text:
Why don't some buddhists believe in karma and rebirth?
According to MN 60 and other suttas, believing in karma and afterlife is right view and believing that there is no karma and afterlife is unskillful and a wrong view because there is actually karma and next world.

"Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this 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 and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.
"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.

This actually make sense. For example, if someone tell you that your mother is dead because he actually saw your mother die then he is telling the truth but if you think that your mother is still alive and not dead then that is a wrong view because your mother is actually dead. In the same way, the Buddha has actually seen how karma works. It is mentioned in MN 36 and some other suttas.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

So my questions is why don't some buddhists believe in karma and rebirth? The Kalama Sutta does tell us to only believe what we can experience ourself but even then you cannot deny karma and rebirth because it is possible to know them through the fourth jhana. So why don't they just have the view "Karma and rebirth could be real" instead of denying them completely? Is it also kind of a counterfeit dharma if someone says that rebirth and karma are metaphorical and not real?

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

Much confusion is caused by the distinction between conventional and ultimate views.or levels of analysis. In Mahayana nothing really exists and we could say that karma, rebirth, self, causal entities, space-time an so forth do not really exists. But this is an ultimate or fully reductive view. To all normal intents and purposes they do exist and may be spoken of as existing. So we could say karma and rebirth do and do not exist depending on context. Thus we may see many contradictions in Buddhist teachings that aren't really there and many disagreements that aren't necessary.  . .  .

If there are any Buddhists who hold the view that no beings are reborn, they are certainly right in that there is no absolute thing as a being or self, as Bhikkhuni Vajira reaffirmed to Mara in SN 5.10:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
  Mara, have you grasped a view?
  This is a heap of sheer constructions:
  Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
  The word 'chariot' is used,
  So, when the aggregates are present,
  There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be,
  Suffering that stands and falls away.
  Nothing but suffering comes to be,
  Nothing but suffering ceases.

However, this does not mean that there are no beings at all. It simply means that "being" is a convention to denote the presence of the five aggregates occurring together. There is no absolute entity called being that exists standalone and independently of everything. The same thing applies to the self. There is no standalone or independent thing called self, but the self arises when the five aggregates operate together in the same way music arises when different parts of a violin work together to produce music.
This does not mean that suffering ends at death. Suffering only ends with Nibbana. Suicide is not a means to end suffering.
The fact that suffering does not end with death is evidenced in so many suttas, including MN 60, MN 36, DN 15, SN 15, MN 19, MN 57, SN 44.9, MN 83, DN 2, Dhp 153-154.
Some secular Buddhists claim that rebirth is a moment-to-moment change in one's state of mind, but it does not refer to physical rebirth. However, in MN 19, the Buddha clearly stated that with the break-up of the body, there are beings who are reborn elsewhere:

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away &
  reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified &
  surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I
  discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly,
  fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings
  — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who
  reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under
  the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after
  death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile
  the Noble Ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'
  Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I
  saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are
  inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in
  accordance with their kamma.

Also DN 15 clearly shows rebirth into a human womb from the context of dependent origination (also see this answer):

"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If
  consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would
  name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart,
  would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off,
  would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
  is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."

Another good sutta is SN 44.9 which states:

And at the moment when a being sets this body aside and is not yet
  reborn in another body, what do you designate as its sustenance then?"
"Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in
  another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its
  sustenance at that time."

Here's another - Dhammapada 400:

Akkodhanam vatavantam
  silavantam anussadam
  dantam antimasariram1
  tamaham brumi brahmanam
Verse 400: Him I call a brahmana, who is free from anger, who
  practises austerity, who is virtuous and free from craving, who is
  controlled in his senses and for whom this body (i.e., existence) is
  the very last.
Footnote 1. antimasariram: lit., one who has the last body. This is his last body because he will not be reborn; he is an arahat.

And another - SN 12.19:

The Blessed One said this:
“Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and fettered by
  craving, this body has originated. For the fool that ignorance has not
  been abandoned and that craving has not been utterly destroyed. For
  what reason? Because the fool has not lived the holy life for the
  complete destruction of suffering. Therefore, with the breakup of
  the body, the fool fares on to another body. Faring on to another
  body, he is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from
  suffering, I say.

So, why don't some Buddhists believe in kamma and rebirth?
Well, the answer is that they hold the wrong view of annihilationism, as stated in DN 1 (below). Most of them hold the view of physicalism, that nothing exists beyond the physical world, just as flat-Earthers think the Earth is flat because it apparently appears so to their limited senses.

"There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are
  annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to
  what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins
  proclaim their views?
"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the
  following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine,
  having material form, pertaining to the sense sphere, feeding on
  edible nutriment. That you neither know nor see, but I know it and see
  it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the
  breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point the
  self is completely annihilated.' In this way others proclaim the
  annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self — divine,
  having material form, mind-made, complete in all its limbs and organs,
  not destitute of any faculties. That you neither know nor see, but I
  know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others
  proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an
  existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of infinite space, (reached by) the complete surmounting
  of perceptions of material form, by the disappearance of perceptions
  of resistance, by non-attention to perceptions of diversity, (by
  contemplating) "Space is infinite." That you neither know nor see, but
  I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and
  destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death,
  at this point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way others
  proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an
  existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of infinite consciousness, (reached by) completely
  surmounting the base of infinite space (by contemplating):
  "Consciousness is infinite." That you neither know nor see. But I know
  it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death — at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of nothingness, (reached by) completely surmounting the
  base of infinite consciousness (by contemplating): "There is nothing."
  That you neither know nor see. But I know it and see it. Since this
  self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the
  body and does not exist after death — at this point the self is
  completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"To him another says: 'There is, good sir, such a self as you assert.
  That I do not deny. But it is not at that point that the self is
  completely annihilated. For there is, good sir, another self belonging
  to the base of neither perception nor non-perception, (reached by)
  completely surmounting the base of nothingness (by contemplating):
  "This is the peaceful, this is the sublime." That you neither know nor
  see. But I know it and see it. Since this self, good sir, is
  annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not
  exist after death — at this point the self is completely annihilated.'
  In this way some proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and
  extermination of an existent being.
"It is on these seven grounds, bhikkhus, that those recluses and
  brahmins who are annihilationists proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being. Whatever recluses
  or brahmins proclaim the annihilation, destruction, and extermination
  of an existent being, all of them do so on these seven grounds or on a
  certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.

So if there are some Buddhist that doesn’t believe in karma and rebirth then they are clinging to the view of physicialism?

@TheDBSGuy No. It means that they are clinging to the wrong view of annihilationism. Physicalism is a subset view of annihilationism for the context of rebirth. They might have a different subset view. There are seven listed in DN 1.

So since they have a wrong view they will reborn in hell or animal womb even if they are Buddhist?

@TheDBSGuy Some wrong views lead to rebirth in hell or animal womb, while others don't. I'm not sure about this one. But in all cases, wrong views lead to continuation of suffering in samsara, in any kind of (re-)birth.

Many Buddhist are not Sotapanna hence they still have the self-view.
They think what Buddha taught wat that the same person is re-born.
Buddha never said the same person is re-born. What he taught was the Dependent Origination.
Our action has a result. (kamma and Vipaka)
Once you understand Dependent Origination you can accept the Kamma and Re-birth.
Buddhist Kamma and re-birth is not the same as what is taught in Hinduism.
Some Buddhist think that the  Buddhist teaching of Kamma and rebirth is the same d Hinduism.

I agree about dependent origin. But just to make sure that we have the same view. Do you think if we give something to 500 arahants then we will be the richest in the world or go to heaven in the next life? I also think rebirth means afterlife. Karma is intention. Thinking that the same person is reborn is an eternalist view. Thinking that someone else is reborn is an annihilationist view. Dependent origin is my and the Buddhist’s view.

