text:
(Why) did the Buddha teach rebirth?

Was rebirth introduced in the First or Second Turnings, and why did the Buddha teach it? E.g. was it necessary to understand emptiness, causality, etc.?
For example, I imagine that some "reasons why" might include:

Maybe it helps deemphasize a person's current lifetime, highlighting its impermanence, so that one does not cling to it or themselves.
On the other hand, for some, it seems to be a source of inspiration to persevere on the Path, for a "good rebirth".

Would any of the Buddhist doctrines, excluding karma and rebirth, fail to make sense without rebirth?

The Buddha taught only facts and fundamental concepts, i.e. Re-birth.  Could you give some examples where avoiding the teaching/concept of rebirth make more sense in certain doctrines?

There must be a bunch of questions on this already... Did you search?

It appears rebirth has been discussed at length on tricycle, however, many of the links are dead.

@AndreiVolkov searched before, but did not find any answers to the question on why rebirth was taught by the Buddha.

The Buddha taught karma and rebirth under mundane right view -

Right view, I say, is twofold: there is right view that is affected by influxes, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions; and there is right view that is noble, free of influxes, supramundane, a factor of the path.
AN 6.63

and as Bhikku Bodhi goes on to write in The Buddha's Teachings on Social and Communal Harmony

“Right view affected by influxes” implies that even as we attempt to see and act in accord with the Dharma, we are still affected by the delusion of self. “Partaking of merit” is using Buddhist practice for what we perceive as our own benefit. “Ripening in the acquisitions” means becoming or acquiring a self. These are mundane or worldly ways.

Since this mundane right view is still "affected by influxes", with notions of self, not only is rebirth unnecessary to understand not-self, it may in fact be incompatible, as further explained in this answer.
This may be why the Buddha taught  superior right view. It is this right view which leads to liberation, as Bhikku Bodhi writes -

This superior right view leading to liberation is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths. It is this right view that figures as the first factor of the Noble Eightfold Path in the proper sense: as the noble right view. Thus the Buddha defines the path factor of right view expressly in terms of the four truths: “What now is right view? It is understanding of suffering (dukkha), understanding of the origin of suffering, understanding of the cessation of suffering, understanding of the way leading to the cessation of suffering

Belief in rebirth (as reincarnation) is also unnecessary in regards to ethics and morality, as Bhikku Bodhi further writes -

Several texts testify that the Buddha himself seems to have recognized that morality can be established on the basis of self- reflection and ethical reasoning without requiring a belief in personal survival of death.

The Truth of Rebirth seems to be one of the larger points of dispute between participants on this site. See here and here for similar questions and answers. I guess this is not all that surprising to me since the site seems heavily represented by Western practitioners. In my experience it seems that westerners have (and I definitely include myself here) a particularly difficult time with the Truth of Rebirth as taught by the Buddha. Here is what Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu has to say about this:

Yet as these Buddhist religions have come to the West, they have run
into a barrier from modern Western culture: Of all the Buddha's
teachings, rebirth has been one of the hardest for modern Westerners
to accept. Part of this resistance comes from the fact that none of
the dominant world-views of Western culture, religious or
materialistic, contain anything corresponding to the idea of repeated
rebirth. Plato taught it, but — aside from an esoteric fringe — few in
the modern West have treated this side of his teaching as anything
more than a myth.
For people who have felt burned or repelled by the faith demands of
Western religion, there is the added barrier that the teaching on
rebirth is something that — for the unawakened — has to be taken on
faith. They would prefer a Buddhism that makes no faith demands,
focusing its attention solely on the benefits it can bring in this
life.

There seem to be many approaches on this site:

Simply denying outright that the Buddha taught rebirth.
The Buddha taught the reality of rebirth as a (re)birth that takes place in this very life whenever self-views of "I" and "mine" occur. No "afterlife" concept of rebirth was taught or acknowledged by the Buddha.
Admitting he taught it, but insisting it was just skillful means.
Rebirth as a combination of metaphor and upaya.
Those who take rebirth at face value, but insist that mere experience can end.
Like above, but do not posit an end to this mere experience.
Those who think rebirth (generally) can be known incontrovertibly through reason alone.
Those who think rebirth requires a dose of faith to be known (generally).

And probably a number of other views that I've missed. Myself, I'm with 6 and 7.
Was rebirth introduced in the First or Second Turnings, and why did the Buddha teach it?
To my mind, unquestionably it was taught and introduced. I think the Buddha taught it because it was/is a conventional truth and the Buddha taught the truth.
Would any of the Buddhist doctrines, excluding karma and rebirth, fail to make sense without rebirth?
Yes, I think there are obvious logical problems and inconsistencies that present if you deny the truth of rebirth. For instance, as BodhiWalker mentions above one could seek the end of suffering by merely ending this current life. Even more problematic, one could "liberate" others from suffering by murdering sentient beings painlessly. That's monstrous and I want nothing to do with it. I want to make quite clear, I'm sure this is not what others have in mind when denying or glossing the truth of rebirth. I'm emphatically not concluding that those who deny or gloss the truth of rebirth are murderous monsters, just that denying or glossing the truth of rebirth presents logical problems that I don't see a way around.
Anyway, I think Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article above is excellent and highly recommend reading it many times and contemplating these questions.

I scored this answer down because it did not once mention the reality of rebirth.

@Dhammadhatu can you explain what you mean by "the reality of rebirth?" I really would like to understand what you are saying

What kind of edit would you suggest to the answer to improve it?

The answer neglected the 're-birth' the Buddha taught, which is the production of self-views that give birth to the idea of self; as described in many suttas, such as SN 22.81, which says: "The uninstructed assumes form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness to be self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. "

Ok, i will try to reflect this understanding in my list and edit it to be clear that the part about westerners is my only reflective of my own experience/opinion. Do you regard the Buddha teaching about the knowledge he gained of his past lives during his night of awakening as similar descriptions of self-views that took place in Siddhartha's regular mortal life? I only ask as a point of clarification and not to try and challenge your understanding...

Your patience is excellent. Well done! As for the Buddha, he did not experience any "past lives", as confirmed by this proper translation of SN 22.79: https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi Regards

@Dhammadhatu I was referring to  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html where it is quoted as, "I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion" ... what is your understanding of this sutta?

@YesheTenley Indeed. Dhammadhatu points to "pubbenivāsa" which is used in that phrase, and says that should be translated as "past abodes" rather than like "past lives", and that it's about self-views. One of his habits on this site is to say so, whenever the topic of rebirth comes up, and to downvote every answer which doesn't say the same. See also these topics, and/or he recommended this essay.

Ok, I've edited #2 to reflect this understanding as best I'm capable.

@YesheTenley I think there are obvious logical problems and inconsistencies that present if you deny the truth of rebirth. ... Those hypothetical problems that follow, to my knowledge, weren't addressed by the word of the Buddha, nor do I know if they are even fundamental enough to ponder. My concern is more with how would the core teachings e.g. 4 Noble Truths, Emptiness, or Causality, fail to make sense without belief in rebirth.

@YesheTenley thank you for your generous answer and directing me to the article. It may answer my questions. What concerns me, is that something is repeated so many times that one believes it without question, and may argue from a place that already assumes it to be true.

He says You take these matters on faith until you can confirm them for yourself. which troubles me. Faith in Buddhism as I understand it, is confirming things for yourself before you believe them.

@avatarKorra You might ask a separate question. Currently you're asking, "how (if it all) does rebirth (or a lack of faith in rebirth) affect one's understanding of the three characteristics?" A slightly separate question (but which might be closer to the question you want to ask) is, "Is it possible to understand and benefit from the doctrine of the three characteristics, without holding a belief in rebirth?" I guess the answers are, "Yes, faith in rebirth has some effects on the doctrines, and, yes it's possible to (many people do) also make sense of the doctrine even without that belief."

@avatarKorra Perhaps you should rewind your edit of this question as ChrisW has said and ask a separate question so that people are not confused when visiting this OP and seeing the questions/answers not align...

@ChrisW what you said about asking a separate question makes sense.

Pertinent to this answer, though, apparently there are Buddhist traditions (e.g. Zen per the link) that do not require a belief in rebirth, so presumably these traditions do not see any logical inconsistencies. That Buddhism can still have its soteriological effects, both with and without a belief in rebirth IMHO makes it all the more powerful.

