create more Piti. (Though not Buddhist concepts concentration on points of the Chakra has a similar effect. See Achan Lee, Thanisaro Bikkhu's manuals also.)
Also be aware of the 5 hindrances. The easiest way to do this is to identify the sensations associated with the hindrances. When the come up look at the sensation until it passes away.


text:
Does the concept of evil spirits occur in Buddhism?
Some of the western religions have evil spirits like devils and demons.  Does the concept or belief in evil spirits occur in Buddhism?

I don't mean to come across as impolite, but it might be helpful if you explained what you already know about these topics before asking your questions (and mirroring them over to [hinduism.se]), so that we have a bit of context for where to start answering them.

@senshin, I am unaware of any evil spirits in Buddhism. Mostly western religious education where pretty much every thing bad is because of an evil spirit.  Except FSMism where the deity is likely to play a joke on you.

It's not always as clear as 'good' or 'evil'. Angry, vengeful spirits also exist in forms of Buddhism. Sometimes also seen as protectors, they can be a source of controversy.
More common is one's own belief in (or, more practically, fear of) something that is indefinitely, and irreparably, sinister or evil. We subscribe to all sorts of interesting notions as children, some things tend to persist. Ultimately, it's what your mind manages to trick you into into feeling; there are plenty of Christians that don't believe that demons exist so it really does depend on the individual.
So, yes to the concept (with emphasis on what neubau mentions about indigenous spirits), but belief is a little more complicated; belief coupled with a healthy dose of ambivalence can be quite common.
For children, I think the boogeyman is rather universal :)

In mainland Southeast Asia, indigenous spirits have been incorporated to a greater or lesser degree into Buddhist belief systems.  I believe this is known as syncretism.  In Burma these spirits are called nats, in Thailand phǐ.  Thai phǐ can be benign, like house spirits, or they can be malevolent “ghosts”.
You can see a variety of Thai ghosts in this TV ad for light bulbs (the slogan is “in the bright light, no one is afraid”).  The family is having a picnic within the grounds of a temple (an odd thing to do), and the father tells his son the name of each ghost.  The huge emaciated type, which is called a preta or hungry ghost, you might say is more “Buddhist” than the others because it often appears in depictions of Buddhist hells.  The preta’s mouth is just a tiny hole, so it can’t eat properly, which might be punishment for greed in a former life.
Thai light bulb ad

Philippine indigenous ghosts are a very good example of this, albeit small, as Buddhism is somewhat rare. I believe there are Malaysian and Indonesian counterparts to most.

No.
If it were, it would be the same as saying:
"I am a Buddhist, you are not, you do the opposite of what I do and "believe in", hence I am good and you are wrong, hence you are devil."
In my humble opinion, it is only about being able to going back to null and "see" things around as they are and those who don't (haven't).
And those who don't (haven't) are not evils, for they haven't understood and therefore they are still bind to pleasures, attachments, ego and the "I" that drive them to perform what they do. They haven't been able to "unshell" themselves from these "qualities" through compassion and dis-attachment of the aforementioned.
Thanks for question.

Yes, Buddhism has evil spirits :)
In Pali Canon, in Jatakas, and in Tibetan Buddhism poems (for example "100,000 songs of Milarepa") there are numerous references to spirits and demons, both good and evil. Many of them are metaphorical depictions of various psychological forces taking possession of a person (e.g. Mara, the spirit of doubt and confusion, that famously challenged Buddha by suggesting he wasn't really enlightened). Others are personifications of the "spirit" (energy, mood) of a certain place (e.g. a haunted forest). There are also Rakshas, (former) people so completely possessed by evil forces that they are no longer considered people, e.g. the jungle cannibals.
From modern perspective, the concept of demon is not necessarily a superstition, but more like a poetic way to talk about real phenomena taking place.

So, what does Buddhism exactly mean by 'Spirit' ? Is it a force, or a field of energy?

Abstract energy, information, latent causes and conditions.