Vipaka (the result of Kamma) operates in a very complex way. Definitely, you will benefit the fruit of your good kamma one day subject to the law of kamma.

Because they believe there is something real and substantial that ends with the death and breakup of the body. In other words, they (either consciously or subconsciously) believe the atman exists and is real and substantial and that it is utterly annihilated at death with the break up of the body.

There's an apparently-opposite view to that, i.e. that "the atman cannot be reborn because there is no atman".

What is reborn from moment to moment in this very life? Is it real and substantial? If not, then is rebirth in this very life from moment the same or different from rebirth at the break up of the body? Why do some insist vehemenently that the latter does not exist at all, but have no passion at all for refuting that rebirth in this very life exists? Why is one utterly non-existent (rebirth after death) while the other is not utterly non-existent? I proffer that it is because those persons think that atman is real and exists in this very life and then utterly ends at death.

Why do some insist that the Buddha never taught or acknowledged rebirth after break up of the body, but insist that Buddha was always talking about or acknowledging (re)birth as happening in this very life from moment to moment with arising of self-view? Does the former utterly not exist while the latter actually does exist in some more substantial way than the former? If the latter exists in some more substantial way than the former then what goes from moment to moment in this very life if not atman? And if atman can go from moment to moment in this very life, then why not after death?

I hold that rebirth after break up of the body and rebirth from moment to moment exist in the exact same manner and to the exact same extent: both are unreal and illusion-like. Why? Because all things are unreal and illusion-like. Nothing exists substantially. All things are illusion-like.

Catch yourself believing that rebirth after death utterly does not exist while rebirth from moment to moment in this life does exist in some more substantial way... disbelief in the former is just reinforcing belief in the latter aka atman. Hope all this raving helps somebody... off to be reborn again in this very life :)

That may be explained in this answer and this document (Anattā & Rebirth
by Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu).
In summary I think these say that:

Because of anatta there is no self which can be reborn:

When there is no attā, then what is reborn?
What or who is reborn? Forgive us for being forced to use crude language, but this question is absurd and
crazy.4
In Buddhism, there is no point in asking such a thing. There is no place for it in Buddhism. If you
ask what will be reborn next, that's the craziest, most insane question. If right here, right now, there is no
soul, person, self, or attā, how could there be some "who" or "someone" that goes and gets reborn? So
there is no way one can ask "who will be reborn?"Therefore, the rebirth of the same person does not
occur. But the birth of different things is happening all the time. It happens often and continuously, but
there is no rebirth. There is no such thing, in reality, as rebirth or reincarnation. That there is one person,
one "I" or "you," getting reborn is what reincarnation is all about. If all is anattā, there is nothing to get
reborn. There is birth, birth, birth, of course. This is obvious. There is birth happening all the time, but it
is never the same person being born a second time. Every birth is new. So there is birth, endlessly,
constantly, but we will not call it "rebirth" or "reincarnation."

"Birth" means various things including the arising of self-view

There are three kinds of birth. The first is the kind of birth that everybody knows about, physical birth.
The body is born out of the womb, and then grows older and older, and then dies and is put in a coffin.
That is physical birth, it leads to physical death. The second kind of birth is mental. It happens within the
mind following the stream of dependent origination. Whenever there is the thought "I am," "I do," "I act,"
"I have," "I own," "I want," "I get," "I exist," the birth of any one of these "I" thoughts is one birth. This is
the "birth" of upādĀna along the stream of paÊicca-samuppāda, which is the birth of the ego. Such
mental or spiritual birth is another kind of birth. The third kind of birth is very difficult for most people to
understand. It is when one of the āyatana, that is, sense bases, performs its respective function.
Performing some function means "that thing is born." You might not understand that when the eye
performs the function of seeing, then the eye is born.

In summary, I think their saying "don't believe in rebirth" means "don't believe that there's a same self or real self which is reborn".

Look at how passionately they refute rebirth after break up of body. Look at how nonchalant they are talking about rebirth from moment to moment in this very life. Rebirth after death is “crazy”, but (re)-birth in this very life is ok and understandable. They insist the Buddha refuted utterly the former, but was comfortable with the latter. The former never happens at all, but the latter actually happens until one understands anatta and gives up “self-view.” The former is utterly non-existent, while the latter is existent and then actually ends it is annihilated with correct view.

In short, they think atman exists really and substantially in this very life and can be annihilated by right view in this very life OR will definitely be annihilated with the break up of the body. But believing in any atman is in contradiction to anatta. Insisting that rebirth at death doesn’t happen is just another way of insisting that atman does pass from moment to moment in this very life. Cheers Chris.

It is wrong view to not believe in kamma & results. However, MN 60 does not refer to any "afterlife". The words "this world" & "the other world" do not necessarily refer to an afterlife. Note: the translation of "next world" is wrong. The Pali word "para" in "para loka" means "other".
Below is merely a sample of suttas showing "the worlds" are within the mind:

It is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception &
  intellect, that I declare that there is the world, the origination of
  the world, the cessation of the world and the path of practice leading
  to the cessation of the world. AN 4.45

And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is
  contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
  feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
  requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite
  condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes
  birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death,
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is
  the origination of the world. SN 12.44

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable;
  unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound
  one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose …
  Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object
  one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with
  the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely;
  disagreeable, never agreeable. SN 35.135

Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa). MN 79

Bhikkhus, there are three kinds of persons found existing in the world. What three? (1) “Here, bhikkhus, some person generates
  afflictive bodily activities, afflictive verbal activities, and
  afflictive mental activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an
  afflictive world. When he is reborn in an afflictive world, afflictive
  contacts touch him. Being touched by afflictive contacts, he feels
  afflictive feelings, exclusively painful, as in the case of
  hell-beings. (2) “Someone else generates unafflictive bodily
  activities, unafflictive verbal activities, and unafflictive mental
  activities. In consequence, he is reborn in an unafflictive world.
  When he is reborn in an unafflictive world, unafflictive contacts
  touch him. Being touched by unafflictive contacts, he feels
  unafflictive feelings, exclusively pleasant, as in the case of the
  devas of refulgent glory. (3) “Still another generates bodily
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, verbal
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, and mental
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive. In consequence,
  he is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive. When
  he is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive, both
  afflictive and unafflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by both
  afflictive and unafflictive contacts, he feels both afflictive and
  unafflictive feelings, mingled pleasure and pain, as in the case of
  human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower worlds. “These,
  bhikkhus, are the three kinds of persons found existing in the world.”
  AN 3.23

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN
  6.39

You have a wrong view

@TheDBSGuy Do not post comments like that -- see When shouldn't I comment? Also if a comment of yours is deleted, it's deleted by a moderator for some reason, so don't just post it again. Also this site is for Q+A not, for picking arguments with each other -- you asked, and you got an answer.

The Dhamma is officially defined as "visible here & now". Anything outside of this definition is not true Dhamma. Regards

One can look at experience through two orthognal frames of reference, both perhaps only ideological, since quantum mechanics doesn't offer as simple an answer (no one frame of  reference to examine experience from):
1 - now, for all space, given conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, the sum of All time = 0; is empty (0 is an imperfect sign for Nagarjuna's emptiness)
2 - here (not geographically, but self-centered), for all time, the sum of All space = 0, as in empty.
Buddhists have issue with rebirth because it is an inferred truth, at least before enlightenment. It is a truth that aims to encompass the totality of experience - to be ultimate - whilst remaining within conventional language - requiring a Self, axiomatically, to be evident.