The concept of rebirth is an axiomatic corolary of 'Karma'.
Also if rebirth does not exist then nibbana i.e. 'blowing out' doesn't make sense.
For e.g. without rebirth and without afterlife in heaven or hell you will be  essentially 'blown out' nibbanafied without doing anything.
So nibbana makes sense only because rebirth exist, because in rebirth the flame continues.
Also, murdering sentient beings (in a painless way) would also be equivalent to liberating them from suffering if rebirth does not exist.
So it is a pretty central doctrine, even if you don't emphasize on Karma.

Not really. If you get born in another realm due to your bad deeds in this life, then it makes sense to "strive" for nibbana. The 4 noble truths do not mention rebirth at all (nor does the noble eightfold path), but just that suffering exists and that it can be ceased. Now the 4 Noble Truths are higher teachings and most people I would assume haven't realized them..

@Val sorry i dont see exactly wherr are you contradicting my point. Yes it makes sense to strive for nirvana only because u are reborn in another realm. Also 4 noble truth and 8 fold path dont mention rebirth but they lead us to understanding of Karma through 'right action' and Rebirth is just extension of Karma.

@Val I would dispute that the Buddha did not teach rebirth or karma when he taught the 4NT. Both are implicit in dependent origination. See here: The Noble Truth of Rebirth

@BodhiWalker you could even add that murdering sentient beings (in a painless way) would also be equivalent to liberating them from suffering if rebirth does not exist

@YesheTenley okies added.

@BodhiWalker For e.g. without rebirth and without afterlife in heaven or hell you will be essentially 'blown out' nibbanafied without doing anything. doesn't causality and impermanence teach us that all composite phenomena, e.g. a house or a person, will eventually cease to exist without "doing anything" because it is by nature, impermanent?

@avatarKorra  impermenance more of implies the inherent 'change' in nature of composite phenomena...a person will cease to exist in the form he is in, which is infact happening every moment he is there...so when his body ceases in death that is not 'nibbana'...his energy survives in material and non-material form...ofcourse he no longer identifies with pervious self.

There are Buddhist traditions that do not require belief in rebirth. So Nibbana apparently makes sense. See this article.

@avatarKorra Which Buddhist traditions are you talking about?

@BodhiWalker - Gil Fronsdal, the author of the article says, "I have practiced in particular Buddhist traditions that do not require a belief in rebirth", then says Zen.
A faith in the Buddha's teachings such that the rest of the teachings no longer stand as truth without the promise of rebirth just seems very weak.

@avatarKorra faith in rebirth is not imperative to either practise or attaining Nibbana. IMO selective acceptance of Buddhas words to fit your own world view shows weak faith. My argument in the answer is not that Nibbana can be attained only with belief in rebirth, it that the whole doctrine has meaning only in context of rebirth.

I do not think the Buddha taught that it was necessary to assume rebirth.
Take this from the Kalama Sutta:

"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds
  done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the
  body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is
  possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by
  him.
"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of
  deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from
  hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.'
  This is the second solace found by him.

Clearly, any of the meditative practices the Buddha taught focus attention on the rebirth that happens in this moment, here and now.

Was rebirth introduced in the First or Second Turnings, and why did the Buddha teach it?
I think the idea of rebirth preceded (predated, already existed earlier than) the Buddha's doctrine:

Early Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism
The idea of reincarnation has early roots in the Vedic period (c. 1500 – c. 500 BCE), predating the Buddha and the Mahavira.

I think that, therefore, the question[s] which the Buddhist doctrine had to answer included, "Is the 'rebirth' doctrine true, to what extent is it true (how does it fit with other Buddhist doctrines), what does it mean exactly, how does it work, what is kamma?" and similar questions.
Would any of the Buddhist doctrines, excluding karma and rebirth, fail to make sense without rebirth?
I don't know, maybe some of these might be affected:

Stages of enlightenment -- that perhaps you won't be enlightened in this life, but even so that's not too late (and that effort is always even though immediate result may seem impossible)
An incentive (albeit "siding with merit and resulting in acquisition") for morality: including, both, generosity and harmlessness
The concept of merit may affect the relationship between lay society and the sangha
The three characteristics:

anatta e.g. as explained in this answer -- if rebirth doesn't exist, does that mean that we live and die, and if so isn't that identifying with the aggregates?
anicca -- so you're saying that death is permanent, not impermanent?
dukkha -- without the doctrine of rebirth, some people may develop strange or wrong ideas around killing or suicide as being an escape from dukkha ... also the doctrine that "craving to live (or, for becoming)" and "craving to die (or, for cessation)" are, both, forms of craving

The superiority (super-humanity) of the Buddha (not according to the suttas, necessarily, but e.g. the Jataka tales and the Mahāvaṃsa)
Combining cyclic cosmology with the dhamma's being timeless (previous and future Buddhas)
Atheism -- no sense in worshipping the Gods too much, they too are subject to rebirth
Hope or optimism -- no matter how bad things seem now, etc.
Some sense in which dhamma is called timeless (akalika)

What do you mean by “hope or optimism”? The doctrine of rebirth seems much more pessimistic than materialism – there needs to be a lot of effort over numerous lives to achieve something that a materialist takes for granted as happening at the end of every single life.

More opportunities for a precious human birth in which to be fortunate, to hear the dhamma, to make some progress towards enlightenment, to help ... and more scope for agency (as opposed to e.g. helplessness) e.g. no "we are all predestined to die, so nothing we can do matters".

Other people might hope that their deceased beloved might have a favourable rebirth. Not everyone sees rebirth, or life, as nothing but a disaster (to be pessimistic of), even if that is one of the messages in the suttas.

First Noble Truth: saṃkhittena pañc·upādāna·k·khandhā dukkhā - In short, the five aggregates of clinging is suffering.
If all mental activities cease at death, there will be no craving after death as it is clearly a mental activity. If that's the case, apart from craving, the second noble truth should include things like breathing, eating, drinking, checking for vehicles before crossing the road and pretty much anything else that keeps you alive.
The third noble truth(s) would be both Nibbana and death.
Apart from the noble eightfold path that one needs to practice with years of dedication, the fourth noble truth(s) would include hanging yourself, shooting yourself, drowning, starving to death, death by lethal injection, sleeping on a railway, jumping from a skyscraper or pretty much doing whatever you like until you end up dead.
Imagine a criminal with such a belief saying "I became a serial killer so the government would make me enlightened by capital punishment."
Such a religion would mainly provide laughter to people instead of being taken seriously. :)

Maybe the Buddha knew that death is too painful and fearsome to consider - even if it did lead to cessation - so Buddhism gives us the possibility of an alternative path to liberation from suffering. In this lifetime. Without needing to rely on belief in a next one.

What's the point of such a colllosal effort if natural death leads to cessation of suffering?

Because ending suffering in this lifetime is better than the alternative of death.

The notion that the Buddha preached the Dhamma for 45 years and created a system of Sangha who have to follow 227+ vinaya rules and meditate for years with difficulty just to have enlightenment few  years in advance is comical at best. Why not use a painless method of suicide? :)

Please note that my critical questioning serves only to strengthen my faith, but to answer your question with another: why is it that most atheists/materialists don't commit suicide, having no belief in rebirth or afterlife? And further, why do 92%-95% of suicide attempts fail?

@avatarKorra it may be because of the fear of uncertainty even though they like to believe that it ends at death. Not willing to end experiencing of sensual pleasures etc.

yes if they had any real faith that it ends at death then there would be no fear to commit suicide; they'd all be doing it. They make the intellectual argument for it and yet, deep inside, no one really sees truth in it.

@avatarKorra I find talk of suicide kind of offensive and wrong. Firstly, plenty of people don't suicide: and the fact that they don't does not prove that they believe in rebirth nor that they believe in annihilation (so suicide is irrelevant to the argument). Second, it's considered very wrong to encourage people to kill themselves, e.g. by describing the advantages of death (e.g. saying, "If you kill yourself then dukkha will end for you") -- it may be considered similar to actually killing someone. So I wish people would stop talking like that, avoid making that kind of argument.

@ChrisW My intention here is to remove any doubt that suicide is a wrong, flawed thing. If we are confident it is, then why not discuss it openly rather than run away from it and let doubt remain in the minds of people who may be too afraid to talk about it. Please don't take the investigation of death here to mean arguing for it.

@avatarKorra Maybe you're confident but I've answered several questions about suicide on this site, and the fact that people ask such questions is a bit worrying. So I don't like seeing casually ask, "So why don't you commit suicide then, to end suffering?" even if you only mean it as a rhetorical question and didn't intend it as a serious suggestion.