Checkout the "States of Deprivation" under the 31 planes of existence.
Beings there are not necessarily evil. Rather they were born there because of evil deeds. But we do have an evil god called the Mara. He lives in the heaven called "Paranimmita-Vasavatti" Whoever holds the title 'Mara' is always evil as long as he holds that title.


text:
Should Buddhist teachers get rich?
In recent years in "Western" culture, teachings derived from Buddhist practices have been increasingly common.  These teachings are often of a secular nature and are about compassion, meditation and mindfulness.  However, some of them expressly bring out teachings about dharma, dukha, metta, etc.  Some of these teachers charge significant sums for retreats, which may have dozens or even hundreds of people attend. It's obvious that a lot of money is being made.  While I don't begrudge someone making a living - even a comfortable one - in a few cases, I know that these teachers are living very well: driving expensive cars, living in the most expensive neighborhoods/suburbs of their cities, etc.  Am I misunderstanding something, or does this go against the Buddha's teachings?
Edit: For clarity's sake, let me elaborate on the type of teacher I'm discussing.  I'm NOT referring a monastery charging a fee to cover operating costs for retreats, classes, etc.  What I'm asking about are people who have best selling books, charge $100 for 1 day retreats with 100 people attending, and who have observable significant wealth in that they live in neighborhoods where the houses cost millions of dollars and drive cars that are a hundred thousand dollars or more.

Why the downvote?

I'd note that this isn't a Western phenomenon, since the age of the Buddha, in every culture some teachers have always lost their way, and tragically misled their followers. Usually this has also involved some abuse of psychic powers, and trust.

I don't think there is a definite answer to this question. Bear in mind that Buddha did not give any commandments in form of 'do' and 'do not'. He rather gave guidelines and various methods that are suited for various types of people.
The fact that one style goes against your preferences, does not mean that someone else cannot benefit from that. To practise Buddhism one should try not to judge others and focus on his own development.
It should be clearly said, however, that generosity is the first Paramita (liberating action or perfection). Through practising the 6 Paramitas, one can break the cycle of samsara and offering goods to the Dharma teacher is though to be a great act of generosity and it creates lots of merit in practitioner's mind. Bearing that in mind, I can think of the following reasons why there is a lot of wealth around some teachers:

a teacher has a very generous and rich sponsor who made promises to always provide for his teacher
a city where the teacher lives is not the safest one and the Sangha (community of practitioners) donated money so that the teacher stays in a safe environment. They also want the teacher to be healthy and have a long life, so they will always cook the best food for him and will call for the best (usually most expensive) doctors.
expensive cars means that they are reliable and won't break a lot so that the teachers can travel safely to spread the teachings. Same for expensive computers and phones.
it is also an act of generosity to give others opportunity to pay money towards the Buddhist teachings. It is better if people pay hundreds of dollars for the teachings rather than in a casino.

The problem arises when the teacher abuses generosity of his students but we are not the ones to judge them. If they use Dharma to get rich, be sure there will be some karmic consequences.
Personally, I am not attracted to teachers who charge a lot for teachings. I trusted a teacher who is low-profile so I can relax and donate as much money as I want and can afford. Other people, however, prefer developing with their teacher in a palace and if it works for them, we can only be happy that the Dharma spreads.

It is immoral to sell the Dhamma. But meditation retreats might accept donations as it takes money to make the facility available in certain areas. When you say 'teachers', if you are referring to monks, there's nothing in the Vinaya that prevents them from living in expensive suburbs. Rich people need to hear the Dhamma too. Although, I'm not sure if monks are allowed to drive.

They are neither allowed to drive nor to touch money.

@Jakob: That may be dependent on the branch and/or monastery. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I believe the monastery at which I did a retreat had monks doing both.

@GreenMatt: Yes, obviously;). I was talking about Theravada.

One shouldn't get rich by teaching Buddhism for several reasons.
1) Buddhism says that you shouldn't sell the Dharma because of the Elasticity Curve of Economics: if it costs more, fewer people will acquire it. Basically you're turning people away from the Dharma. (Like others have mentioned, of course this does not apply to a center trying to cover operating costs that do not include huge salaries.)
2) Jesus maybe put the second reason best: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God". If you hoard money while other people are in need of it, you can't be a very kind person.
3) How can you expect a money-loving teacher to teach you about non-attachment?

I think Buddhism has nothing against being rich, but just says that people should not be attached to what they have. So there is nothing wrong with a teacher driving an expensive car. However, if the car was stolen, and the teacher expressed a regret, anger, sadness, or any other sign of attachment to the car, it would mean that he didn't really follow the Buddha's teaching.