It is against the Noble Eightfold Path and Wrong View.
In my opinion the reason is because of the prediction made by The Buddha in the Ani Sutta:

"In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering.
But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited.
They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about. (Ani Sutta, SN 20.7)

You can see the prediction coming true nearly exactly as The Buddha predicted with literary works full of elegant words and rhetoric attempting to replace The Buddha's original teachings. Many people prefer to hear things pleasing to them regardless of it's true or false.

Some Buddhists don't believe in karma and rebirth because experiential verification of the existence of these things can only come about as a result of yogic equipoise. Without witnessing for one's self, the claim that karma and rebirth exists is equivalent to the claim that thetans exist.


text:
Can good karma, bad karma or neither good and bad karma arise or not arise from not doing?
"Not doing" in this sense is to mean the absence of any form of action that originates from thought (for instance physical form like speech, bodily movements) in such a way that reduces the physical forms impact upon sentient beings in its environment.
I realise that I'm heading into one of the unconjecturables here but for practical purposes. I don't think it'll lead me to vexation. This curiosity has arisen through partial insight into karmic laws in which the knowledge of karma became demystified into a rather obvious, almost mechanistic natural working of things. I wanted to try to understand at least from the periphery of the insight, from what Buddha said and from what others practising Buddhism understand so that I can cross-reference the three.
Additional
In an example from the Buddha, he chose not to be a father to his son, Rahula (not doing) in favour of seeking his own liberation. His thoughts were of himself. I imagine this would have caused considerable discomfort in Rahula and this discomfort would have been further compounded when Rahula learned of the meaning to his name: fetter or ball and chain.
In an example from my own experience, a person became quite angry with me last week. I remained calm and non-responsive, guarding the senses - essentially watching after myself. I still gave a portion of my attention to the person via eye contact. Because of my "not doing" they became more frustrated. I recall thinking, "this person is lost in their emotions". I received a message from them later that day saying they had cried and let it go.
*As I write this addition, Andrei's answer below seems to resonate here.

Any form of action from physical form like thought? Thought is not physical.

@Sankha - I've adjusted that part of the question in the hope that it may encourage you to provide an answer to the larger, more relevant context.

So you are talking about only the absence of bodily and verbal actions. Not mental actions? Ex: you are asking if someone gets angry but not speak a word or not move the body, is it still karma?

@Sankha - I'm more interested in the "not doing" aspect regardless of whether there are thoughts or not thoughts. I've provided some additional information in the question for you but I think Andrei may be pointing in the write direction with his answer below.

My counter question would be, why do you make the assumption that a thought isn't an action itself

I feel like I've provided enough information in the question for an answer to be approached. Perhaps you could attempt an answer.

Answer provided

Rephrasing Buddha, there's action that leads to good experience, action that leads to bad experience, and action that leads to dispassion and liberation.
Of course the word "karma" itself means "doing" or "action". But my teacher said, the wise sees nondoing in doing and doing in nondoing. Meaning, if you choose to drink coffee, you implicitly choose to not drink tea on that occasion and vice versa. In Mahayana terms, an "act" is empty. It is something we isolate and put a label on but in actuality it is just a point we focus on in context of everything else. When we begin seeing it like this, we begin getting closer to the Buddha's perspective.
As my Zen Master said, whenever there's choice, there's confusion. From Buddha's omniscient perspective, there's no more confusion, no action, no choice - only from the perspective of a sentient being.
Another thing that needs to be said, not all karma is personal, which makes sense if you realize that "person" is another empty point of focus. There's also group karma and other even broader kinds of karmic tendencies that don't rely on an individual action per-se. So even if you don't personally act (don't choose) you are still subject to these extrinsic tendencies. It's only when you are free from any group identification as well, is when you begin to get free from the fruits of karma.
Sorry, upon rereading this I can see it comes out a bit unclear, but this is a summary of my understanding as of the moment, based on what I have learned.

It took me some contemplation and several reads but I see your answer as speaking directly to my question.

Generally karma stems from sankharas , but the non bright and non dark karma cannot stem from a sankhara since it ends the rebirths.
this ad hoc karma called non bright and non dark stems from right view and right resolution, which follow from  the discrimination between thoughts of renunciation and good will and other thoughts, and embracing only thoughts of renunciation and good will. Whatever actions following those thoughts will be ''tainted'' by the only karma that leads to the ''ending of karma and rebirth''.
In terms of actions, this weird karma colors the right talks, right actions and so on, with their pinnacle being right samadhi. SO there are plenty of actions stemming from right view, but most of those actions have nothing to do with most of the actions invented and done by puthujjanas.

Cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi. Cetayitvā kammaṃ karoti: kāyena,
  vācāya, manasā.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."  - Nibbedhika Sutta
So as you can see, Karma is the intention. These intentions may or may not be followed by verbal and bodily actions in which case they are categorized as verbal karma and bodily karma. When there are no bodily or verbal actions involved they are called mental(mano) karma. But it is Karma nonetheless. There is no Karma without the mind.
For an unenlightened person, there is no experience without Karma. Every experience has a maximum of 17 thought moments. Seven of these thought moments are called the Javanas. They are Karmically charged.

There are three doors of action: bodily, verbal (signs) and thought, while the last, mind is always involved, prompted or latent.
Wrong, better unskilful, thoughts have their effects as well. E.g. bodily killing or approving killing by thought, wishing, is not really that different to order or do by oneself.
To trust that "from this comes that, with arising of that, arises this" does not head toward becoming crazy. So simple that to practice, while trusting that actions have formost impacts on oneself.
Accepting = instigate = donig by one self
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

Many of the links you post are hidden behind a login (can't be seen unless you login): The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you. Please login below or register an account with Virtual Dhamma-Vinaya Vihara.

Are there problems or technical hindrences to do if interested?

I didn't know if you knew that it's hidden behind a login (because you have probably logged in) -- I didn't know if you were doing that (posting password-protected links) on purpose, intentionally. Your placing text behind a login means that people are less likely to read it. Also I'm not sure I understood the answer above -- e.g. are you saying that "accepting that some people in the world are violent criminals" the same as "instigating criminality" and "being a criminal yourself"? Perhaps that's not what the vinaya says, IMO e.g. it says that to tell a lie you must make some effort to do so.

I'm not able to access the content in the link. I'd like to understand more of what you're referring to. Could you provide another source please?

It's given, consciously, to take an account and access. Usually you have no problem with such, have you? @Suchness , and it's actually a deliberated lie to say "I can not", or? Nyom ChrisW , to give a direct sample: if teaching Dhamma to people showing no respect, for example, if thinking "oh, it will not matter if it is misused or those carry lose honor", even such thoughts are equal disrespecting by words or deeds. (Your sample is not very thoughtful) If you are happy, approve mental, that one loses something, than it's the same like you take it by hand or order, yes.

To your thought, Nyom @ChrisW . Atma does not give with a thought of gain or to harm or to trick around for personal benefit. But as you like to think and be-reason things.

And here is a story about the ways of hunter and collector, maybe releasing: Giving, taking and the new world.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Did Buddha ever say how to overcome shyness?
In AN 9.5, the Buddha said that whoever is endowed with the four powers has left behind the fear of embarrassment in assemblies. Is this the same as shyness? If not then did the Buddha ever say how to overcome shyness?