Why buddha teach rebirth?
Because highest goal of buddhism is to avoid rebirth.
In reality even buddha teach or doesn’t,
Rebirth mechanism is still there.
And it’s the origin of every suffer.

I've decided to create a second answer for this question, that's completely different to the first one.
Please also see this answer.
TL;DR
Denying rebirth-of-self view while clinging to self view is wrong view, because this is annihilationism and brings the unenlightened to hedonism.
Denying rebirth-of-self view after discarding self view is the noble right view. Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.
Rebirth view can be used as skillful means (upaya) to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation. Rebirth view is the middle way and is the right view with effluents/ taints.
Long answer
Denying rebirth-of-self, while clinging to self-view, appears to be wrong view. This is unskillful means because it directs the mind of the unenlightened towards hedonism and nihilism. This is also the view of annihilationism.

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 contemplatives or brahmans who,
faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next
after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
wrong view.
MN 117

Holding on to the rebirth-of-self, while clinging to the fetter of self view, is a right view with effluents/ taints.

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
resulting 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 contemplatives & brahmans
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
MN 117

Why is this the case? This is because siding with merit, one could use this as skillful means (upaya), a helpful tool, to remove the habit of misconduct, cultivate virtue and generate the path to liberation.
The Buddha is the doctor (Iti 100) who treats the illness which is suffering (dukkha). This is a medicine that he has prescribed.

“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.’
.....
“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the
owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s
origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be
the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings
that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of
their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin,
kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of
whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ As he often reflects on
this theme, the path is generated. He pursues this path, develops it,
and cultivates it. As he does so, the fetters are entirely abandoned
and the underlying tendencies are uprooted.
AN 5.57

Once self-view is discarded, rebirth-of-self view will also be discarded. This is the noble Right View.

"And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents,
transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of
discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a
factor for awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing
the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents,
who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that
is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
MN 117

How do we know that rebirth-of-self view will be discarded? This is the higher teaching for those who have understood anatta, as taught in MN 38 and SN 22.85.
Rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.

“Yes, friend,” he replied, and he went to the Blessed One, and after
paying homage to him, sat down at one side. The Blessed One then asked
him: “Sāti, is it true that the following pernicious view has arisen
in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is
this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of
rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
long time.”
MN 38

“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
the body and does not exist after death’?”
“Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that
pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the
Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have
made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
SN 22.85

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.
SN 5.10

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
two. This, just this, is the end of stress (suffering)."
Ud 1.10

I think this is excellent because it finally tells us what rebirth really is in Buddhism. It's not falsehood. It's not truth. It's just skillful means (upaya), a helpful tool. A middle way between falsehood and truth.

what do you say if asked whether a stream-enterer exists after death?

@Letsbuddhism The answer to this question, from the perspective of ultimate truth comes from Yamaka Sutta and Vajira Sutta. - "What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
Do you take a position? This is purely a pile of fabrications. Here no living being can be pinned down."

then i say, in as far as having grasped with wrong view something to be a stream-enterer then, is this stream-enterer said/held/seen to take another birth in particular?

@Letsbuddhism A stream enterer has discarded self-view. Which wrong view is grasped? A stream enterer is a person (puggala) as stated in Bhara Sutta (SN 22.22). But this is also a fabrication. The first noble truth says "there is suffering". It doesn't say "there is a sufferer".

i mean that it is said that a sotapanna won't take an 8th birth. It is said in regards to what is said to be a being, a being a concept that is conceived due to a grasping what the senses present with wrong view. Therein mind or body are misunderstood and taken to be personal and or eternal. This is the doctrine of self, in this doctrine of self one speaks of rebirth of a being. Having abandoned wrong view one can still entertain and understand the doctrine without believing it.

If they don’t penetrate so far, with the ending of three fetters, they’re a one-seeder. They will be reborn just one time in a human existence, then make an end of suffering.
If they don’t penetrate so far, with the ending of three fetters, they go from family to family. They will transmigrate between two or three families and then make an end of suffering.
If they don’t penetrate so far, with the ending of three fetters, they have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven times among gods and humans and then make an end of suffering.

obviously the answer as to whether a sotapanna is reborn is yes and that up to seven times and the answer as to whether sotapanna can be pinned down as a truth & reality in & by itself is a no. However there is that which can be grasped with wrong view to be a sotapanna and that will change as it persists until it is fully extinguished in no more than 7 births.

@Letsbuddhism Yes, that's right.

I think it's not a problem to say that a sotapanna exists after death in as far as they are held to transmigate for up to seven more times and that only Arahants in this exact sense abandon all modes of existence in as far as they become completely extinguished with no residue for a future. I like both of your answers.

also this then makes sense 'Having understood the unconditioned state,
Released in mind with the cord of being destroyed,
They have attained to the Dhamma-essence.
Delighting in the destruction (of craving),
Those stable ones have abandoned all being.'

@Letsbuddhism The idea of rebirth without self view is simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness

This seems very wrong. I think your previous answer was better ;)

@YesheTenley The previous answer is tainted with self view.

This one too, but with more confusion as a spice :)

@YesheTenley At some point, we have to stop sneaking in the self through the back door.  ;-)

Who is this "we" you refer to? Do you and I not exist?

@YesheTenley That's Mara.

Was it Mara speaking to Ananda in MN 81? "Ānanda, you might think: ‘Surely the brahmin student Jotipāla must have been someone else at that time?’ But you should not see it like this. I myself was the student Jotipāla at that time.”

You've misunderstood Vajira and should put down that snake you are grasping.

@Ruben2020 by suffering therein what exactly do you mean? I am trying to make sure nothing slips by and it is close as it is but depends on what you mean by suffering, if you mean sankhara-dukkhata denoting anything other than the nibbana principle then i would agree with the expression

@Letsbuddhism Yes, that's right.

@YesheTenley I have added Bahiya Sutta (Ud 1.10). That should be very clear.

That is a wonderful sutta, but in no way denies the rebirth of persons. For such a mind unbound a 'person' does not even appear. What could there be to deny?

We are lucky, we are most fortunate to find in you, friend, a companion in the holy life who is so well-versed in both the meaning and the expression!

Rebirth Concept was there in India[Early stages India called Dambadiwa] among Rishi's who meditated and achieved "Dyana" supreme mental states.  Actually,  Buddha taught us how to stop rebirth. This is the concept Lord Buddha understood from his Omniscience. Though the rebirth concept was there even "Rishi" did not have Supreme mundane wisdom to explain rebirth concept exactly.  They might have seen previous births in some extend where lord buddha seen rebirth to the eternity. That is why his wisdom called Omniscience.
Why do we wanted to avoid pain of Cancer? Because it causes whole life suffering. By knowing that we are taking precautionary measures to avoid cancer. If we found it earlier stages we completely remove it from the body. Furthermore, to avoid occuring cancer cells we do chemotherapy.
Similarly, Lord Buddha understood from his Omniscience that the creatures are sufferings from eternal journey of samsara within this 31 levels of the universe [4 Hells, 26 Divines and Earth].  Out of these 31 most of the creatures travelling through 4 hells only. Very similar to the cancer.
Giving this example he said. If someone takes a certain amount of soil from the earth on the nail tip of the thumb finger, that much creatures  will go to the divine worlds , the Brahma worlds  and  the human world,. Rest of the creatures equal to the earth's soil will go to hell. That is why Lord Buddha introduce  the hells  as creature's great house.
By knowing this great disaster with "Metta and Karuna" he wanted to stop creatures facing this agony while rescuing them.
Without convincing the reality of this samsara journey, the painful sorrowful agony one can face and going through, if he talk about the luxury life then no one wanted to attain Nibbana.  People love this lust life.
Lord Buddha in his Omniscience understood the way to overcome this dependent origination circle  by stopping the rebirth. That is where he introduce us four noble truth and the eightfold path.
Now your question was answered.  Without knowing the cause or the reason we cannot overcome the issue.  We need to stop occurrence to stop the result occurring due to that cause.
That is why causality was explained.
May Triple Gem Blessed You.

