text:
Watching crime in apps or website
By watching crime in mobile apps or in website , is one actually participating in the incident? If one thinks about it, is one perpetuating the incident again? Does it add to one's karma? How does one react to this kind of situation ? if we ignore the video , are we creating a bigger incident?
Regards.

May be related to Are actions in computer games bad for karma?

Let's separate this out. If you watch a recording of a crime on a website, does it impact the victim of the crime? Not in itself.
It DOES give a "view" to the video, and thus you are, in a sense, giving your tacit support to the recording, and publishing, of the event. THAT is, for me, the reason not to watch such events, as far as the world impact is concerned. I guess one needs to attempt to assess the motive of the publisher - was it to shock? Or to educate?
As far as impact upon oneself is concerned, this is another question. Are we adding to our own karma? It depends entirely upon the intent with which we are watching. Sooooo much consumption of internet material is quietly mindless - which means we are blindly watching with no concern for what impact it might have on us: because someone has published it, it must be okay. This attitude allows others to have control over our minds! As a meditator, I'd rather that weren't the case!
Thinking about karma is tough - does it affect my Karma? Can I ever experience my karma as a tangible sensation? I'm not sure I ever have.
Can I see impacts on my experience that demonstrate that certain kinds of actions have noticeable impacts on my experience? For sure, and some have impacts on my experience in meditation. Some I can learn to work with. For others, I just practice "guarding the gates of the senses" and avoid that stimulus.

Intentionally watching or thinking about a negative thing (like a violent incident) is wrong concentration. Especially if one is not having equanimity while watching the violent scenes ( something that takes a lot o practice to develop), that person is generating strong emotions that have huge impact on the mind.
By watching crime in mobile apps or in website , is one actually participating in the incident? If one thinks about it, is one perpetuating the incident again?
Maybe the first few times one watches those images, they have the same impact as watching those events live. In time, the emotional impact of those images might weaken, as mind might try to avoid the intense negative emotion generated by those scenes ( habituation) . Even in the absence of strong emotions (like intense sadness, rage), a still negative state of mind is generated when one thinks about the incident, perpetuating the negativity generated by that incident.
Does it add to one's karma?
These very strong emotions can create new karma, as they can influence the mind and the actions of that person.
How does one react to this kind of situation ? if we ignore the video , are we creating a bigger incident?
It all depends on the reason one watches these images and the stability of mind that person has.
Might be wrong understanding to think that watching those kind of scenes help improve the mind in some way - to make it stronger or ready to face the brutal aspects of life( a reason why someone would see a benefit in watching those images). If after watching the video, someone does something positive (like helping the victims), that reaction would be beneficial. But only by watching the video, is one changing the suffering of the persons involved in the video?!  Until one has the ability to watch these violent scenes without getting caught -up in them, they do more harm than good.

Watching a crime anywhere, on TV, the computer or in one's memories has potential to cause unwholesome states to arise within one.
This is why we try to be mindful on a moment by moment basis. If one knows that  something(like crime) is around that might make unwholesome states arise inside a person then that can be reminder for one to be mindful.
If one is correctly mindful when an unwholesome state like anger arises inside oneself then one doesn't act on anger. If one isn't mindful when anger arises then one is in the proliferation zone, unaware of the whole prosess of anger and is liable to react  unwholesomly.

It is the heart that is important. In other words, your intention while you are watching a crime on TV, for example. Do you enjoy it and reinforce the idea that crime is justified to a very strong degree? Or do you watch it from an apathetic perspective (the opposite extreme). There are so many videos, literature, etc, that depict violence or crime as entertainment, so in that case do the people accumulate negative karma? What about people who eat non-vegetarian food? Are they all accumulating bad karma? Which leads us to ask what about the animals who eat others for survival?
Buddhism talks about varying degrees of negative causes we make. Some are very mild and can be easily expiated, while others are very deep and require great deal of effort. It teaches that the greatest negative cause is slander of the Buddha's highest teachings, which assert that every living being is a Buddha. In other words, disregard for life itself, especially that of another human being, is a huge negative cause. On top of that, Buddhism teaches that slandering or causing harm to a "Buddha" (in this context, one who propagates the true teachings of the Buddhism) is the greatest possible negative cause.
I would say, one need not worry about such small things as what would happen if one watches violence on website or phone or any other medium. The most important question is, do I believe in the immense worth of my own life and others, and do I make efforts to create value in my life and others? What is my behavior like?
"The purpose of the appearance in this world of Shakyamuni Buddha, the lord of teachings, lies in his behavior as a human being" - Nichiren Daishonin.