There are, monks, four powers. The power of wisdom, the power of energy, the power of an unblemished life and the power of benevolence....Now, monks, a noble disciple endowed with these four powers has left behind five fears: the fear for his livelihood, the fear of disrepute, the fear of embarrassment in assemblies, the fear of death and the fear of an unhappy future destiny.
AN 9.5

I would say yes, these powers include the overcoming of shyness. You are no longer meeting other people but just yourself in other guises. Also, your mind is not weaving fantasies about what people are thinking about you. Also, you have nothing to hide, no sense of superiority or inferiority and if you are sufficiently skilled no sense of personal involvement in the situation.
Maybe a little shyness is a good thing but a Buddhist has excellent defenses against being crippled by it. A good Buddhist knows he or she is an idiot and is not surprised when others think so. I'll let you know later whether this is also true for arhats and buddhas.

Let's look at the four powers: wisdom, energy, unblemished life, and benevolence.
The first power is wisdom.
What does the Buddha say about shyness? Well, what is shyness? Shyness is a manifestation of doubt and doubt is the fifth hindrance:

SN45.177:1.1: “Mendicants, there are these five hindrances.
SN45.177:1.2: What five?
SN45.177:1.3: The hindrances of sensual desire, ill will, dullness and drowsiness, restlessness and remorse, and doubt.

The escape from doubt is taught in brief here:

AN6.13:6.7: For it is the uprooting of the conceit “I am” that is the escape from the dart of doubt and indecision.’

Broadly, shyness is a form of suffering, and the path that leads to the end of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path.
Shyness disappears when we address real problems in daily life. For example, when a stranger asks for directions to the bus stop, we can relinquish shyness and simply point the way. There is no "I am" when we point to the bus stop. There's just the bus stop. Indeed, even if a whole group of people wishes to know where the bus stop is, we can still point the way without worrying about "I am."
That is the wisdom of the first power.
The second power is energy.
Shyness is debilitating. Shyness saps our energy. However, when we rouse energy and do what needs to be done, shyness disappears.  Laziness breeds all sorts of weird fears.

AN9.5:5.10: A lazy person might fear for their livelihood.

The third power is an unblemished life.
Craving sensual pleasures blemishes our lives. We tend to feel shy around attractive people. But if we relinquish the craving for sensual pleasures and see people as simply people, shyness disappears.
Furthermore, craving acknowledgement makes it difficult for us to speak in front of assemblies. But if we speak in front of assemblies just as we would speak the directions to the bus stop, then shyness disappears. We relinquish the sensual pleasure of acknowledgement.

MN14:4.1: Sensual pleasures give little gratification and much suffering and distress, and they are all the more full of drawbacks.

The fourth power is benevolence
Benevolence is inclusive. It is welcoming. To be inclusive, we need to know what others will welcome. If another is lost, we can offer direction. If another is hungry, we can offer food. And in that inclusive offering, shyness disappears.

AN9.5:4.1: And what is the power of inclusiveness?
AN9.5:4.2: There are these four ways of being inclusive.
AN9.5:4.3: Giving, kindly words, taking care, and equality.

So basically the entire Noble Eightfold Path is the path that ends suffering. And shyness is just a form of suffering.

Sila, upright virtue, is the cause of being not shy, good householder, as one lacks of faults. Going upright into what ever assembling, fearless in regard of good and proper deeds, is the cause of firm fear of wrong-doing and concern.
Lose of shyness is one of the rewards of going after good virtues, Silas, goodness.
A fool might be shy, out of conceit, to do good deeds and show bright face, while a wise, out of lack of conceit and pure virture, isn't shy to address.

Not sure this would be direct answer to the original post question. I read many paragraphs in Sutta that a man who has Sila can enter in any kind of community without fear or shyness. This you can found most Buddha's teachings in Sutta about Sila (Moral disciplines).

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


text:
Memories of previous lives
I think I have to tolerate memories of previous lives. And I know many of which memories are combination of true and false memories.Part of the memories are scientifically superimposed by army or any research department of the government.It is pointless to try to get rid of these memories.Are scientific memories good or bad for me? or are these  cinematic experiments artificial intelligence based?

If you're asking about implantation of false memories by the government through technological means, I think this is off-topic for Buddhism.SE.

I have asked the question on "science" tag.The reference of computer,aero-dynamics automatically comes if one wants to elaborate.In our age no one can ignore role of computers in one"s life user 26375

I think this is a good question. The ability of a Buddhist, particularly a meditating one, to identify memories whether true or false and classify them as good or bad is vital in the path to understanding The Four Noble Truths. Bhaddekaratta ghaatha is a good example of such mental balance.

It's good to remember birth, aging, sickness and death, the suffering again and again. So actually perfect when the proper attention to see the first Noble truth and more perfect then, if having heard the others as well.

@ Samana johann  iN  BENGALI LANGUAGE THESE ARE CALLED  BITAN[S] .SO AM CITING  THIS BITANS AS HAVE BEEN CREATED BY MILITARY INTELLIGENCE-:ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USER 26375

Investigate of what was told, Nyom @ABHIJITBAGCHI . The rest: why, where... real, artificially... is not importand, brings no benefit and would be ever wrong taken.

since half of the the question was based on  science ,i apologize for if i am not nice but I hoped that  an answer based on science is given.user 26375

It's all science, but the real one, the one on can see for himself. So why playing around with fake science? Or was anything really till today, @ABHIJITBAGCHI ?

Does memory change? Is it real? Or not?

Homesickness,longing for the past,nostalgia.if these are beneficial for one he should put up with that.This depends upon how old is the person.I think my question is not weird,because we can say Military also helped creating the world with the help of artificial intelligence which machines have.Such asElectric lines are not the works of any single individual or country.but my question is if I can not get rid of the memories permanently  created by military by visual computer graphic,cinematic experiments,what is the good of practising yoga or meditation after many years @Samana Johann?

Again: look at aging, sickness and death with any birth, with any memory, there is nothing to fear that all grasped will break apart but this, and no other phenomena should be seen to let go of what is not real, @ABHIJITBAGCHI . Even more foolish is to hold on what is past. Good actions now, will result in good fruits, so one keeps the focus there and bad things can not arise.

via: http://chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/The_Six_Supernatural_Powers_of_Buddha
PUBBENIVASA - POWER OF KNOWING PREVIOUS EXISTENCES.
The All-knowing One further elucidated thus: "If a monk should frame a wish as follows:- Let me call to my mind many previous states of existence, to wit one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, one hundred births, one thousand births, one hundred thousand births, many destructions of a world cycle (Kappa), many renovations of a world cycle, many destructions and many renovations of a world cycle: I lived in such a place, had such a name was of such a family, of such a caste, had such a maintenance, experienced such happiness and such miseries had such a length of life. Then I passed from that existence and was reborn in such a place. There also I had such a name, was of such a family, of such a caste, had such a maintenance, experienced such happiness and such miseries, had such a length of life. Then I passed from that existence and was reborn in such a place. There also I had such a name, was of such a family, of such a caste, had such a maintenance, experienced such happiness and such miseries, had such a length of life. Then I passed from that existence and was reborn in this existence." Thus let me call to my mind many former states of existence and let me specifically characterise them," then must he be perfect in the precepts etc. -
This power is sorely attributable to the expounding of the "Theory of Rebirth" and 'Samsara' by the Buddha for all living beings in the entire Universe.


text:
Perceiving or not perceiving?
My question is related to the quote below taken from Chapter 29 of The Diamond Sutra. Can you provide any references for other explanations for this quote or can you provide your own explanation?

“Subhuti, if any person were to say that the Buddha is now coming or
  going, or sitting up or lying down, they would not have understood the
  principle I have been teaching. Why? Because while the expression
  ‘Buddha’ means ‘he who has thus come, thus gone,’ the true Buddha is
  never coming from anywhere or going anywhere. The name ‘Buddha’ is
  merely an expression, a figure of speech.”