The Buddha taught rebirth because it is something real that is related to the arising of suffering; namely, the re-arising of the delusion of "self" as a result of the emotions created by kamma (actions). Whenever the idea of "I" or "mine" arises as a result of an action, this is "rebirth".
Discerning an absence of rebirth in the mind is necessary to understand emptiness. Also, rebirth (kamma & results) is one example of causality.
A Buddhist doctrine that make sense without rebirth is the Three Characteristics. Seeing the Three Characteristics is unrelated to rebirth.
Knowing Nirvana is also unrelated to rebirth although, similar to Emptiness, knowing Nirvana coincides with knowing an absence of rebirth in the mind.
As for a rebirth as an "afterlife", this is an unknowable unproveable primitive superstition. Any claims there is a "Truth of Afterlife Rebirth" is obviously a lie or falsehood because there is no evidence for this belief. It is only a "belief" but not a "truth".

"obviously a lie or falsehood" is problematic and I think you should remove this. It is disparaging others and impolite and does not reflect patience for others understanding even if you think that "understanding" is a misunderstanding or confusion.

Thinking that all mental activities end at death is the unsubstantiated, unskillful, primitive, superstitious belief. :)

Read my answer.


text:
Why have I awoken Now?
I am riddled by this question lately and it necessary for my progress on path of Dhamma. My question is, why is it that in this life time I have became obsessively bent to attain nibbana while everyone around me is living in total oblivion. I mean if I had so many rebirths in past lives exactly what was I doing all these quantillion lives, was I never told the dhamma. If I was told, then why am I not already enlightened. Was I dumb or something all these lives not to have awaken to the truth of suffering? What must have been my mistake all these lives? How can I rectify that mistake so that I can felicitate my nibbana in this life?

-- "why is it that in this life time I have became obsessively bent to attain nibbana"
There is a traditional Buddhist teaching that explains this Awakening through a combination of lucky causes and conditions. When the conditions are unlucky, they are known as "Eight Conditions in Which There is No Freedom to Practice Dharma". When the conditions are lucky, there are known as "The Ten Advantages" or "The Five Individual and Five Circumstantial Advantages". I will not quote them here verbatim, for fear of simplistic reification - instead I will try to explain the idea behind it.
Awakening happens when your life conditions are "just right". Being "just right" means they are not too bad but not too "worldly good" either.
On one hand, there has to be enough good luck to be born in the right place at the right time to encounter Dharma, and your personal circumstances should be good enough to allow you to pay attention to it. Meaning, you need to be born in the right historical period in a civilized country that has Dharma available in some form, when there is no active war or other issues that would completely distract from anything but survival. You also have to be born a human or other type of sentient being that has its mental faculty in a good functional order.
On the other hand, you need to have enough suffering in your life and enough confusion to push you to seek some sort of resolution. If your life circumstances are too structured from birth, for example you are born to a family that has everything running well and under control, you may be so completely preoccupied with worldly activities of study, work, art, making business etc., that you will have zero interest in Dharma even if the Buddha himself were to teach you.
Just enough suffering and confusion -- but not too much -- because too much suffering and confusion leads to perverted worldviews, excessive aggression, extreme pessimism/hopelessness/nihilism, an idea that one can only get happy by abusing others, incurable cynicism, addictions etc.
So when these multiple "just right" causes and conditions come together all at the same time, we have this phenomena of Awakening - one day you come in touch with Dharma and you are interested. This is the moment when your negative seeds (suffering, confusion) and your positive seeds (open mind, intuitively right values) germinate in the ground of lucky circumstances.
This combination of positive and negative factors is very important. This is why human condition is so valuable, compared to other life forms. It gives just enough positive and negative factors in just the right proportions. It does not happen all the time, true, but still a million times more frequently than with almost any other type of sentient life. We are lucky to be messed up just enough to Awaken! :))
-- "Why am I not already enlightened? What must have been my mistake all these lives? How can I rectify that?
As you can imagine, there's any number of mistakes you could have made, but here is one traditional list, known as "The Eight Intrusive Circumstances". I will list them here in brief, it could be one or more in your case:

you failed to overcome negative emotions dominating your mind.
you were intellectually lazy and did not want to make effort to study Dharma.
you failed to identify a confused teacher as such, and wasted your chance by following incorrect teaching.
you were a procrastinator when it came to meditation.
you failed to cut the self-perpetuating cycle of negative karma, and it claimed your freedom back.
you did not say "no" to worldly people in your life that wanted you to do what they thought was important.
you always prioritized solving your worldly problems over Dharma.
you fell victim to the temptation of using Dharma as a source of money, power, or fame - and lost connection with genuine virtue.

I'm sure there are countless other potential mistakes one could have made, but this should get you started. There is much more on this topic in a book I recommend, "The Words of My Perfect Teacher" by Patrul Rinpoche.

You've been here since forever due to craving and ignorance.
Ignorance of not knowing the Four Noble Truths.
There are 3 types of craving - sensual, becoming and unbecoming.
Basically, you're here because you deeply want to be here, you want to enjoy sensual pleasures, you want to become somebody, you want to live a full happy life and you did not know about the Four Noble Truths till the "man with good eyesight standing on the river bank" told you. There's no need to blame Mara or anyone else.
You're here because you craved to be here.
From Itivuttaka 114:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "Suppose a man was being carried along by the flow of a river,
  lovely & alluring. And then another man with good eyesight, standing
  on the bank, on seeing him would say: 'My good man, even though you
  are being carried along by the flow of a river, lovely & alluring,
  further down from here is a pool with waves & whirlpools, with
  monsters & demons. On reaching that pool you will suffer death or
  death-like pain.' Then the first man, on hearing the words of the
  second man, would make an effort with his hands & feet to go against
  the flow.
"I have given you this simile to illustrate a meaning. The meaning is
  this: the flow of the river stands for craving. Lovely & alluring
  stands for the six internal sense-media. The pool further down stands
  for the five lower fetters. The waves stand for anger & distress. The
  whirlpools stand for the five strings of sensuality. The monsters &
  demons stand for the opposite sex. Against the flow stands for
  renunciation. Making an effort with hands & feet stands for the
  arousing of persistence. The man with good eyesight standing on the
  bank stands for the Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened."

The conditions and the reasons why sb chooses to follow the path of enlightenment in one lifetime are not clear.
To say that your Karma is wright,what about Milarepa who in one lifetime killed people?And at the same time he gained liberation.
Then Retchung asked, 'O lama, you spoke of having done white deeds, and no deeds are worthier than those devoted to the Dharma. How, Master, did you first encounter the teaching?' And the Venerable One continued thus:

I was filled with remorse for the evil I had done by magic and by
  hailstorms. My longing for the teaching so obsessed me that I forgot
  to eat. If I went out, I wanted to stay in. If I stayed in, I wanted
  to go out. At night sleep escaped me. I dared not confess my sadness
  to the lama or my longing for liberation. While I remained in the
  lama's service, I asked myself unceasingly and passionately by what
  means I might practice the true teaching.The lama replied, 'All sentient beings have the Buddha-nature within them. I know theoretically how to lead them to higher realms and liberation, but when conditions arise which test my actual attainment, I only remember words and ideas. I have no confidence in my ability to help beings. But now I am going to practice the Dharma to be able to meet any circumstances that arise. Either you must take over the guidance of my disciples so that I can devote myself to the practice leading to the higher realms and liberation, or you must practice the Dharma yourself and help us all achieve the higher realms and liberation. Meanwhile I shall support you with all the provisions you need.'

Thus my wish was fulfilled and I answered that I would practice the Dharma myself.

Tilopa

He first became a monk at the temple of Somapuri in Bengal. It is said
  that one day a dakini (female embodiment of wisdom) came to him in a
  vision and offered him her knowledge. Tilopa requested her teachings
  and received the initiation into the Chakrasamvara Tantra.

Naropa

Naropa went to the house of a woman who sold beer and encountered a
  junior Buddhist pandita. After the Buddhist pandita departed, Naropa
  found a volume of Sutras left behind by him and began to read them. He
  became very inspired by the teachings and his heart filled with
  devotion for the dharma.

There is no such thing as "past lives". Please read SN 22.79, which explains clearly the meaning of "past nivasa". If there were past lives, we would be born into this world with much wisdom, knowledge & experience.