Is one actually participating in the incident?

No it is a recording, you do not take on the karma of the criminal or the victim.
You only gain knowledge that the event occurred.

Does it add to one's karma?

How you react to the video determines the karma acquired from watching the video.

Empathy and compassion for the victim?
Joy and pleasure in watching the crime
Detached indifference
With the motivation of trying to increase security / prevent crime by learning about such

These are just some situational conditions, reasons for watching, and reaction to the video determines the karma. Each has its own separate effect.

If we ignore the video , are we creating a bigger incident?

This is situational as well. Is it a video of something we have no control over? If so the answer is no.
Is our job to stop crime, or does the video give you some knowledge that could stop the criminal etc. and you choose (Through apathy or other reasons) to ignore it, then the answer is yes.
However if it is a youtube fail compilation video, or just a compilation of random crimes, that have nothing to do with you, or your community, ignoring it, would be the best option.
By that I mean, not seeking more out to watch as well.

A side note : Seeking these videos out merely for self entertainment would not be participating in the event, but would in my opinion be negative karma. Watching movies is one thing, they are fictional, but when you are at a point where watching real world people suffer at the hands of others is what you need for entertainment, I do not think there is any way you could say that you are accumulating good karma. Though you are absolutely not accumulating the same kind of karma as the criminal, the kind you are accumulating would not be favorable.


text:
Mission on earth (In Buddhism)
Many religions claim we came to this earth on a mission, everyone has a different mission, a specific reason to be here.
In Buddhism I couldn't find anything like that, the "mission" would be the same for every one: Become an Arahant and scape samsara. There is nothing we should achieve here, except from that. Is that a fair statement?
Does anyone know a sutta, speech or book related to Buddhism that states otherwise? That we do have a specific mission on this planet?

This is going to be one of those Zen answers that tend to irritate people.
When I asked my teacher this question, he said something like:

Mission, hmm... You want to be told what to do? Why?

This is not meant as teasing, it's a sincere invitation to sit and contemplate your personal answer to the above.

I like it. Didnt see it as teasing :)

This is a fantastic answer IMHO

In Buddhism there are different levels of motivation, on the "lower" levels of motivation are the range of goals to escape suffering for oneself only.
In "higher" scopes of motivation there is the goal to not only escape suffering, but to help others escape as well.
The "highest" scope would be a goal to help all beings escape suffering (Bodhichitta)
I put the words lower, higher, and highest in parenthesis as they are what I believe to be part of a false critique the mahayana/vajrayana holds of the other schools. In reality the other schools are a prereq to even attempting Mahayana practices in most cases. I don't like or agree with the critique but it helps to explain.
The Bodhisattva vows and the goal of the higher schools could be considered a mission. But is not a requirement in Buddhism.

As of my understanding,
If you are practicing Buddhism, yes your goal should be ending the 'Sansara'.
Buddhism describes Sansara is a very painful journey which we are roaming without knowing that. Therefore ending Sansara is a fair statement in that sense.
I don't know any Sutta or speech which load Buddha preaches about anything else but ending Sansara and it's brutality.

For analogy, in war time, the ultimate mission of the military is to win the war. But to achieve that mission, many sub-missions would also need to be completed successfully: winning battles on various fronts: intelligence, logistics, politic, economic, etc. Similarly for Buddhism, to successfully defeat Mara's army and put an end to Samsara, there're many "sub-missions" to be done. A lot of these like observing the precepts, practicing loving-kindness, generosity, etc. are also common missions across religions. Ven. Bodhi in his "In the Buddha's Words" did a good job in organizing the Buddha's teaching into systematic and gradual Dhamma "missions": Happiness visible in this present life, the way to a fortunate rebirth, mastering the mind and the Path to Liberation, attaining the Light of Wisdom, and ultimately, Final Liberation.

I won't mention saving others at all (i.e. the Bodhisattva ideal), but instead take a look at for example the background story to verse 5 of the Dhammapada.
You wrote, "everyone has a different mission, a specific reason to be here" and maybe this story is a Buddhist version of that: i.e. these specific women had a personal feud, which continued through rebirths, until eventually they learned to stop feuding.
You could phrase that as saying that their "specific reason to be here" was to learn that "hatred could only cause more hatred, and that it could only cease through friendship, understanding and goodwill".