As I understand from my current practise, there have been many instances I've been walking and I am aware that there is nowhere I'm walking to, and nowhere I'm walking from and no reference for somebody walking. I can then only discern beyond forms and see that there is only what I perceive to be a stillness in which there is neither time, distance and dimension. I don't know what is doing the perceiving in this instance or if anything at all is being perceived. If I am able to put this into a language there must be a perceiver beyond all forms or that my conceptual mind is doing this perceiving. In the latter case I would be being fooled by mental perceptions.
Out of curiosity and using consciously directed thought I experimented with this experience by watching a seagull flying through the air. Within several seconds I removed the earth and the rest of the universe. The seagull was bouncing its wings and orienting on the spot. From this I deduced that form provides dimension, distance and time. Without form the seagull cannot move from one position to another and time seems intrinsically bound to distance and dimension. That's as far as I got.
It may seem that I'm bordering on nihilism here, but on the contrary: there is the use of form to make the deeper discovery. Form seems to be the substrate to depth of knowledge but in this case it seems like I haven't learnt anything.

Have a look at Hsuan Hua’s commentary on the verse @ page 186: https://web.archive.org/web/20140520233206/http://www.buddhisttexts.org/uploads/6/3/3/1/6331706/_vajra_prajna_paramita_sutra.pdf... I find his explanations often enlightening. Hope this helps!

@GabeHiemstra Please repost that as an answer instead of as a comment (see here for an explanation).

@GabeHiemstra - Thank you. I've saved it to the laptop for reading later. In the meantime, would you be able extract an excerpt that you are referring to? I'd be very grateful. I don't have a teacher and I'm doing this mostly through internet, books and most importantly my own effort. I don't resonate very well with my sangha members as they haven't a clue how to respond and I don't blame them as it's quite peculiar. I'm also living a domestic life with my child and 2 elderly people.

Ok I have added as an answer.

You seem have learned what the Upanishads teach, which is that the voidness of one one form is the voidness of them all. Seagulls, dimensions, distance, time, would all be empty of intrinsic existence. Your 'perceiving' this may be a mistaken identification since it cannot be perceived. I would suggest your feelings about this come from a place beyond perception and perceptible form.    ,

@PeterJ - this is an issue for me at this point. Words seem to just reduce the events. It seems the very act of giving it words cancels it out because even the words themselves are concepts perceived by the conditioned mind and so I'm back in the realm of concepts. Onward I persist.

@Suchness - As the bard would say, there's the rub.

Another more precise and concise translation of the Diamond Sutra renders it differently, Chapter 29:

“Subhuti, if someone said the thus-come comes, goes, sits, or reclines, this person doesn’t understand the meaning of what I taught. Why is that? What thus-come is, that is from nowhere comes nor anywhere goes, hence called the thus-come.

I think you have quite good intuition to come to conclude that ...From this I deduced that form provides dimension, distance and time. Without form the seagull cannot move from one position to another and...
This chapter, on the meaning of Tathagata, is touching on the Tathagatagarbha. Tathagata, generally renders as thus-come. What is Tathagatagarbha? It is formless, but from it form arises; it is emptiness, but it contains everything - the seeds. Hence is called the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏), the womb of the treasure of suchness.
When you perceive form, by it defines space/time, that is activity of the mind, which is a "negation" from the suchness. The form doesn't exist independently from your mind. In fact it is your mind limited by the 5 senses, the intellect (6th consciousness), the subjectivity (7th consciousness/ mānas-vijñāna), hence it perceives the world as it created - the forms. But it is hindered by it's own creation - the activities it engaged. When you can remove from all these activities, you are abiding in the suchness. The Buddha is abiding in the suchness therefore called the Tathagata - he doesn't engage in any activity. There are many names referring to the same ultimate reality in different contexts for different significance: Alaya, Dharmakaya, Citta (mind), the 8th consciousness... etc.
It's too board to completely elaborate, especially a lot of Sutras to help understanding it are not available in English. But the above is the condensed favour hopefully you could enjoy :)
Just as a note, your linked English version of the Diamond Sutra is awfully translated, from the perspective of someone who is able to read the Chinese Classical Diamond Sutra. That appears the same as Red Pine's version but the site belonged to one called Alex Johnson. I wonder if the Alex Johnson has infringed someone's copyright. One the other hand, I hate to say this since Red Pine appeared genuinely liking oriental cultures, I read somewhere someone said Red Pine's translation can't be taken serious. He mixed the Tibetan text with the Chinese compiled as one. Not sure which 2nd language he is fluent in, Tibetan or Chinese?
Translation of Sutra is a very very serious matter, if it is translated wrongly, it causes severe defilement to oneself, for it misleads the Dharma seekers - this is the attitude all ancient Dharma masters taken.

What translation would you recommend for the Tathagatagarbha Sutra? I wondered if you could link this in your answer. I recall reading awhile back the diamond sutra was first translated into Chinese at around the 800's and is the oldest printed and dated book known. [When you perceive form, by it defines space/time, that is activity of the mind, which is a "negation" from the suchness] This quote paraphrases my whole question and brings to mind the zen koan about the flag blowing in the wind which I believe ends with "the flag is not moving, your mind is moving". Thank you.

Glad that you find something helpful in it :). Tathagatagarbha Sutra(s) is a whole genre comprised with many Sutras, Lankavatara, Avatamsaka, Saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra... etc. It belongs to the Third Dharma Wheel Turning. Diamond Sutra first translated in 400CE by Kumarajiva, the best translation, imho, is linked in the beginning of my answer. The problem is, most translations, from my fastidious examination, are just not ideal or even satisfactory. I don't know what to advise...

Have a look at Hsuan Hua’s commentary on the verse @ page 186. He has a detailled exposition on the verse. I find Hsuan Hua’s explanations often very illuminating. Here follows a short excerpt to his explanation.
First of all, the translation of verse differs a bit in name-choosing:

“Subhuti, if someone were to say the Tathagata either comes or goes, either sits or lies down, that person would not understand the meaning of my teaching. And why? The Tathagata does not come from anywhere, nor does he go anywhere. Therefore he is called the Tathagata.”

Then follows the core of his commentary on verse 29:

After having spoken the previous section of text, Sakyamuni Buddha realized people might have doubts and become attached to the mark of the Tathagata’s comings and goings. Therefore he said to Subhuti, “If someone were to say the Tathagata either comes or goes, either sits or lies down, that person would not understand the meaning of my teaching.” It seems as if the Tathagata, the Thus Come One, comes and goes but the coming and going is only illusory. Anyone who thinks he really comes or goes has failed to understand the principle the Buddha teaches. The Tathagata has no place from which he comes and no place to which he goes; therefore he is called the Thus Come One. That means the Buddha’s dharma body neither dwells nor does not dwell. It pervades all places. If it fills all places, from where could it come? Since it fills all places, to what place could it go? Therefore it is said not to dwell and not to dwell.

Furhter on he explains the name Tathagata in relation with “stillness” as follows:

The Thus Come One does not come or go; Therefore he is called the Tathagata. Thus (Tatha) means non-movement. Come (Agata) means movement. Movement and stillness are one identical suchness. Movement does not obstruct stillness; stillness does not obstruct movement. That means in cultivating the Way you can investigate Dhyana while sitting quietly and can also investigate Dhyana while moving about. From morning to night in all comportments, walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, you can do the work of cultivation. It is not merely while sitting in meditation that you should appl y effort. At all times you should A General Explanation of the Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra 188 guard the body, collect the mind and cease from all confusion and scatteredness. You should return the light and illumine within.

There is more at the source link. Hope this helps!


text:
How do we help people who have wrong views?
There are lot of wrong views in other religions but there are even some Buddhist who have wrong views. They don’t believe in rebirth and karma. And they say that they are metaphors. They seems to be clinging to the annihilationist view. According to MN 117 and other suttas, right view is believing that there is the fruits of good and bad karma and this is this world and the next world. The next world is where you will go according to your karma after death.