Of course there are past and future lives! Don't you know other humans existed before us and will exist after us? ;)

I am riddled by this question lately and it necessary for my progress on path of Dhamma. My question is, why is it that in this life time I have became obsessively bent to attain nibbana while everyone around me is living in total oblivion.
Society is by and large enslaved by Mara the evil one. This answer explains in detail. Don't go by the society.
I mean if I had so many rebirths in past lives exactly what was I doing all these quantillion lives, was I never told the dhamma. If I was told, then why am I not already enlightened. Was I dumb or something all these lives not to have awaken to the truth of suffering?
You were and are under the influence of Mara as is almost everyone. Do you think Steve Jobs was dumb , Bill Gates is dumb or Einstein was dumb ? No. Even the smartest of people fail to get the insight.
What must have been my mistake all these lives? How can I rectify that mistake so that I can felicitate my nibbana in this life?
Yours and everyone's mistake is that they haven't renounced the self and the world. They still think that the eyes is theirs. They still still think ears is theirs. They still think body is theirs. They still think Mind is theirs. When in actuality it all belongs to Mara. To rectify the mistake ,I guess the best way would be to, renounce the world and walk the path which Buddha laid.

Dheeraj  thanks for answering... I know who is mara from buddhist scriptures but it doesnt practically make sense to blame Mara. I mean, i dont actually believe that there is some evil being in reality named Mara who is bothering us all...I mean what personal interest will he have in my life...this must be some sort of allegory...what exactly is Mara? So that leaves my question unanswered. Sorry for being so pedantic...

@BodhiWalker I have quoted from the scriptures. It is not possible to believe in Buddha and not believe in Mara. Mara rules the world which Buddha wants you to renounce.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Under what conditions should Buddhists proselytize other Buddhist traditions?
Under what conditions is it proper for Buddhists of one tradition to try and proselytize Buddhists from another tradition? Under what conditions is it improper? What harm can be done? What fruits can be gained?
Can cross-tradition debate be a good thing? Is it ever a bad thing? What is the proper motivation to do so? What are improper motivations? What is skillful? What is unskillful?
Is it desirable to grant a modicum of respect for all traditions? How should this respect be manifested? What are examples of disrespectful dialogue and how can/should the line be drawn?
Note: I'd prefer if these questions are not used to proselytize or engage in debate about Buddhist doctrine... but rather to answer the questions above.
... and references to dharma teachings, historical events, or opinions/literature of noted teachers also welcome and encouraged!

I have a feeling this is more of a meta question... Most of our questions expect answers that are informed either by scripture, or by personal studies under teachers, or by personal experience - but this is an invitation for an open-ended panel-style discussion. As such I don't think it makes it a good fit for this platform. Will be happy to hear other opinions and reopen.

Happy to move this to meta... would that make more sense? OTOH, maybe there is teachings on this?? For instance, the sanskrit tradition holds that many cross-tradition debates occurred throughout history that could potentially inform answers here. I was hoping maybe there would be real answers based on dharma.

@ChrisW what do you think?

@AndreiVolkov Move it to Meta, if you want to ask whether the community wants users to do that on this site. Or leave it here if the question isn't about "proselytising" on this site n particular. Or create a topic on Meta to discuss whether to reopen this question here and/or how to improve this question. If you leave it here and ask everyone "What's your opinion and experience?" that's OK but might be a polling question. You could (instead of or as well as asking for personal experience) also ask for references on the subject: "what essays/opinions have other people published on this topic?"

Question was more general and not just whether it should be done on this site. Question was inspired by the great conversation we had last night and another today.

"Proselytise" is defined as "attempt to convert". And "debate" sounds like it might be to try to decide which of the two sides of an argument is the winner. Is that what you're asking about? When conversation is mutually agreeable, isn't it usually called "interfaith dialog" (or something like that) instead: learning more, sharing views, comparing doctrines ... and maybe not trying to persuade nor disprove?

I read once that "debate" is a feature of Tibetan education, so you may have a different attitude towards it.

Yeah, I have tentative ideas of how I might define and answer these questions, but I want to hear what others think :) hence the questions :) although @tenzindorje would probably tell me I am silly for thinking I can “hear” what others think LOL

Alright, so I just dusted off a 2014 question about debates in Buddhism, cleaned it up a bit, and merged most of this question's points as follow-up to that. I suppose we could just reopen this question after rewording it slightly, but I figured it would be nice to reuse an existing question that already had some answers.

See also How are Buddhists supposed to spread Buddhism?

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


text:
What is the fastest way to reach enlightenment?
I am asking for reference request and sutras where a person can cut through samsara quickly and obtain liberation.
I have heard a story when Buddha was asked this question and he replied "Sound". However I haven't found any reference of this & don't know how much accurate this is.
Thoughts are more than welcome!

You're probably thinking of the Bahiya Sutta (Udana 1.10).
Once there was a bark-clad ascetic Bahiya who thought he was enlightened, but a deva told him that he wasn't and asked him to seek out the Buddha for his guidance.
He found the Buddha who gave him a brief instruction, which resulted in his near-immediate enlightenment. Very shortly after that, he was killed in a freak accident. The Buddha said that Bahiya became totally unbound (i.e. enlightened).
What did the Buddha teach him? (translated by Thanissaro)

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
  seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
  heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
  the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
  yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
  seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
  reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
  cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
  there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
  there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
  two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Alternative translation from here (Ireland):

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be
  merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the
  sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely
  what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the
  cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be
  'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you
  will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then,
  Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two.
  Just this is the end of suffering."

This is a teaching on anatta.
However, this may not work for everyone as it did on Bahiya, because Bahiya apparently was already advanced in attainment. Please see this answer.
For complete beginners, study of the Dhamma (in order to cultivate Right View) and practice of the five precepts and virtue (sila) is recommended. Please see this answer.

Thanks Ruben,if you know more stories about this please feel free to add to your answer,soon I will accept it

Although I upvoted this answer, I disagree with your interpretation of this quote as a teaching about anatta. To me this clearly looks like a teaching on tathata, transcending the semiotic process of perception with its tendency for reinforcing the reifications it relies on.

Since you have not tagged your question as theravada-only, I assume you accept answers from all traditions.
In Mahayana, we have a notion of different paths suitable for people of different predilections. The Tibetan tradition has developed two methods, somewhat similar to each other, that are said to allow a serious practitioner to achieve Enlightenment in one lifetime, or even faster.
These methods are known as Mahamudra and Dzogchen. In my understanding, both work by approximating the target state of Nirvana or suchness that Buddha's teaching culminates in. Here I will boil them down to their essential point, hoping to make them available to Internet-age students. If my presentation looks misleading or incomplete, feel free to study traditional literature or practice under the guidance of a qualified teacher.
Basically, the fastest way to Enlightenment consists in "leaving everything as is" and attaining an unwavering conviction and confidence that the regular unmodified state of things is already the "Great Perfection".
Of course, this method assumes one does not have coarse mental and emotional obscurations. In other words, this method assumes that the student is already pretty close to Enlightenment.
There is also a huge difference between taking this "view" as an operative basis of one's emotional mind versus simply thinking that "everything is perfect" when it's not -- on one hand, or simply giving up and staying a fool -- on the other.
When taken correctly, this view results in an effortless state of no attachment, no craving, no aversion, no side-taking, complete non-judgmental acceptance of "oneself" and "the world", dissolution of subject/object duality, perfect realization of metta, karuna, mudita and upekkha, cessation of all suffering, feeling of liberation or spontaneity, and absolute unconditional love.

this is a really interesting answer,would you mind adding some information on dzongchen

You can Google it!

I can't attest that Andrei's description of Mahamudra and Dzogchen is correct, because I really don't know either of them, but his description doesn't seem obviously at odds with what I've heard other people I respect say. Plus, Andrei is an actual practitioner of these IIRC.

I've been thinking to read a bit more about Mahamudra although some teachers advise against reading about Tantra until one has had the initiation... I remember that book you recommended me with Mahamudra in the title, but I also saw this: https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/mahamudra-0

Have you heard of that one or would recommend it?

I agree that Varjrayana should be practiced under the guidance of a qualified teacher. Not because you'll anger the spirits or something, but just because it would be as useful as for a child to open the medicine box and start eating the pills at random. Plus, the most potent teachings have childproof lids anyway. Lama Yeshe was a good guy and the text he teaches in that book is an authentic traditional teaching - but I would still recommend to try and establish an actual personal relationship with a qualified Vajra Master instead of trying to self-medicate.

The thing is that Dzogchen is neither Sutta nor Tantra and technically may be practised along with both (including prelims). Practically, it depends on Nyingmapa that teaches you. Dzogchen in this way is more relaxed since Bodhicitta and the rest automatically arises from realising Rigpa.

@YesheTenley if you want to know more about what Dzogchen is, read "The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen", if you want I can send you that book by post.

@bodhihammer me too, me too :)

@AndreiVolkov Fine, how do I do this ? Twitter pm (ChrisW once suggested, I am stealing it) ?