At the end of the discourse, the ogress was established in Sotapatti Fruition and the long-standing feud came to an end.

In the Dhp. 5 story, the actions of the husband who took a second wife causing much hurt to his first wife seem like they should net him some bad karma, but the story does not mention it - which leads me to think in ancient India it was the done thing - and thus karma neutral. In today's society it would have ended in a bitterly contested divorce - with the husband and wife being reborn as animals to continue fighting.

Simply put, your mission is to be absolutely happy, happiness that does not depend on circumstances but comes forth through your own Buddha nature manifesting. At the same time, enabling others to do the same. In this Saha world which is full of suffering and negativity, in order to do that one needs to "demonstrate" to others how.
This is where our desires and social roles come into play. To create value as a family member, doctor, teacher (pick your profession), to be able to create value in other ways in society centered on Buddhist practice, etc is the "role" one plays to display the immense power of Buddhism and lead others to absolute happiness. Buddhism and daily life are one and the same.
To say that our mission as Buddhists is to escape Samsara (this world) or in other words to escape from the cycle of birth and death (wrongly interpreted as nirvana) is to be selfish. That is not the way a Buddha or a Bodhisattva thinks.
Shakyamuni Buddha says in the Expedient Means chapter of the Lotus Sutra -
"At all times, I think to myself: how can I cause living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?"
Note that Lord Buddha says that everyone can become a Buddha, and he says that at all times he exerts himself to enable others to become like him.
In short, to enable ourselves to reveal our Buddha nature and helping others do the same is our true mission as Buddhists.

Your mission is to be happy.
The long term goal associated with this mission is attaining Nibbana (permanent happiness). It might take multiple births, maybe even aeons to achieve this.
The medium term goal would be to try to achieve: at least stream entry for Theravada and strong cultivation of Bodhicitta for Mahayana.
The short term goal would be to try to achieve and maintain happiness in this life and future lives (which includes avoiding unfortunate rebirths).
This short term goal is described in the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor, heaven, high birth: To those who
  delight in aspiring for these things in great measure, continuously,
  the wise praise heedfulness in making merit.
The wise person, heedful, acquires a two-fold welfare: welfare in this
  life & welfare in the next. By breaking through to his welfare he's
  called prudent, wise.

For lay followers, there is plenty of advice on achieving the short to medium term goals in the Gihi Sutta (or Discourse to the Householder), Sigalovada Sutta, Dighajanu Sutta and Anana Sutta. The minimum training rules imposed on lay followers are the five precepts.
For those in a hurry to Nibbana, there are the more advanced training paths of anagarika (sort of a pre-monk or pre-nun), novice monk or nun, and fully ordained monk or nun.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Do you have to have certain pastlife karma to use a computer?
So lets take all humans currently alive in the human world. They all have the karma to be reborn in this realm.
Computers exist in our world, and in some places (Not all) public libraries provide them and access to them / the internet.
Are there cases where karma would prevent someone from using a computer? Say even that one was right in front of them, would karmic forces prevent them from using it? Could karmic forces prevent them from touching it?
Like say, if you tried to give to someone that had a lot of karma from stealing in a previous life. Would it be possible? Or would events always unfold that prevent you from giving in some way or another?
What I am trying to ask is if karma can make events that seem possible conventionally (IE Hand someone a 20$ bill) be impossible in practice.

A lot of no good can arise out of $20, one can get drunk for example. Though past Karma may determine what happens in our life, we still have volition to decide what we do with it. Sometimes more money or power or beauty is just more rope to hang oneself with. Whereas a virtuous life can be led with none of those material things.

Sure, but what if you were trying to give the 20$ to a charity. So far all the responses on this have just been crafty ways to dodge the question being asked.

Are you asking if it is ok to not care about the poor or give to charity because their karma dictates them to be poor?

No that is not what I am asking at all.

Karma need not be manifested physically.  A poor rebirth need not be rebirth as a poor person, a person who's despised, or one who can't access a computer.  In fact, you can have someone who is filthy rich, admired by all, who is still suffering far more than someone who is penniless and hated.
That's because suffering is in the mind.
To even suggest that material "well-being" is a result of Karma is to imply that happiness is physical, which is an implicit rejection of what Buddhism teaches, that it's what's within (e.g.: desire, clinging to self) that cause suffering and not one's material circumstances.