"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. 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.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

How do we help them abandon wrong views? If the Buddha was still alive then he could perform some miracles to show that there are more than just what we see with the eye.

Why do you want to help them abandon "wrong views"? If the person doesn't want to abandon their view, then there is nothing you can do to make them abandon it, all you can do is explain your own view.

Since they are practicing Buddhism, wouldn’t it be a waste if they didn’t achieve any thing and at the break up of the body they go to an animal womb or hell.

The world isn't only Buddhist, there are parts of this world that have never heard of Buddhism, they believe in different ideas. Their culture and existence has survived for many years, without being hurt by ideas of "hell." You must also realize that even in Buddhism there are different opinions, different schools - just like any other idea. The best you can do is just make people see the present, not fear some uncertain future. If they are suffering right now and want help, help them. Sometimes that help means you have to go beyond Buddhism to explain things that they can understand.

You are not alone. I want to stop people with wrong views from spreading wrong views to those who are new to Buddhism

@Angus No, the Buddha didn't chase after people and try to convince them of his beliefs. People came to him, there is a big difference.The purpose isn't to change their mind, but just to show them.

@TheDBSGuy "I want to stop people with wrong views from spreading wrong views ... They don’t believe in rebirth and karma. And they say that they are metaphors ..." - should I be concerned that you're going to track me down and "stop"?

Before proceeding further, we should note that miracles should not play any role in convincing intelligent and rational people. Devadatta, the monk who tried to injure the Buddha and cause a schism in the monastic order, was reportedly able to perform miraculous feats. Buddhism does not teach that miracles are any kind of proof of correctness or enlightenment.
When you see people around you, you may think some of them hold wrong views and some of them hold right views, and you want to help them.
Of the people whom you think hold wrong views, I think we should separate them into two categories.
The first category are people who act in obviously unvirtuous ways, causing harm to themselves and others. For e.g. people who kill sentient beings, intentionally harm others, steal from others, deceive others etc. These are people who need urgent help, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of society.
If these people are close to you, like your friends or family members, you can try to help them. After all, sharing of Dhamma (the teachings of the Buddha) is considered the greatest type of sharing according to Itivuttaka 100.
You could gently influence them to think in this way (according to AN 5.57):

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

The second category would be those who you think do not understand the teachings of the Buddha, as well as you do. I think we should tread carefully on this, because it might lead to some Buddhists pointing fingers at other Buddhists, creating a culture of accusing others of heresy and having hostile debates, as we have seen even right here on Buddhism.SE.
According to MN 28, to understand dependent origination, is to understand the Dhamma fully. Also see this answer.
According to DN 15:

There Ven. Ananda approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting
  there he said to the Blessed One: "It's amazing, lord, it's
  astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its
  appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be."
[The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this
  dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not
  understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is
  like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and
  reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of
  deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.

Dependent origination or dependent co-arising is not a simple topic and many people who think they understand it, may not fully understand it. Without understanding dependent origination completely, it may not be possible to have complete and unblemished Right View.
But to gain a complete understanding of dependent origination and the Dhamma is a long journey that involves studying the Dhamma, practising the Dhamma and gaining insight into the nature of things. An afternoon of reading or discussion may not be sufficient.
With regards to the topic of rebirth, you can direct others to read the essays "The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and "Rebirth" and "Does Rebirth Make Sense?" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. I think they are clear enough. Also this answer on Buddhism.SE is pretty concise and accurate.

Buddhism can be practiced as a skillful method based on personal experience and accepting what works for you in your individual situation. Remember, the Buddha said in the Kalama Sutra:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā), nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu)
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon > another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not
blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and
observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and
abide in them.

Holding to scripture just because it is scripture and judging other people's experience or chosen path of the Dharma can therefore also be considered wrong view, or at least an attachment to the desire to have other practitioners adapt a particular view.
The belief in reincarnation is not central or essential to Buddhist practice for many lineages and many individual practitioners. In fact, from a socio-historical perspective it is clear it was derived from the Hindu cosmology, the predominant world view in the period of the Buddha's life. I'm not stating this fact to diminish the significance it can have to individual practitioners, but merely as a reason why for many people reincarnation does not fall into the category of "these things lead to benefit and happiness".
Karmic cause and effect in many lineages is therefore not seen as something that is primarily manifesting after death: it can be immediate or within a human lifespan. This view makes the need for feeling compassion and performing Right Acts immediate.
As for the miracles you mentioned: many lineages see the Buddha as an ordinary human being, who discovered a skillful method just by being an ordinary human being, without supernatural attributes. So again, for many practitioners miracles do not necessarily fall into the category of "these things lead to benefit and happiness", because if miracles were necessary to bring someone to the "right" view, it would mean we cannot experience the mind of a Buddha just by ourselves. We would be subject to supernatural intervention. Many lineages therefore hold the view that the mind of a Buddha can be experienced right here and now.

I disagree but respect your opinion

How does one come seriously to the idea having right view by oneself? eg. firm refuge, unspoted virtue, lack of the five kinds of stinginess and proper gratitude?
That might answer how and whom to help fist for those with sacca starting toward themselves. "Am I able to close the door from outside, leaving all kinds of keys inside?" "Do I still have doubt about the direction?" "Or do I just entertain my impure stand to wander on?".
If so, but and also to understand the foremost need for any gain one may take a view on How to address wrong view, an extend answer on this very importand question, and the first blessing toward the path: "Not assisting with fools, in association with the wise, this is the highest blessing/protection".
Touch alone, without giving strongly to it, is not sufficient enough. At least one has to dwell in borderlands and leave house to ever gain right view.
Upasaka Ryan was wise and quickly proceed toward higher path and fruits. One has to disapprove wrong view and if dwelling in association with people of wrong view, there is as good as no change for a wordling to be ever successful. What ever gained intellectual will be weakened and get lost by time as well, so confidence, virtue, concentration...
(People at large this days would not be impressed by miracles at all, cut such down to their small mind rationalisation, like an ant would not be impressed by being touched by a human, so no use for that at all)
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

It depends on the situation -- I'm not sure that you can plan it in advance.

Lord, when wise nobles or brahmans, householders or contemplatives, having formulated questions, come to the Tathagata and ask him, does this line of reasoning appear to his awareness beforehand — 'If those who approach me ask this, I — thus asked — will answer in this way' — or does the Tathagata come up with the answer on the spot?"
Abhaya Sutta (MN 58)

I realise that sutta appears to give permission to say things that are "unendearing & disagreeable to others" but I think that in practice there are limits to that:

For example the sutta says "the Tathagata [] has a sense of the proper time for saying them", which doesn't (in my opinion) necessarily mean that we are all as wise as that.
Perhaps too it implies that the appropriate time is "when they ask him".
I think the Dhammapada's verse 129 ...

All are afraid of the stick, all fear death. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others.

... can be extended to speech -- I say that because the suttas describe sectarian arguments as people trying to "wound with weapons of the mouth" -- and so for example I'd extend verse 129 to, also, "Don't say something that you wouldn't want to hear if you were in their situation."
And so, for example, I think that good advice may be welcome ... except that "negative criticism" (as opposed to e.g. "constructive criticism") may be (at best) ineffective.