@bodhihammer  - My email address is in my profile.

Correct way to enlightenment is arya ashtangika marga i.e. the "Noble Eightfold Path".


text:
Are monks allowed to have prescriptions? What did the Buddha say of medicine?
Are Buddhist monks allowed to have prescriptions, or would that be considered an attachment? Did the Buddha say anything of medicine?

It's permitted. Monks are allowed "requisites" i.e. the things they need, the little they need: the "four requisites" include food, robes, shelter and medicine (and other small necessities -- needle, razor, water filter, sandals, sometimes a pen, a wristwatch).
The types of medicine available (i.e. medical science) has evolved, I don't think that monks are restricted to only using what was considered medicinal 2500 years ago (e.g. "butter" etc.).
In some countries, medical needs are e.g. paid for automatically by the state for everyone, in others there might be volunteer medicine for the poor and penniless (which includes monks).
There are extensive rules about monks asking -- who they ask, what they ask for, how they ask, whether they wait for it to be offered or wait to be invited, etc.
Here is a comment on how this might be managed for Theravada monks in the West -- Discipline and Conventions of Theravada Buddhist Renunciate Communities:

In the Vinaya, medicines can be considered as those things consumed by eating or drinking which are not normally considered as food and:

which are specifically for illness, e.g. pharmaceuticals, homeopathic remedies, vitamin supplements etc.;

... and ...

Generally, individual Sangha members have to consult with a senior member of the community before they may take up the stewards’ offer, for example, to pay for dental treatment, or to obtain footwear or necessary medicines. This is to ensure that the donations that are given to support the Sangha are used responsibly and according to the intention of the donors.

Probably the Buddha's views on medicine for consumption by the Sangha or laypeople were as for food ...simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions...

Providing the services of a medical practitioner or pharmacist to lay people  is not allowed for monks according to DN2:

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."

Monks can use medicine for their own use, according to "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

MEDICINES OR TONICS
We have dealt above with food and fruit juice. There is now the
  category of 'tonic-medicines' (sattaahakaalika). These can be consumed
  at any time but cannot be stored longer than seven days (after they
  are offered).
These tonic-medicines were originally regulated when Venerable
  Pilindavaccha's great feats of psychic power made him so famous that
  he received many offerings of the five 'tonics.' Even though he
  distributed these among other monks there was so much that the excess
  had to be stored away and their dwellings were overrun by rats.
  Visiting lay people criticized the monks for "storing up goods in
  abundance like a king." The Buddha therefore set down this rule:
"Keeping any of the five tonics — ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, or
  sugar/molasses — for more than seven days is [an offence of Confession
  with Forfeiture.] (Summarized Nis. Paac. 23; BMC p.242) ◊ There are
  various translations and interpretations about these 'tonic-
  medicines' — according to different Communities and different
  countries. Some places consider only liquids allowable while a few
  communities will drink only plain water in the afternoon. Some
  communities will not accept re-offered tonic-medicines (after the
  seven days period is over), some will under certain circumstances.
  Therefore lay devotees need to enquire about the practice of their
  local Community and follow that way.[94]
Some contemporary observations:
"The five medicines — ghee, navaniita.m, oil, honey, and suga — were
  allowed by the Buddha to be consumed by 'sick' monks at any time of
  the day or night. According to the Mahaavagga, these five were 'agreed
  upon as medicines and, although they served as nutriment for people,
  were not considered as substantial food.' The degree of infirmity
  required before a monk is allowed to consume these [tonic-]medicines
  is a controversial point... It seems that feeling rundown or feeling
  tired after physical exertion would be sufficient cause to be able to
  make use of the Five Medicines."(AB)
"The main effectiveness of these medicines seems to be in their
  nutritional value. They do not have medicinal value as commonly
  understood today, for example, relieving pain or as an antiseptic.
  However, as nutriment they would help to maintain bodily strength and
  assist in recuperation while, since they are so rich, would not be a
  substitute for normal food." (HS ch.10)
Also, if the tonic-medicine is mixed with a tiny amount of food then
  it would be acceptable according to this allowance:
"...if sugar has a little flour mixed with it simply to make it firmer
  — as sometimes happens in sugar cubes and blocks of palm sugar — it is
  still classed as a tonic as it is still regarded simply as 'sugar.'"
  (BMC p.238-9) If the flour is for more food-like reasons then it would
  be counted as food. See also Mixing Edibles above.
LIFETIME MEDICINES
The fourth category of edibles (see The Four Sorts of Edibles) is that
  of Lifetime Medicines (yaavajiivika). which includes what we generally
  think of as medicines.
The basic principle set down by the Buddha about all medicines is in
  this reflection:
"Properly considering medicinal requisites for curing the sick, I use
  them: simply to ward off any pains of illness that have arisen, and
  for the maximum freedom from disease." [OP p. 47; (Paali: M. I, 10; A.
  III, 387)] In the beginning, the basic (herbal) medicines allowed by
  the Buddha were those pickled in urine. Later, nearly all other types
  came to be considered allowable.[95] (See the separate allowance above
  for 'tonic-medicines.')
Medicines that may be consumed without time limitation are called
  yaavajiivika. The Texts mention different sorts of herbal medicines
  such as: plant roots, e.g., ginger, turmeric, sweet flag, etc.;
  decoctions, such as of the neem or nux-vomica; tree-leaves, such as
  neem-leaves, tulsi or holy basil; fruits, such as long peppers,
  myrobalan, wormwood; resins, such as asafoetida; salts, such as
  sea-salt, rock salt, etc. Any other medicine or herbs similar to these
  that is not reckoned to be food is included under this 'lifetime'
  category.[96]
◊ Modern western medicines are usually included — using the Great
  Standards — under this category and therefore can be taken at any time
  of the day and kept as long as necessary.

In "Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill", Lily de Silva quotes the Buddha as exhorting monks to care for and look after other monks:

"He who attends on the sick attends on me," declared the Buddha,
  exhorting his disciples on the importance of ministering to the sick.
  This famous statement was made by the Blessed One when he discovered a
  monk lying in his soiled robes, desperately ill with an acute attack
  of dysentery. With the help of Ananda, the Buddha washed and cleaned
  the sick monk in warm water. On this occasion he reminded the monks
  that they have neither parents nor relatives to look after them, so
  they must look after one another. If the teacher is ill, it is the
  bounden duty of the pupil to look after him, and if the pupil is ill
  it is the teacher's duty to look after the sick pupil. If a teacher or
  a pupil is not available it is the responsibility of the community to
  look after the sick (Vin.i,301ff.).
On another occasion the Buddha discovered a monk whose body was
  covered with sores, his robe sticking to the body with pus oozing from
  the sores. Unable to look after him, his fellow monks had abandoned
  him. On discovering this monk, the Buddha boiled water and washed the
  monk with his own hands, then cleaned and dried his robes. When the
  monk felt comforted the Buddha preached to him and he became an
  arahant, soon after which he passed away (DhpA.i,319). Thus the Buddha
  not only advocated the importance of looking after the sick, he also
  set a noble example by himself ministering to those who were so ill
  that they were even considered repulsive by others.

To clarify the question a little, it's trying to ask if the Buddha allowed medicine for use by the Sangha. Thanks for the info still +1.


text:
Seeing there is no subject experiencing subject and object?
I'm energetically trying to uproot the view of self, meaning, the sense that there is a subject of experience.
I have read/heard authors such as Sam Harris and Joseph Goldstein say that the self as a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."

Sam Harris, Page 92
The self that does not survive scrutiny is the subject of
experience in each present moment— the feeling of being a thinker of
thoughts inside one’s head, the sense of being an owner or inhabitant
of a physical body, which this false self seems to appropriate as a
kind of vehicle.
And yet, however one looks for it, this self is nowhere to be found. It cannot be seen amid the particulars of experience, and it cannot be seen when experience itself is viewed as a totality. However, its absence can be found— and when it is, the feeling of being a self disappears.
Josteph Goldstein, No-Self (17:00)
Losing the self is not necessary, you don’t have to get rid of the
self because it is not there in the first place.

Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a feeling that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?
Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?

-- Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a feeling that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?
No, the feeling that there is a subject of experience is real. The illusion is real. This is like rainbow - the appearance is real, it's just not indicative of its real nature. When you get closer and start looking carefully it disappears and you only see the individual components.
-- "Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?"
The actual subject is unreal, it is inferred. When you stop inferring it, you will clearly see that the experience occurs without a subject. Experience is all there is. Then, from memory, comes an attitude to the experience, which then becomes a thought about the experience. Neither the memory nor the attitude nor the thought are the subject of experience. We infer that "the direction" the thought/attitude comes from -- must be the subject. But if we examine what lies in that direction - all we find is our memory of past experiences.
The feeling of "subject being aware of itself" only occurs when we turn attention to reflect upon our mind - in which case "the experience" comes from manas as opposed to an external organ, but the memory/attitude/thought sequence remains the same. See my answer to How to experience Anatta for a detailed analysis of this state. The bottom line is, it is only a thought following (experience of a) thought. If you look carefully, there is no subject.

So the subject of experience - not the feeling - is itself inferred, an illusion. Meditation sometimes lets me see it's possible to be aware of the object without the subject. But how do I see this is not just a temporary distraction from the subject, and see that the subject is and always was an illusion? Sam Harris seems to say Dzogchen has methods to cut through the illusion of self quickly, are you familiar with these?

Page 135
"I came to Tulku Urgyen yearning for the experience of self- transcendence, and in a few minutes he showed me that I had no self to transcend."

Experience is all there is.  I'm trying to see past my doubt in this statement, or perhaps my lack of understanding. If a burglar is seen, or a tree's fall is heard, I still do not see how we can deny there being some subject who has witnessed these events.

What do you mean? I'm talking about first hand experience... And you're taking about third party's?

If the statement is true, i.e. that experience occurs without a subject, shouldn't this hold in both cases? Why should the truth of that statement depend on whether you look at the experience from a (no pun intended) subjective vs. third party/objective vantage point?

When you look from aside, you can't see experience, you can only see the brain etc. When you look at a live brain, would you say that it is the brain that is the subject of experience?

Also, I don't mean to be rude, but if you haven't checked out Cartesian Theater yet, you should.

Not rude at all. So is the point you're making that we cannot find a subject just by looking at the brain? This I can see. But how does show that there is no subject of experience, for example, in the case where an author writes about his experiences? Is there not a subject who has done the experiencing here (i.e. the author)?

Subject is an abstraction. Abstractions cannot be found in ontological reality, they exist in the sphere of intellect. When the author writes about his experiences - there were eyes, ears, brain, personal background, education, preconceptions, interpretations, events, circumstances - and on the basis of all that happened something we call "experience". And then, in the virtual reality of that experience, we postulate an abstraction for the experiencer of the experience, and call that "subject".

Thank you. So we construct an abstraction, or make a label, for all those empty phenomena you listed, and designate it "the author".

To correct an earlier comment from me, just because a third party imagines a subject, does not make it an objective viewpoint. Many people could, hypothetically, see the same illusion of a subject aside from the empty phenomena of an experience.

Similar to how the subject is postulated, it seems like one could draw analogy that the - nearly as ancient as the "Self" - illusion of a "God" is postulated from empty phenomena.

In principle, yes. Well, pagan gods as the "selves" of various phenomena, sure. But the monotheistic God is a harder abstraction to postulate... So maybe not as ancient...

Knowing is a part of the experience. An experience is merely the arising and vanishing of the five aggregates: Rupa(form), Vedana(feeling), Sanna(perception), Sankhara(mental formations), Vinnana(knowing/awareness).
If the meditation is done correctly, the awareness can be seen as merely an aspect of the experience along with the other 4 that comes and goes. Not as a person.

Namo Buddhaya.
If I ask you , who says that there is no self ? You will say Joseph Goldstein says so. If I ask you , who is Joseph Godlstein ? You will say the one who wrote the book. But if I ask you, is the Joseph Goldstein who wrote the book was same as the Joseph Goldstein who is present now ? You will say no. If I ask you , is the Joseph Goldstein who wrote the book was different from the Joseph Goldstein who is present now ? You will say no. Joseph Goldstein is similar and different to the Joseph Goldstein of the past. Thus ,you will find that there is no permanent,unchanging identity called Joseph Goldstein. That is why Buddha declares Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. All phenomenon are without Self.
Now the question is where is the idea of self arising ? The conceiving of the Self arises due to clinging , due to attachement. When the mind identifies itself with form , feelings , perceptions, consciousness and /or volition formations as me or mine then self is said to conceived. It is like a disease because form is not self, feelings are not self , perceptions are not self, consciousness is not self and volitional formations are not self yet we conceive self as one or some of the five aggregates.
Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a feeling that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?
Subject of experience is existing like a disease if there is a clinging. If you do not cling to the experience as me or mine then there is no self to be found.
Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?
I am the knower of your question but am I the same person who read the question and who answered the question ? Or am I the different person ? Answer is I am neither the same nor the different person. I am similar and different. It means that there is no permanent , unchanging self called Me. I do not deny someone has done the knowing of question but that someone can not be called to have self.


text:
How to meditate before going to bed and after waking up?
I read on some online page that the time before going to bed and immediately after waking up is benificial to meditation. I searched over internet but there aren't any specific instructions about any such Buddhist practise.
Is this true? Is there any special meditation we can do in this time?

Actually there is a reference to this and it is this video where the Dalai Lama advises a group of people to meditate before going to bed and immediately after waking up.
Before after waking up: our mind is filled freshness,you are relaxed and generally this continues to the rest of the day! You can face your obstacles easier!
Before going to bed: The stress built up during the day has to be gradually released before you can fall asleep.You too help your body relax better!

In Anapasati suttaLord budda tells,

There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.1 Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.

Here we can take our room or meditating place while it's empty of sounds as the empty building,So in night and morning time is the best time for that because there is less noise in that time..Someone feels better in night before go to sleep and someone may feels better in morning if feels tired in night before sleep..So this can be applied for other meditations too,You can choose better time between before sleep and just after wake up

Answering my own question after some research.
Immediately after we get up from sleep and just before we fall asleep the mind is in a different state of being than the usual day state.
So we can utilize this state of mind to do deeper into meditation and make huge progress.
The answer is do Samatha meditation with or without sitting. Try consciously and with lot of efforts not to have any thoughts at all. Try to be as aware as possible.
Stay aware and mindful.


text:
Feeling of unbecoming & losing I-hood
There is an entity called Rohit (knowing subject) who has his own liking,  disliking,  habits etc. Or maybe these liking, disliking,  habits etc make up the entity called Rohit. By constant awareness of self identification ( and eliminating things which I'm not) , I have started losing I-ness. It is difficult to explain in entirety but it is like death of the entity. Although this death of the entity giving a sense of peace and thoughtlessness, but it has started giving fears also. Fear of losing self - all liking, disliking etc along with social associations. It's kind of void & nihilism.  It's like vanishing of selfhood & my own existence.
So,  my question is what should I do in this situation? Why it is happening? Should I go ahead against fears & continue my endeavor of non identification or I should  step back (stopping the meditation & start identification again)? Or If I continue in unbecoming,  what are the suggestions would you give?
Note: I'm aware of paradoxes I used while posting details, ignore them as there is no any way to ask other than using 'I' wherever required.

My teacher made a few points in connection with this. Now that I got to this point in my own practice I'm beginning to understand what he meant.
When the illusion of self is lost... motivation that animates most people is no longer there. There's no impulsion to engage in projects or entertainment activities. Projects may seem meaningless and entertainment - empty. This makes it hard to relate with people. Buddha said, the mind of "one like this" is inclined towards seclusion. This does not happen overnight, but develops gradually. When this starts happening to you - do not freak out. This is normal. There's nothing wrong with you. On the flip side, you may find yourself enjoying nature a lot more than before. Enlightened mind goes well with nature, so don't hesitate to spend more time out in the wild.
Nevertheless, sometimes there may be sudden longing for "normal life". You can try it if you want, but be aware: at some point you won't be able to play samsaric games anymore, you just won't function the same way as before. There are anecdotes in Buddhist tradition about people going insane trying to fit back with the normal. Don't force it. It's okay to be different.
At some point you may start worrying that you don't know what to do with your time. My teacher said, it's best to follow your instincts, listen to your heart. Once you develop enough connection with Bodhicitta through meditation and no-self, your instincts purify, they no longer come from egoistic impulses, so you should trust them. If you feel like not doing anything, or even taking a nap - it's perfectly okay. Eventually you get sensitive to reality giving hints and inviting your participation. My teacher said, when enlightened activity is liberated from pressure of judgment, it becomes spontaneous and creative. There's no need to push that though, it comes from your suchness and inner peace.
You may find yourself having hard time sleeping same number of hours you're used to. The thing is, you don't have to sleep same hours anymore. As you integrate with your "other mind" your brain no longer requires as much sleep. Don't force yourself. When you do sleep, you may have strange dreams: walking through walls, staying lucid inside dreams, and other weird things. Don't worry about this. Some of it may be good signs of the changes going inside you, and some is just noise. Trust your instincts on what's what.
At some point you may stop recognizing yourself in a mirror. Don't worry about this, you're not going insane.
In general, a good rule of thumb is to "leave your mind as open as the sky, but keep your action as pure as the flour". Meaning, as long as you don't engage in immoral uncompassionate action (physical, verbal, or mental), you can relax and let your selflessness drive.
Finally, all my teachers said, at some point you are supposed to naturally and effortlessly get over this highly polarized selflessness/seclusion phase and reach the level when there's no difference between your meditation mind and the mind you have when walking in the busy marketplace. At that point you can integrate both worlds, your regular mind is meditation and your regular action is setting example of peace to everyone you encounter. As with all this stuff, pushing it is counterproductive, it has to grow by itself from the full maturity of the selflessness.
These are some of the main things that come to mind. Some of this I know from my own experience, and some only from words of my teachers, but I hope it's all accurate and is helpful to someone. Good luck to us all.