Sure it might be a contrived example. But I have heard that karma does influence the physical circumstances of ones life as well as the mental. With your example of the rich man the question could be rephrased as "could karma make it impossible to be happy for a lifetime/time period"

@hellyale I've heard that too, and I've been struck at how no one ever saw the blatant contradiction in that view of Karma.  Don't get me wrong, I can see a scenario in which a person's material conditions AND mental conditions are such as to produce suffering (the latter being a pre-requisite for the former), but to only look at the material and judge based on that?  Is it possible for Karma to make it impossible for someone to be happy for a lifetime/time period?  Sure.  There's nothing (that I know of) that states that Karma has to work in any particular way.

I'm just looking at the material because it is the easiest way to ask the question.

Karma is a complex dhamma that only Buddha saw it thru and thru..   However, Buddha taught us 6 things to know about the fundamentals of karma
For sure, Karma is not a fate.  In Angulimala Sutta, a Sutta about a misguided serial killer who would have committed matricide if Buddha didn't interfere with his killing mission.
You can give $20 to someone but then you will never know if it was his good karma that let him run into you?  or his good karma that you have money to share.   Karma is a complex thing that is imponderable or incomprehensible, Acinteyya (Pali).

I guess my question has more to do if the situation of having someone in front of you, and not being able to give them the 20 because of their karma, even though they are right there and in reach.

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


text:
Five aggregates vs dependent origination
What is the relation between the five aggregates and the dependent origination?

This answer to 'Are there any alternative formulations of the five skandas?' answers your question

We can't see five aggregates as it is. We can see a men, animals, Devas. Or good thing, bad thing. Or a beautiful thing, a ugly thing etc. But in reality, there is nothing like that. Everything just a thing or collection of several things. We only making things matter to us. Nothing else.
Refer this answer.

If we took a tower build by stones, actually there is nothing called
  'tower' but set of stones. Like wise, if we consider a person, there
  is nothing but set of things. Lets say you are 40 years old now. What
  are the things you have in your body when you are 1 year old? Nothing
  right? But how you can be recognize now as same you in age 1? because
  of the connection between things changed.

How we see
Since we can't see things in their actual state, we make wrong decisions and doing things and making desires, clinging(උපාදාන) etc. (May be a man really loves his parents. May be we will kill animals to feed our children etc). This cause us to rebirth and we will reborn according to Karma we made. This cycle of born and death is dependent origination.
Most of the times lord Budhdha preaches not knowing things correctly is the starting point of the cycle. and then sanskaara, vinnana etc.

Five aggregates are pratityasamutpana-dhamma (dependent origination or conditioned).  things that come from causal.

when this thing exists (the causal) that thing  exists
when this thing comes to be , that thing comes to be;
when this thing doesnt exist, that thing doesnt exist
when this thing ends, that things ends

Five aggregates are conditioned things.  they exist because their causal exist, and end because their causal end.     Buddha corrected monk Sati regarding his idea about permanent soul.  Buddha said "vinnaya is pratituasamupana-dhamma"
Five aggregates is conditioned, therefore,  they are impermanence, dukkha (ever changing), and non-self.

What are conditions for 5 aggregates?

saṅkhāra is a condition for vinnaya (conciousness).   saṅkhāra is one of the most difficult term in pali canon, more so than dukkha.  avijja is a condion for  saṅkhāra.  Buddha talked about a few more steps of conditions but most sutta starts at avijja.

5 Aggregates can be consider as a combination of vinnana & namarupa.
Some times the Dependent Origination is consider as a cycle.
Past Life, present life and next life formation.
Also it can used to show the continuity of the thought sequence.
Generally it take avijja(ignorance) - not knowing things(Sunya) correctly - as the starting point - the Main/foundation reason. If avijja is presence then the sankhra (mental formations) arise. It effect to arise Unpure-vinnana(Moha).
When Vinnana(consciousness) is dull it create/accept nama-rupa as a reality (Things). So (she) accept what six faculties produces. what faculties produce is passa(contact), cause to feelings(vedana).
While there is avijja (she) greed to the vedana and attach to the namarupa.
It is called Upadana(clinging). So (she) accsepts continuity of (inside and outside) namarupa, means Bava(Becomming) Simultaneously. That is the view of I, Myself, others, things, world etc(Avijja).
As the result Dukka - birth, decay, ill, die, sorrow,sufferings etc - (Attributes of things) arises.
This is how the 5 aggrigates are connect with other facts of Dependent arising (patchchasamutpada).