I think that the suttas say that a main cause of sectarian arguments is conceit (a subtle or transient form of self-regard, manifesting as comparing people) and maybe attaching to views.
Assuming it's true that the Dhamma is intended to end suffering, then perhaps we "help people" by addressing their suffering. Are they suffering? How (if at all) does what we say help them to end that?
Incidentally, when I asked How to explain what Buddhism is? one of the answers suggested that if a person is (however temporarily) not suffering then perhaps we should feel mudita towards them (rather than, necessarily, criticising them).
I think it's probably important too to be good at listening to people (or, in a written medium, reading what they write). I think that a lot of arguments (perhaps most arguments) happen because the people involved are talking about different things, not talking about the same thing. In the OP for example you say, "don’t believe in rebirth and karma" which may be an example of your not listening to what they're saying -- for example perhaps they do believe in "karma" although not in "rebirth" -- specifically, believe that people inherit their own karma, but not that people are reborn. Perhaps this (listening) is related to what some people call "beginner's mind".
Finally, on this SE site in particular you're not required to correct people who (or to correct answer which) you may disagree with -- see for example Are we here to preach and make converts? also Answers vs Advice and so on. Answer any questions as best you can, ultimately every reader has to "know for themselves".
Also this site limits the form of what's permitted (e.g. limited comments and see also the Code of Conduct)

How do we help people with wrong view? This is very difficult due to their clinging to the (animal survival) self instinct. However, we can begin as follows:

Define the Dhamma Refuge to them, which is: "seen here & now, immediate, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves".
Explain the "annihilationist view" to them, which is believing a "self" ("atta") ends at the ending of life, as follows:

... since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point
  the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the
  annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being."
  (DN 1)

Explain the Pali language to them, such as: "paraloka" means "other world" rather than "next word"; the "world" arises within these five aggregates (AN 4.45); "opapatika" means "spontaneously arisen" rather than "reborn"; a "being" is a "view" and "verbal designation" (SN 5.10, MN 98, SN 23.2).
Explain to them an "asava" is a "dirty filthy pollution" and an "acquisition" is "slavery & bondage" and, even though MN 117 refers to a "right view" for "puthujanna" that sides with "merit"; this worldly right view is dirty, filthy, polluting, enslaving bondage that does not lead to liberation and is not a factor of the Noble Path.


text:
Other physical (samatha) meditation objects besides breath?
Does Buddhist samatha meditation allow for physical meditation objects other than the breath? I have noticed I feel much more contentment with the physical sensation of "back straight". Please give examples or references.
Ayya Khema writes (Know Where You're Going) :

In the beginning we need the necessary meditation practice, the methods that will be our key to open the door, but within them we must find something that is of particular help to us. That element can be physical or mental, concerned with posture or with thoughts.

Upasika Kee writes (Pure and Simple):

Sit straight and place your hands one on top of the other on your lap. Hold your head up straight and keep your back straight—as if you had a yardstick running along your spine.

yes, when it comes to rupa, there is bhāvana on ''rupa'', or better said, bhāvana  on each one of the five properties
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/mn/mn.062.than.ati.htm#p1

"How, lord, is mindfulness of in-and-out breathing to be developed and
  pursued so as to be of great fruit, or great benefit?"
"Rahula, {any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present;
  internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or
  near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right
  discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not
  what I am.'
There are these five properties, Rahula. Which five? The earth
  property, the water property, the fire property, the wind property,
  and the space property.
"And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either
  internal or external. What is the internal earth property?}[3]
  Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained
  [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh,
  tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen,
  lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach,
  feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid,
  and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both
  the internal earth property and the external earth property are simply
  earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with
  right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my
  self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and
  makes the earth property fade from the mind.
"And what is the water property? The water property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal water property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's water, watery, and sustained:
  bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus,
  oil-of-the-joints, urine, or anything else internal, within oneself,
  that's water, watery, and sustained: This is called the internal water
  property. Now both the internal water property and the external water
  property are simply water property. And that should be seen as it
  actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is
  not me, this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is
  present with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the
  water property and makes the water property fade from the mind.
"And what is the fire property? The fire property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal fire property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's fire, fiery, and sustained:
  that by which [the body] is warmed, aged, and consumed with fever; and
  that by which what is eaten, drunk, chewed, and savored gets properly
  digested; or anything else internal, within oneself, that's fire,
  fiery, and sustained: This is called the internal fire property. Now
  both the internal fire property and the external fire property are
  simply fire property. And that should be seen as it actually is
  present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me,
  this is not my self.' When one sees it thus as it actually is present
  with right discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the fire
  property and makes the fire property fade from the mind.
"And what is the wind property? The wind property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal wind property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's wind, windy, and sustained:
  up-going winds, down-going winds, winds in the stomach, winds in the
  intestines, winds that course through the body, in-and-out breathing,
  or anything else internal, within oneself, that's wind, windy, and
  sustained: This is called the internal wind property. Now both the
  internal wind property and the external wind property are simply wind
  property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right
  discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
  When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the wind property and makes
  the wind property fade from the mind.
"And what is the space property? The space property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial, and sustained:
  the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby
  what is eaten, drunk, consumed, and tasted gets swallowed, and where
  it collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else
  internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, and sustained: This
  is called the internal space property. Now both the internal space
  property and the external space property are simply space property.
  And that should be seen as it actually is present with right
  discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
  When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the space property and
  makes the space property fade from the mind.
"Rahula, develop the meditation in tune with earth. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind. Just as when people throw what is clean or
  unclean on the earth — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the earth
  is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way,
  when you are developing the meditation in tune with earth, agreeable
  and disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind.
"Develop the meditation in tune with water. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with water, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind. Just as when people wash what is clean or unclean
  in water — feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the water is not
  horrified, humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way, when you
  are developing the meditation in tune with water, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind.
"Develop the meditation in tune with fire. For when you are developing
  the meditation in tune with fire, agreeable and disagreeable sensory
  impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
  Just as when fire burns what is clean or unclean — feces, urine,
  saliva, pus, or blood — it is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted
  by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune
  with fire, agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have
  arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
"Develop the meditation in tune with wind. For when you are developing
  the meditation in tune with wind, agreeable and disagreeable sensory
  impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
  Just as when wind blows what is clean or unclean — feces, urine,
  saliva, pus, or blood — it is not horrified, humiliated, or disgusted
  by it; in the same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune
  with wind, agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have
  arisen will not stay in charge of your mind.
"Develop the meditation in tune with space. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with space, agreeable and
  disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in
  charge of your mind. Just as space is not established anywhere, in the
  same way, when you are developing the meditation in tune with space,
  agreeable and disagreeable sensory impressions that have arisen will
  not stay in charge of your mind.

Buddhaghosa uses "kammatthana" to refer to each of his forty meditation objects listed in the third chapter of the Visuddhimagga, which are partially derived from the Pāli Canon.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamma%E1%B9%AD%E1%B9%ADh%C4%81na

As Ayya Khema writes, on "body sweeping" meditation for absorption:

Whoever was able to have pleasant feelings in the body can use these feelings as the subject of meditation. One doesn’t necessarily have to go through the whole of the body as we have just done, but the moment the pleasant feeling arises in the body, these sensations become the subject of meditation. That constitutes the initial step toward the first meditative absorption, being one aspect of it. It is, of course, much easier to become absorbed in something pleasant than in a rather neutral feeling, so this enables a meditator to bring sustained application to the subject of meditation. Then all five factors of the first meditative absorption become possible. It doesn’t matter whether the whole body or just parts of it are filled with the pleasant feeling, because it is the sensation that matters as the subject of meditation.

Ajahn Brahm writes:

there are many other objects of meditation: loving-kindness (mettā), parts of the body (kāyagatāsati), simple visualizations (kasiṇa), and others. However, in all meditation that develops into jhāna there must come a stage where the pīti-sukha born of letting go arises. For example, loving-kindness meditation opens into a wonderful, gorgeous, unconditional love for the whole cosmos, filling the meditator with delicious joy. Pīti-sukha born of letting go has arisen, and one is at the stage of “beautiful mettā.” Some meditators focus on parts of the human body, often a skull.