If I may ask, who is your teacher?

I had a few. First was a Russian guy. Second was an American. And then there were two Korean guys. It doesn't matter who they are, for simplicity I usually just say "my teacher".

Don't try to conceptualize what is happening. Simply stay aware and let-go.

If you have reached to that point, have courage. Obviously you will be afraid, it is the death of ego, a conscious death.

Some wisdom from the Buddha,

There are only two mistakes a man can make on the path of Nibbana, one is never starting at all and second is not walking till the end.

Again as the Buddha said,

Charaiveti Charaiveti.

Edit: The third point is a fake buddha quote. My bad.
The fourth one is apperently what the Buddha said at the end of every discourse. Meaning, ' go-on go-on'. This has been said by some,  but there is not strong evidential cititation. But feels like right.

Can you source those quotes? I can't find (a source for) the first, and the second sounds like the Rig Veda.

@ChrisW apperently it was a fake buddha quote. I didnt knew that until I just checked. And Charaivati Charaiveti means keep walking, keep walking, this is something the Buddha used to say after every discourse...this I have herd from several Indians...but I havent got any evedential citation for this. But it sounds right. As many said it I assumed it to be true.

By constant awareness of self identification ( and eliminating
  things which I'm not) , I have started losing I-ness.

The above sounds like the practise of Hindu meditation (rather than Buddhist Anapanasati).
Losing "I-ness" but not completely is not difficult to explain. It is easy to explain. It is precisely the "death" ("marana") of "the entity" ("jati") the Buddha explained in Dependent Origination .
Although this "death" ("marana") of "the entity" ("satta-jati") is giving a initial sense of some peace and thoughtlessness, you ("the entity") is not committed to Nibbana and you ("the entity") is not ready to "cease" ("nirodha"). You ("the entity") is not practising to end suffering but sound like you are playing games with meditation.
What you should do in this situation is to stop fondling (playing) with meditation, be it Buddhist meditation or Hindu meditation, and return to ordinary worldly life. The Buddha did not teach anatta (not-self) meditation to worldlings.
The Buddha explained this situation in the following sutta:

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Kosambī on the bank of
  the river Ganges. The Blessed One saw a great log being carried along
  by the current of the river Ganges and he addressed the bhikkhus thus:
  “Do you see, bhikkhus, that great log being carried along by the
  current of the river Ganges?”
"If, bhikkhus, that log does not veer towards the near shore, does not
  veer towards the far shore, does not sink in mid-stream, does not get
  cast up on high ground, does not get caught by human beings, does not
  get caught by nonhuman beings, does not get caught in a whirlpool, and
  does not become inwardly rotten, it will slant, slope, and incline
  towards the ocean. For what reason? Because the current of the river
  Ganges slants, slopes, and inclines towards the ocean.
“So too, bhikkhus, if you do not veer towards the near shore, do not
  veer towards the far shore, do not sink in mid-stream, do not get cast
  up on high ground, do not get caught by human beings, do not get
  caught by nonhuman beings, do not get caught in a whirlpool, and do
  not become inwardly rotten, you will slant, slope, and incline towards
  Nibbāna. For what reason? Because right view slants, slopes, and
  inclines towards Nibbāna.”
‘Sinking in mid-stream’: this is a designation for delight and lust.
  ‘Getting cast up on high ground’: this is a designation for the
  conceit ‘I am.’
‘Getting caught in a whirlpool’: this, bhikkhu, is a designation for
  the five cords of sensual pleasure.
SN 35.241

I guess there are two ways to see a duality.
One was is "All or nothing" ... and that's the message I'm hearing in your question: "All liking, disliking, habits, and social associations are ... they're old, and, they're selfish, and, associated with delusion ... and this 'all' should be (or will be, is being) replaced by 'nothing' -- i.e. to lose all liking, disliking etc., along with social associations, with a tendency toward a kind of void & nihilism."
A slightly different view, I think, is "unskillful versus skillful", or "delusion versus knowledge", etc. According to this doctrine you don't replace "all" with "nothing" -- instead you replace delusion with wisdom, and so on.
The question i.e. ...

Should I go ahead against fears & continue my endeavor of non identification or I should step back (stopping the meditation & start identification again)? Or If I continue in unbecoming, what are the suggestions would you give?

... sounds like a duality (continue towards nihilism, or go back towards identification), but there may be a third option (e.g. proceeding but towards right view, or something like that).
Note for example that:

The "three poisons" are said to have "Opposite wholesome qualities"
Losing (all) social associations doesn't sound quite right -- I know that the doctrine praises seclusion and renunciation, but also Association with the Wise (see also kalyāna-mitta)
There's doctrine about remaining engaged or active in society -- see e.g. the Brahmaviharas, and maybe something like this book -- or see vīrya for example: I assume that's "energy" not only for or during meditation but also other activities, and the other "perfections" too are not nihilist

One last bit of advice, I guess, is that one reason why there is no self is that existence (or the state of the "person") is conditioned by experience and environment -- there are things you'll know if you go to school, there are habits you'll form if you do this or that, or associate with various people. So consider what environment, what experiences, might be ... might be "virtuous", for want of a better word, or "skilful" ... or "praised by the wise", to quote from one of the suttas.

The Noble Eightfold Path is balanced in the development of virtue (sila), concentration (samadhi) and panna (wisdom).
Sila is composed of Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood.
Samadhi is composed of Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.
Panna is composed of Right View and Right Resolve / Intention.
The forerunner of the path is Right View.
The path includes the cultivation of wisdom and insight, in order to uproot the ten fetters.
In order to pursue both insight and concentration, first virtues (sila) must be well-established according to the Kimattha Sutta. Lay people are not discouraged from meditation - please see this answer.
There are also more tips regarding meditation involving the use of the middle way, including getting moderate sleep, food and sensual experiences, according to the tips by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu in Chapter Six of his book "How to Meditate", which is entitled "Daily Life".
Perhaps, you want to review your progress so far, and ask yourself if you are truly progressing in a balanced way, taking into account all eight parts of the Noble Eightfold Path. The path to the end of suffering should not be reduced to meditation only.
Experiencing fear of losing your self, is a sign that you may not be ready yet to go deeper, or your path is not balanced. I can't tell you what is not right - you may need to find a proper teacher to instruct you further. A proper teacher should ensure that you continue on the Middle Way with the Right View, rather than falling into either extremes of practice (over-asceticism) or extremes of view (eternalism or annihilationhism).
It is also possible that when you are ready to go deeper, it makes more sense to leave the lay life (which is incompatible with losing interest in material concerns) and move to becoming a anagarika or novice monk, adhering to the Eight Precepts or Ten Precepts.

The answer here is not relevant to the question. I marked it down. No amount of sil (morality) can stop the terror when the self construct collapses and dies. The death of the "self" is "marana". "Marana" is not physical death but what the questioner is explaining. Those that cling to false dhamma of rebirth can never understand this.

@Dhammadhatu 'cling to FALSE dhamma of rebirth' can you please explain this part.

Updated answer to be more relevant to the question.

Each time the mind believes in reincarnation; this is a becoming; this is egoism. As for the true dhamma of rebirth; it is each time self-view is reborn in the mind.