Sakkāro kāpurisaṃ hanti
To one who correctly understands the Dhamma, wealth and luxury should hold no attraction. I'd expect any teacher of mine to at least have grasped this much - else I don't benefit from such a teacher.
Looking back at the history of Buddhism, this wouldn't be the first time someone profited off it. It used to happen even in the Buddha's time - and this was one of the grounds for expulsion of Devadutta from the order. Subsequently he created a schism and decamped with 500 followers.
The Buddha remarked that he was a fool to be captured by vanity, and it would lead to his downfall. (an 4.68)

Bhikkhus, gain, hospitality and fame arose to Devadatta for his
  destruction and defeat.
  [...]
  Bearing fruit, indeed destroys the banana tree, bamboo grove and the reed,
  Hospitality destroys the low man as conception the she mule.

This was true in India even before the Buddha, and thus the Buddha doesn't elaborate much on the virtues of austerity because it was widely understood. All dharmic Indian texts also warn against the dangerous nature of human desire and remind us of boundaries. Even Vatsayana cautions in the Kamasutra that kama must be governed by dharma.
The Vedas say gold, woman and land should hold no attraction to the teacher. Yet, even in the time of the Buddha, teachers found ways to justify their misdeeds.

Since the buddhist teaching isn't dogmatic it is not generally forbidden to live such a life. But you are totally right that it goes against the buddhist goal of not clinging to physical wealth. I actually wouldn't trust "teachers" who don't consequently follow their own teachings.

A Buddhist teacher who has bodhisattva ethics would not keep more money than needed. He would utilize the remaining for generous funds to help others--and not just by mere charity but perhaps by creating an investment fund or funding a project, etc. a truly good teacher has a mind beyond us and would never be stuck in the small way of human attachment to comfort!
That being said, a truly good teacher might be not be successful per se (a good teaching is unwelcome due to the karmic tension it would cause in one's life) and vice versa.

If a teacher becomes rich by means of his professional or business activities there is no issue. If you are commercialising the Dhamma then this goes against the spirit of the Dhamma. Ideally there should be no fee.
E.g. meditation centres run under http://dhamma.org/ does not charge any fixed fee but but run on donation basis:

In a course like this, one has a wonderful opportunity to develop this p±ram². Whatever one receives here is donated by another person; there are no charges for room and board, and certainly none for the teaching. In turn, one is able to give a donation for the benefit of someone else. The amount one gives will vary according to one’s means. Naturally a wealthy person will wish to give more, but even the smallest donation, given with proper volition, is very valuable in developing this p±ram². Without expecting anything in return, one gives so that others may experience the benefits of Dhamma and may come out of their suffering.

Source: The Discourse Summaries
Forest Dhamma Books make lot of books available for free. The books carry the following message:

THIS BOOK IS A FREE GIFT OF DHAMMA & MAY NOT BE OFFERED FOR SALE.
  ALL COMMERCIAL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The Dhamma should not be sold like goods in the market place. Permission
  to reproduce in any way for free distribution, as a gift of Dhamma, is hereby
  granted and no further permission need be obtained. Reproduction in any
  way for commercial gain is prohibited.

Also The Three Roots Inc by Piya Tan discusses multiple instances and issues which has arisen due to promoting religion like a business with profit motives.
The Dhamma should be available for everyone for free has how it was taught by the Buddha and subsequently until recently.
Any form of voluntary donation either in material or cash (for lay teachers) is fine as long as it is not solicited or there is a fixed fee.

"Careful, not for a means of material gain, I will explain the Dhamma."
This is my translation of "Na āmisantaro kathaṁ kathessāmîti paresaṃ dhammo desetabbo" found in the Udayi Sutta (AN 5.159), which states five prerequisite qualities of one who teaches/explains the Dhamma.
Other translations:
"The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward. (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.159.than.html)
“I WILL TEACH THE DHARMA NOT FOR THE SAKE OF MATERIAL GAIN" - Piya Tan (http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/46.1-Dhamma-Desaka-Udayi-S-a5.159-piya.pdf)
A Buddhist monk is required to reject offerings received as a 'payment' for teaching the Dhamma, as the Buddha did in the Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta SN 1.4.

"However, as the lay Dharma worker has not taken monastic vows, he can
  rightfully work as, say, a resident or regular teacher for an
  honorarium or sponsorship (traditionally known as dakkhiṇā) to support
  his work and his family" - Piya Tan (same link above).

Now, if a person writes 'Buddhist Novels' like we see the many 'Christian Novels', and gets rich on account of the success of those novels, then I see nothing objectionable and within the means of right livelihood.
If a person pays $100 for a 1 day retreat and benefits in line with the Dhamma, then kudos to the ones who organized such a retreat. As always let the buyer beware, critically evaluate the purchase (pre & post), and recommend or warn other potential buyers. This all sounds very commercial. So the preference would be to have these types of retreats sponsored through dana.