The five aggregates are the factors / activities that make up a "being", what is conventionally called a self.
Dependent origination is the set of natural laws that keep a "being" bound to samsara (cycle of rebirth).
So one could say that the five aggregates continue to exist from one existence to the next due to the natural law of dependent origination.

Nama rupa is one and the same as the 5 Aggregates, hence the relationship of nama rupa holds for the 5 Aggregates.


text:
Did Mara win over Buddha?
There is incident where Mara is trying to get to Buddha even after he became enlightened.
Finally Mara win him over by his death.
With that knowledge is it correct to assume he had hunger feeling and sexual feelings too?
From Parinibbana Sutta

There was a time, Ananda, when I dwelt at Uruvela, on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the goatherds' banyan-tree, soon after my supreme Enlightenment. And Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.
Then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until my bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding by appropriate conduct and, having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.
I shall not come to my final passing away, Evil One, until this holy life taught by me has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular, and widespread, until it is well proclaimed among gods and men.
And again today, Ananda, at the Capala shrine, Mara, the Evil One, approached me, saying: 'Now, O Lord, bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples of the Blessed One — wise, well disciplined, apt and learned, preservers of the Dhamma, living according to the Dhamma, abiding in the appropriate conduct, and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail, and make it clear; and when adverse opinions arise, they are now able to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and liberating Dhamma.
And now, O Lord, this holy life taught by the Blessed One has become successful, prosperous, far-renowned, popular and widespread, and it is well proclaimed among gods and men. Therefore, O Lord, let the Blessed One come to his final passing away! Let the Happy One utterly pass away! The time has come for the Parinibbana of the Lord.
And then, Ananda, I answered Mara, the Evil One, saying: 'Do not trouble yourself, Evil One. Before long the Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about. Three months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away.
And in this way, Ananda, today at the Capala shrine the Tathagata has renounced his will to live on.

No, the Blessed One renounced his will to live-on on his own volition since the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, laymen and laywomen, have come to be true disciples... just like the paragraph says. It's not like Mara could've done anything about it, had the lord said no.
Enlightened beings feel hunger, taste, smell and other bodily sensations caused by contact as long as they have functional sense doors. But they do not get sexual feelings as it requires lust to play it's part.

Although the Sangha and the disciples have come to be true disciples but Mara requested Buddha to entered Parinibbana. Buddha can enter Parinibbana himself, is entering Parinibbana the same thing as fulfilling Mara's request?

@B1100 before it was requested by Mara, the Buddha hinted venerable Ananda several times. That means the Buddha was already contemplating about entering Parinibbana. The lord saw no reason to stay on(since the Sasana was fully groomed) unless requested by venerable Ananda who was taking care of him tirelessly.

You misread the story. Mara did not win over the Buddha. Rather, Mara successfully influenced Ananda, to not request the Buddha to extend his life, when the Buddha dropped the hint that he could choose to extend his life, because he had the ability to do so.
Parinibbana Sutta

And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed,
  practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and
  brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if
  he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it. The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could,
  if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of
  it."
But the Venerable Ananda was unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the
  significant prompting, given by the Blessed One. As though his mind
  was influenced by Mara, he did not beseech the Blessed One: "May the
  Blessed One remain, O Lord!. May the Happy One remain, O Lord,
  throughout the world-period, for the welfare and happiness of the
  multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well
  being, and happiness of gods and men!"
And when for a second and a third time the Blessed One repeated his
  words, the Venerable Ananda remained silent.
Then the Blessed One said to the Venerable Ananda: "Go now, Ananda,
  and do as seems fit to you."
"Even so, O Lord." And the Venerable Ananda, rising from his seat,
  respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and keeping his right side
  towards him, took his seat under a tree some distance away.
Commentary: According to Comy., Ananda's mind had been influenced
  (pariyutthitacitto) by Mara's exhibiting a frightful sight which
  distracted his attention, preventing him from grasping the Buddha's
  suggestion.

Maybe someone can clarify if this Sutta is the words of the Buddha or the story was added later just like other 'mythical' story. There must be a reason why did Buddha choose Ananda to beseech him, there are many other enlightened disciples. From the beginningless time, there are definitely more than two Sammasambuddhas, all perfectly enlightened Buddha seemed to repeated the same thing.

Did the Buddha know that mara was influencing Ananda?