Two related books, the first is a free ebook:
The Fire Kasina https://firekasina.org/2017/11/27/the-fire-kasina-book-by-shannon-stein-and-daniel-m-ingram/
Practicing the Jhanas: Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw https://www.amazon.com/dp/159030733X


text:
"Take joy! I am your guarantor for getting 500 dove-footed nymphs."
The Nanda sutta seems contrary to what the Buddha teaches with regard to sensual desire. Therefore, I don't understand how this was a wise approach in the case of Nanda even though Nanda acquired arahantship afterwards.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious (it's still morning here!) but how did the Buddha's promise become a catalyst for Nanda's ultimate realization?

Imagine you are going to a car shop to buy a station wagon only because that's the best car you know and then your wise relative comes to you and shows you ferraris and lamborghinis, saying that if you give up the station wagon and follow his advice, you will soon be able to afford these much superior cars, what would you do? You would take his advice, especially if you trust him and have the ultimate respect for him.
That worked for venerable Nanda. It may not work for everyone. But then the Buddha knows what a person needs to hear to get him inclined towards the practice. The Buddha redirected his craving towards a woman by altering his goal to something superior to get him to follow the path that actually eliminates craving. Even parents do this with their kids. They promise to buy a gift the kid likes very much if he passes the exam well. So the kid studies hard to get the gift and as a result passes the exam.

But Nanda never got the ferrari.

@OyaMist he didn't need it anymore :)


text:
Which is a certified/authentic guide to entering Jhnanas?
By far I have came across only Ajahn Brahms book which gives detailed instructions on entering Jhnanas.
If I google for any other instruction manual I get this link.
I don't doubt Ajahn Brahm at all but I havent read any reviews or blogs or internet postings of anyone who has entered Jhnanas through the instruction set of AB.
The link seems to be talking on similar lines but different language.
Is there a certified, peer reviewed instruction manual to entering Jnanas?
Can you provide any other instruction manual link preferably if you have experienced it.

First, without being explicitly jhana,  to get the citta into samadhi, like here
https://suttacentral.net/an10.2/en/sujato
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/sn/05_mv/sn05.55.040.than.ati.htm#p1
  there is, before, 'sukhaṃ vediyati'', meaning pleasant vedana or ''sukkha''.
Before the pleasant vedana, there is ''kāyo passambhati'', which is a tranquil body. Before, the  tranquil body, there is ''pītimanassa'' which is mano having piti. Before mano has piti, there is ''Pamuditassa'', which is the experience of joy (of being moral and rejecting thought of delight on kama and ill will, which makes you keep the 5 precepts and all those rules about morality). Before the joy, there is a lack of regrets.
This stuff about  eagerness for renunciation, seeing drawbacks, and nirodha is the discriminating factor between a success and a failure to reach sotapanna or arhanthood through the jhanas,
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/04_fours/an04.178.than.ati.htm#p1
Like the buddha said about him, https://suttacentral.net/an9.41/en/sujato, he claimed that renunciation of sensuality was good, but his citta was not '' confident'' in it. And as usual, the citta is not inclined towards renunciation due to a lack of seeing a danger in sensuality. Once he saw this danger, he managed to get the jhanas.
Now explicitly for the jhanas. First there is a whole vagga about jhanas
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/03_kv/idx_34_jhanasamyutta.htm
second, the usual way to enter the first jhana is to be ''aloof from sense-desires, aloof from unprofitable states,'' from the typical formulation http://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/4jhana.html#1-cl
 and the buddha says that samasamadhi is precisely those jhanas
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn45-008.html#sammasamadhi
so the situation where somebody is ''aloof from sense-desires, aloof from unprofitable states,''  should stem form the joy and lack of regrets from being moral and seeing drawbacks of cravings for and delight in sensuality.

Ajahn Brahm's instruction is most centrally based in SN 48.9 (or SN 48.10).

I havent read any reviews or blogs or internet postings of anyone who has entered Jhnanas through the instruction set of AB.

Real jhana is a supernormal state. At least for monks, it is a transgression to reveal a supernormal state to the general public. Also, since jhana silences speech, it is doubtful a layman that has reached real jhana would announce it to people because it is simply contrary to jhana.
When a person, by having no interest whatsoever in sex & have no fear of aloneness (solitude), reaches jhana, the mind has the clarity to discern the common worldly person, attached to sex & ego, cannot reach jhana. Therefore, they would not declare to worldly people they have reached jhana. To do otherwise would be similar to trying to teach calculus to a monkey.

The link seems to be talking on similar lines but different language.

I doubt Gunaratana would teach the same as AB. I imagine Gunaratana would teach (Hindu) yogic (manipulative) practises from commentaries, such as the Visuddhimagga.

Is there a certified, peer reviewed instruction manual to entering Jnanas?

Only a relatively tiny proportion of Buddhists have attained real jhana. There is no such thing as "certified" by peer review. The only way to "certify" instructions is to compare them to the Pali suttas.
In brief, Ajahn Brahm, as written in his book, says his instructions based on "letting go" ("vossagga") are how the Buddha taught in SN 48.9 (SN 48.10 and MN 118).

Can you provide any other instruction manual link preferably if you have experienced it.

It is not proper to ask people to declare if they have experienced jhana. The path is based on the aspirations of the student rather than the attainments of the teacher. If a student has a worldly attitude, its unlikely they can reach jhana (because ego is too strong in the psyche).
This said, if you want to follow instructions other than Ajahn Brahm, I recommend to read the relevant posts on Buddhism Stack Exchange by the poster named Dhammadhatu.
In summary, AB's book is based on the following words of the Buddha found in SN 48.9, SN 48.10 and MN 118. Therefore, the AB method has been certified by the Lord Buddha.

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go (vossagga),
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn
  from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters
  & remains in the first jhana...
SN 48.9 Indriya-vibhanga Sutta

There is the case where a monk develops concentration as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent
  on cessation, resulting in relinquishment (vossagga).
MN 118 Anapanasati Sutta

Simply put, Jhana states are stages of letting go. One cannot be attached to letting go. Just as one cannot be imprisoned by freedom.
  The joy and happiness that arises with the beautiful breath is fueled
  by the letting go of burdens such as past and future, internal
  commentary and diversity of consciousness. Because it is a delight
  born of letting go, it cannot produce attachment.
Ajahn Brahmavamso

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
  isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
  non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
  samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
  sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
  of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
  perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
  correct samadhi.
Ajahn Buddhadasa

Is there a certified, peer reviewed instruction manual to entering Jnanas?

The answer is yes and no.
There are some universalities but when one comes to applying a particular approach devised by another person there will always be an element of experimentation, or at least there should be if one isn't getting results. Once you've realized the hindrances and let go the rest is mostly self-directed intuitive feeling-around-in-the-dark.
You could start with learning about your five mental hindrances. Once you see how they hinder your progression it becomes natural to let them go. A lot of people want to skip this part, then discover that they cannot reach jhana because they don't have the knowledge of the hindrances. It save a huge amount of time to go through these meticulously. There are times where hindrances don't occur and this can be capitalized on but I would always suggest you develop knowledge of how your hindrances arise in your sessions. Through this knowledge one can traverse those difficulties and navigate across the undulating contours of the meditative terrain.
Even with this, it isn't a one-size-fits all approach. We all have different things happening with the mind. You will only learn by examining yourself carefully.
Avarana Sutta
Mahasatipatthana Sutta (Section on Hindrances)