Householder GreenMatt, Interested,
It's good to wish others wealth, fame, gain and if such is not wished for own gains, such is of great merits, yet of course it's not good to give into or approve actually wrong ways although one is not responsible of what others do with their gains... detail explainings here
In short, on shoulds:

One should not make an effort everywhere,
  should not be another's hireling,
     should not live dependent on another,
  should not go about as
     a trader in the Dhamma.
Paṭisalla Sutta: Seclusion

An extended talk on this question is given here and one may feel welcome and given to discuss and raise questions as well: Should Buddhist teachers get rich?
(Note that it is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment which binds in Samsara, the wheel here, but as a means to escape)


text:
Attachment is a poison. Why is attachment to the Buddha and to Buddhist philosophy not a problem?
Attachment (aka craving or greed) is one of the Three Poisons.  Why is attachment to Buddha not a poison?  Perhaps it's related to the Tibetan Buddhist lojong "Don't make gods into demons"?

Who says it's not a poison? Sounds poisonous to me :)

@yuttadhammo, you are monk, yes?  How are you not attached to the Buddha?

Why does being a monk necessitate attachment to the Buddha?

@yuttadhamo, I asked first. ;-)

My question is better :P

One Zen master stopped using the word "Buddha" because people overused the word so. He [taught] "From now on, every time I use the word 'Buddha,' I will go to the river and wash my mouth out three times." His statement is completely in accord with the dialectics of prajnaparamita, but when people heard his words, they thought he was being disrespectful. Only one [person]  understood. He stood up and said, ["I appreciate your words. Every time I hear you say the word 'Buddha,' I will go to the river and wash out my ears three times."] - Thich Nhat Hahn - The Diamond That Cuts Through Illusion

Possible duplicate of Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?

Sez who?
Attachment to Buddhism and to Buddhist philosophy is a very serious problem, which every practitioner should be careful about, since it's so seductive: it's easy to be perceived as progress, whereas it's the very opposite of progress.
To counter this hazard, some Zen schools recommend that "if you come across the Buddha on the road, kill him!" (Not to be taken too literally.)

Buddhism is a "kayak" (a guide) that takes one from the endless sea of sufferings to find a harbor. What would one do in order to commence and land on the harbor?
Leave the kayak - Buddhism - and disembark.
If not, one is attached to the kayak. Still at sea.
The sea of sufferings.

My understanding is that the Buddha taught that we should not attach ourselves to him or his teachings.  If we find that his teachings don't work, then we should feel free to leave them behind and pursue other paths.
That said, there is also the idea that some attachments are better than others.  For example it is probably better for an alcoholic to replace their attachment to alcohol with an attachment to the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous.  Likewise, it would be better for someone who is attached to suffering or causing suffering in others to replace that with an attachment to the Buddha's teachings.

Good answer.  The umbilical cord always has to be cut sooner or later, but definitely better to be attached to eating food than eating, say, rocks.

If someone is insulting the Buddha and the Dhamma, and you become hurt, you are poisoned!  But if you feel neutral (Uppekha) or compassionate (Karuna) towards the person, you are fine!

Do the teachings of the Buddha cause you suffering? If not, perhaps it's ok to hang on to them for a little while longer on this journey. :)
I find Buddhism refreshing in this manner as the teachings of some other religions actually do cause suffering for their followers. For example people who are excluded from participating fully in their chosen houses of worship due to sexual orientation.

Identifying with something doesn't necessarily mean you're attached to it, especially if that something is just your way of living. I identify best with Zen Buddhism, but I'm not attached to it any more than I'm attached to my own consciousness; it's just become how I think, which dictates how I feel.
Attachments are bad because if you lose them, you suffer.  I can't 'lose' Zen without completely losing myself, which is going to happen to all of us one day or another :) Preference is also commonly confused with attachment. I prefer a certain knife in my kitchen drawer for slicing tomatoes, but I wouldn't be at all upset if it wasn't there one day, I'd simply replace it.
A part of daily meditation can be imagining losing that which you value the most, so you've experienced it when it ultimately happens, which softens or even mitigates the suffering that might otherwise ensue. If you can't do that with something, then it's probably not something you could become attached to, but more just a part of your being.