In Buddhism, where is the place that says  "Finally Mara wins him over by his death."
According to Buddhism, Load Buddha Win the Mara at the Boo Tree shrine.
Buddhist literature  says in Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

Then the Blessed One said to the bhikkhus: "So, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with
  earnestness. The time of the Tathagata's Parinibbana is near. Three
  months hence the Tathagata will utterly pass away."
And having spoken these words, the Happy One, the Master, spoke again, saying:
My years are now full ripe, the life span left is short.
  Departing, I go hence from you, relying on myself alone.
  Be earnest, then, O bhikkhus, be mindful and of virtue pure!
With firm resolve, guard your own mind!
  Whoso untiringly pursues the Dhamma and the Discipline
  Shall go beyond the round of births and make an end of suffering.

Here Parinibbana is defer from death. After parinibbana there is no rebirth as a normal human. Others will have rebirth.
Who is Buddha?
Who remove the roots that course to sexual feelings(“Kama Thanha”) and  Becoming(“Bava Thanha”) is Buddha.  But He has hunger feelings until death.
** “Kama Thanha" is not just "sexual feelings". It represents all the  desires generated through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind.


text:
how to label changing postures?
Up until now when i change postures i said in my language the word for changing to a sitting posture and then "sitting" three times - now i think it overdoing it and i think maybe its best just to say "sitting sitting sitting" when changing posture form standing to sitting
and also the opposite instead of say "rising rising rising" and than "standing standing standing" i wonder if its best just to say "standing standing standing"
What is the offical accepted view on how one should lable the changing of postures in the mahasi sayadaw technique - specifically what ven.yuttdhammo is teaching ?
i wouldnt mind hearing opinions about this subject on whats best to do ect - but i would also like to know what is commonly recommended to most practitioners officially to do, what is the standard way of labeling the changing of postures -
also im asking on how to this in daily life and also when mediating or at a retreat -   if i dont have time to label 3 times "sitting sitting sitting"  but only 1 time "sitting" - whats the way to label in that case ?  (im asking what to label in on both scenarios)

"i wouldnt mind hearing opinions.." & "im asking on how to this in daily life.." which to choose?

i dont understand your question ?  when in a retreat you have time to label  3 times when you change posture and in daily life you usually have time to label once when changing posture

The labeling has many aims. Main aim is practices to live Now. another is understand the duality of body and mind.

yes im aware of why do it - im asking on how to do it - more specifically the labeling of the change of posture

The whole point of using words to note is that you are labeling the thing you are meditating on in accordance with what it is. If you are rising up to stand, you aren't actually standing at that time, so it is inappropriate to note it with the word standing, as you want the noting to be simultaneous with the object itself.
Ajahn Yuttadhammo explains some of the principles of the labeling being simultaneous in his section on walking meditation on page 16 of his meditation booklet where he writes:

One should make the mental note   at the exact moment of each
  movement,  neither before or after the movement.
If the mental note, "stepping right",  is made before the foot moves ,
  one is noting  something that has not yet occurred. If  one  move s
  the  foot first and then note s,  "stepping right", one is noting
  something in the past. Either way,   this cannot   be   considered
  meditation,   as   there   is   no awareness of reality in either case
  .

yes i am aware of that - i want to know about what to label when changing postures

Label it whatever kind of motion you are doing. If you are getting up, note it as 'rising' or 'bending', for example.

if i dont have time to label 3 times "sitting sitting sitting" but
  only 1 time "sitting" - whats the way to label in that case ? (im
  asking what to label in on both scenarios)

According above statement you may have bypass the preliminary steps. That is the reason for asking "What to label"?
By practicing technique like walking meditation from beginners steps.(I think you know how to walk) you may understand what to label.

im asking what to label 3 times or 1 time ?

If you put left leg then label "Left", and when put right foot label it as "Right".

Or..Left.....Right.... Left,Left,left....Right,Right,Right.....

im asking about the labeling of the change of posture not about the walking-  to label 3 times or 1 time ?  i got different recommendation depending on whether its in a retreat or whether its in daily life

Whether its in a retreat or whether its in daily life there is main 4 postures, sitting, standing,walking,sleeping and change the posture. so when changing select appropriate label ( say turning) and label it throughout the changing. The number of time needs to repeat depend on the speed of the action.

If you can concentrate on the mental action than the physical body.


text:
Difference between Samsara and Dukkha
What is the difference between the terms "samsara" and "dukkha"?
What is the relationship between the two?