Actually Buddha stated in his suttas after following the Eight Fold Path to attain Nibbana, you should give up the path when you attain the supreme bliss of Nibbana. It is something like this; think that you wanna cross a river. There's no boat near by. So you collect wood and creepers and finally build a small boat and you cross the river using it. After crossing the river, will you carry the boat with you where ever you go thinking "this boat helped me to cross the river"? No. You'll leave the boat by the river and you'll go where you need to go. Buddha state that similarly one should give up the eight fold path after perfectly attaining the supreme bliss of Nibbana.

@THelper to elaborate on Toby's point. To call oneself a buddhist is to identify oneself with an ideological construct and therefore to dwell in a mental fabrication. The ideas of buddhism are arranged into a belief system more commonly known as a view. To associate your self with this view, is exactly the kind of housebuilding which the buddha espoused against in practically every sutra. Buddhism is the only "religion" which fervently encourages its followers to abandon any part of the belief system when it begins to hold them back rather than help them.

You should have confidence and gratitude towards the Buddha. If this becomes a strong attachment this will hinder your progress on the path. The story of Vakkali is a good example.
If you are dealing with Buddhism as a phylosophy then you are dealing with matters at a conceptual level. This is feeding into your perception than helping towards the cessation of perception.

If one calls oneself a Buddhist, one has already missed the point.
---  from a teacher my daughter had.

Welcome to Buddhism SE! Could you please elaborate on this? We prefer all answers here to be self-explaining. I think I understand what you mean, but I'm not sure all future readers will also.

@THelper This answer elaborates on Toby's point.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Buddha was not a Buddhist, he was not attached to the previous Buddha (Kassapa) and still the attained the maxium goal. Becoming a Buddha or an Arahant does not require attachment, on the contrary, it requires deattachment and equanimity.
Don't think about Buddhism as a tradicional religion, it is more like an analysis of the laws of the universe (both inside and outside), Buddha was simply explaining how things work, what the mind is, the best path to take and the consequences of good and bad deeds.

Why is attachment to Buddha not a poison?
Because Buddhism (attachment to Buddha, Sangha, Dharma) has meta-attachment:
it teaches to even let go of Buddhism itself--but only once one has mastered Buddhism's practices and not a moment sooner. To be detached from Buddhism a moment sooner would be like a HS student dropping out before he finished.
In short: Buddhism teaches detachment from Buddhism itself.
No other tradition does this.


text:
Why did physical representations of the Buddha only start to appear a few centuries after his death?
Prior to around the 1st century CE, Buddhist art tended not to depict the Buddha himself, instead preferring to depict relics/symbols of the Buddha, such as his footprints, or the Bodhi tree. That period (the so-called "aniconic" period) yielded works like these:

However, after around the 1st century CE, we have depictions of the Buddha in human form from all over the Buddhosphere (so to speak).
What changed around the 1st century CE that led to creators of Buddhist art starting to depict the Buddha in human form? Was this change accompanied by a related change in doctrine or belief, e.g. declaring that it was now permissible to depict the Buddha as a human?
(This question is sect-agnostic, as far as I know, since I am not aware of any sect-specific differences in the way art was produced c. the 1st century CE.)

It seems that recent scholarship on Buddhism, at least outside the field of art history, has tended to downplay this change.  Donald Lopez has written, in a chapter called “The Idol” in his From Stone to Flesh: A Short History of the Buddha (pp.37-8):

Art historians have observed this absence [of early Buddha images] and inferred that the Buddha, or his immediate followers, had forbidden the making or worship of his image.  And they have speculated that the practice of representing the Buddha in human form – which, depending on one’s perspective, might be termed the making of images or the making of idols – had, in fact, been introduced from abroad – from the West, specifically by Greeks in the region of Gandhara (in what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan).
This view that the Buddha prohibited the worship of his form is consistent with the later nineteenth- and early twentieth-century view of the Buddha as a rationalist who never would have condoned idol worship; the practice could have entered his tradition only from abroad as a concession to the masses in the centuries after his passage into nirvana.  We might note as well that a century after this aniconism theory was proposed, no proscriptions against making images of the Buddha have been located in what scholars would regard as an early Buddhist text, nor have any prescriptions for his representation been found; such prescriptions become prevalent in some of the Mahāyana sutras that date from the first centuries of the Common Era.  The so-called aniconism debate has persisted, though[.]

And in the introduction to an edited volume on a related issue, Embodying the Dharma:  Buddhist Relic Veneration in Asia (pp. 10-11), Kevin Trainor writes:

In some respects, we can see a parallel between the theory that sangha members were explicitly prohibited from participation in the relic cult and the widely accepted hypothesis that there was for centuries a prohibition against representing the body of the Buddha in paintings and images, what is generally called the “aniconic” period in early Buddhism.  Here again part of the evidence is negative:  no images survive from the first several centuries of the Buddhist movement.  This, coupled with early representations that depict the Buddha’s physical presence through symbols such as a royal umbrella or his throne of enlightenment, led to the widely accepted assertion that early Buddhist were prohibited from representing his bodily form out of respect for his nirvanic status.  As with the dubious assertion that early Buddhist monks and nuns were initially prohibited from participating in relic veneration, however, the theory of an aniconic period is driven more by presumed doctrinal ideals than by compelling material evidence.  Indeed, when the centrality of the practice of relic veneration during this period is taken into account, the existence of a prohibition against representing his physical body seems even less likely.

The portion of Lopez’s text that I have highlighted suggests that the answer to the second question is no:  the making of images was neither forbidden nor explicitly called for at first.  Trainor (in the highlighted sections) implies that “negative evidence” and assumptions colored by an implicit bias against “superstition” and “idolatry” are a weak foundation for any theory.  Still, it seems to me that that since we don’t have any early images, no definitive refutation of the aniconic view is possible.
Both Lopez and Trainor cite another study which would be worth consulting:  Klemens Karlsson, Face to Face with the Absent Buddha:  The Formation of Buddhist Aniconic Art (Uppsala, Sweden:  Uppsala University Library, 1999).

I would've thought for sure they'd bring up the rise of Mahayana around that time as a contributing factor somehow .

There is also the idea that the Buddha’s body had certain physical marks (32 of them?) that were signs of Buddhahood. Long earlobes for example. This idea is probably connected with physical representatations of the Buddha – I wonder when it first appears?  Oh, I see Kalan has mentioned this in his answer.

There does indeed seem to be a connection between the “bodily glorification of the Buddha” and the emergence of Mahayana.  See this book:  http://www.amazon.com/Bodhisattvas-Formation-Mahayana-Buddhist-Traditions/dp/082482881X/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1403321692&sr=1-7&keywords=boucher+buddhism

He asserts that Mahayana subverted sedentary monasticism through glorifying and emphasizing the purity of the Buddha's body as a result of "the centrality of wilderness dwelling and the ascetic rigors of those who embraced it" (xxii), but he doesn't mention that this is a reversal from the aniconic period of any former prohibition on artistic representation of the Buddha. Although maybe production of new art it's a natural consequence of that new focus. -- http://www.scribd.com/doc/36542372/Daniel-Boucher-Bodhisattvas-of-the-Forest-and-the-Formation-of-the-Mahayana

Yes, as I recall the physical imagery is mainly in the sutra text Boucher is translating, he is not directly concerned with visual art.  The town/forest dynamic is quite important.

Here’s something relevant from the wiki entry on ‘Physical characteristics of the Buddha’:
“After examining the cult of the Buddha image in India, Gregory Schopen concludes that followers of Mahāyāna at this time played little to no role in introducing statuary and other physical depictions of the Buddha.”

It was the arrival of the Greeks with Alexander, that caused the making of statues. You can see the first imagery influenced from the greeks in the Earliest sculptures. The Vinaya Pitaka and other Suttas of the Tripitaka mention often what the Buddha stated about worshipping images in his stead, or worshipping images in any sense. The Buddha also explained to Ananda about the different kind of Stupas, whicvh are also Rupa-Dhammas. he once told a monk worshipping an image instead of Buddha as his representative, that "how can the worship of a rotten impermanent stinking physical form represent me and my teachings?' he did not forbid images, but he did explain how there is nothing but unenlightenment in the looking to images as some kind of object of worship, clinging, or to beseech blessings.

Welcome to Buddhism.SE! Are you able to state the reference for the above statements? That would add to it's usefulness.

During King Kanishka's period ( 78 AD to 151 AD),  images of the Buddha made based on 32 physical signs. This is regarded as one of the first place where human form of Buddha appeared in art.
Source {http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka}

People were afraid to depict the Buddha fearing that they might get the depictions of the 32 marks and 80 marks or any other physical characteristics wrong hence gaining demerit.