Dukkha means that your life sucks. Samsara means, so will your next one, (and your next one, and your ... repeat until enlightened)  :-)

Saṃsāra is the house that Avijja (ignorance) built. It rests on three pillars anicca, anatta and dukkha, also known as the three marks of existence.

Samsara is a continuum of our  individual mind moments.
Dukkha is the deep down feeling that something is missing or wrong that occurs throughout Samsara.

In my own words:
Samsara is the same world you see on TV and read about in newspapers. This world is a hallucination (a subjective reality) fabricated in dependence on the fundamental confusion caused by the fundamental ignorance. This confusion causes dukkha and dukkha causes further confusion, which is why Samsara is dubbed "cyclic existence" - but also because the confusion is passed on from previous lives to future lives.
Dukkha is the painful and bitter feeling of wrongness you experience while in Samsara, because of the mismatch between the hallucination and reality.

Sorry to complain but are you saying that, "Buddhism says that the world is an illusion or a hallucination"? If so I've 'always' thought that's a too-simplistic (not helpful or prescriptive) description. Also if I don't watch TV it isn't clear what else (apart from the world on TV) samsara is or isn't.

not literally, no. Though "hallucination" is the exact word my Zen Master used -- and I used to hate it myself... but the more I share what I was taught the more I appreciate the brightly metaphorical pointers over the tedious conceptual expositions. I did mention "subjective reality" parenthetically to add a little more depth to the metaphor, it is pretty subtle one.

To try to help clarify, perhaps, my Eastern Philosophies professor told us that the Hindu concept of Samara is based on delusion, where the individual misperceives the external reality. The example Hindu theologians use is a coiled rope that appears to be a snake in the dark --it's a misperception. Whereas the Buddhist idea of Samsara is based on illusion, where an individual projects qualities originating in their own mind (ideas of good and bad, permanence, etc) onto the external world.

@user151841 - yes, this is pretty close

Saṃsāra is endless cyclic existence (Anamataggo bhikkawe samsaro pubbha kota na pannayati) caused by Avijja and Tanha (Avijja neevarananang thanha sanyojanag). Note that Avijja means ignorance about four noble truths including Dukkha.

Avijja Sutta -SN 45

Dukkha not only means suffering but means breakable, changing, fragile, breaking, falling apart, changes, stressful etc..   it is clearer with buddha quote "all Vedana [feelings; pleasurable, suffering, or equanimity] end with Dukkha.  So dukkha is a property of those who are traveling in Samsara

Others have nicely explained the different meanings of the two terms. As for their relationship, I'd actually say that samsara and dukkha are the same thing from different perspectives -- samsara from a cosmological standpoint, dukkha from an individual (psychological) standpoint.
To be in samsara is to experience pervasive, self-reinforcing (cyclic) dukkha due to ignorance. To be in ignorance is to suffer and hence to be in samsara. So samsara => dukkha and dukkha => samsara, hence samsara <=> dukkha.
This is an elementary example of how cosmology and psychology (phenomenology, experience) mirror each other. Rupert Gethin treats this at some length in a great series of papers, though with more intricate concepts. Here it is summarized in the Wikipedia article on samsara. You can look up his papers on the subject, and he also treats it in chapter 5 of his text, The Foundations of Buddhism.
You could also add avidya (ignorance) as a third element of the equivalence, perhaps from the philosophical or conceptual perspective.

They are conjoined in the dispensation:
what is samsara is dukkha, cessation of dukkha is cessation of samara and dukkha is a characteristic of samsara.
analogy:
What is water is liquid, cessation of liquid is cessation of water and liquid is a characteristic of water.
It would not be appropriate to use them as synonyms always as they are different abstractions.


text:
...or does it mean that the conditions might also dependant on a or all things?
A central concept in the Buddhist tradition that all things (X) arise in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions (C).
Does this imply a certain causality or order ( C -> X ) or does it mean that the conditions might also dependant on a or all things (C <-> X)?
The question arose in a comment to the question if "Axioms are non-empty?", saying that "Axioms are basically constructed for theorems. So they are still created things, and thus dependent. "
I always wondered if the dependance concept also works the other way round...

like circular dependency?  yes.  Someone asked  Ven Sariputta , he said similar to two planks (or two piles ) of wood leaning up against each other.  they stay up because of each other.  Take one down and the other will fall.  I will look up reference for you.   Maybe someone here can help me.  I found it from tipitaka King Siam version K.S. II:80-81.     Buddha said many times, vinnana ends when namarupa is ended; and  namarupa ends when vinnana is ended.

@DeanAlkas I think that people sometimes translate it into English as "co-dependent arising" or "dependent co-arising" -- where the "co-" implies that it's mutual.

Quate from ~ NO INNER CORE ~
An Introduction to the Doctrine of Anatta
by Sayadaw U Sãlànanda pg-26

Furthermore, we must remember that nàma-råpa or khandhas are merely
  abstract classifications made by the Buddha, and, as such, they have
  no real existence as groups. That is, there is never the functioning
  of an entire entity or group known as corporeality or feeling or
  perception or mental formations or consciousness, but only the
  functioning of individual representatives of these groups.
For
  example, with one unit of consciousness, only one single kind of
  feeling can be associated. Two different units of perception cannot
  arise at the same moment, and only one kind of consciousness,
  For example seeing consciousness, can arise at one time. A smaller or
  larger number of mental formations can arise with every state of
  consciousness. The groups never arise as a totality; only constituents
  or bits from a certain group can arise depending on conditions.
There
  are no integrally functioning groups which can be called a self or a
  mind.

My Story,

The conditions might also dependent on a or all things (C <-> X).

Consider a group of ants. willingness to talk each other the group emerge (Pali:"Uppaggathi").
What is group?
(each ant is not the group, the group is not the collection of ants, without ants also no group, group is not a separate thing from ants, ......).
What is reality?
Actually there is no group( according to our view only ants), but according the view of ants there is a group.("Avijja")
Due to communication, The group behave it's own will.(Consciousness -Intelligent/Madness)
What is the madness?
I am a Group. (My name is 'G'). I have my ants...and getting the feelings of pride, satisfaction...lost, die, decay, feel bad etc..
What is the intelligent?
Get understand  the reason for the process.
Find the way to stop this suffering.
What is Nibbana?
realize How it create and process. Hence escape from suffering.
(c <-> x)
c = Group's Consciousness.
x = Group Concept( with ants).
====================
Exsample 2.  "Players change but Team continues"
By considering a team the players always join and replace. but the team has its popularity glory etc continues to generations.
Is there a team? we can't say 'yes' or 'no'.
1).If some one is considering the team then the team is.
2).If anybody considering the players then no team.
we can't say both is correct, or wrong.
3). The team is relative to the viewers.(May be players or audience)
Like wise what we believe the "Soul" or "person(personality)" is a "Thing". But it is relative to the perception(subject) and precept(object).
So, We cant say there is something in every process. Also we cannot say there is nothing in any process. To be a process there should be a process viewer.
again the viewer is also a process. That is Interdependent.
c = players, x = team, so (c<->x)

If you could clarify your post a bit, your story would be clearer, but I think I start to get what you want to tell...

@draks... If this ex.2 is not clears so much, we can try another.

What do you mean by: What is the intelligent? How? Why? Is there?.....
What is Nibbana? If the group realize itself (what group is )("Sunya")(0).

@draks...I like to know what are the other conflicts in this scenario.


text:
Any recommended monasteries in Sri Lanka that offer extended meditation retreats?
Could anyone provide links and/or info about Buddhist monasteries in Sri Lanka that offer extended meditation retreats?
For those who have taken part in such retreats, how was the experience? Would it be challenging in any way for me, an American, who has never been to Asia before, to travel there/adapt to the culture?
Thank you

Do you have reasons to choose Sri Lanka over Burma or Thailand?

Aren't these countries mainly practice Mahayana and Sri Lanka is the main country for Theravada ?

I don't think it won't be any problem to adapt to the culture here in Sri Lanka. The real challenge would be to learn, understand and practice in Buddhism.

@Buddho I don't have a preference for the country, really. I have just heard that Sri Lanka is a good place to go. What would you recommend?

Please refer these links.
http://nauyana.org/
http://www.sadahamarana.org/?page_id=48
You can google for these links. Please do some background checks, before you go there. False teachers can be exists like infamous 'Pitiduwe Siri Damma'.

Awesome, thanks for the info. I'm curious- what is the story behind this "Pitiduwe Siri Damma"?

I wouldn't recommend Mahamevnawa. There have been lots of controversy about what they teach.

@SankhaKulathantille  Me neither.  :)

@Ian He's a monk who claims he's an Arahant, nobody believes him though.

@dmsp, Well, his preaching, his behavior does not follow what we know and believe about Arahant. He (apparently anyone) can be logical. That does not imply all logical things are true.  I removed Mahawevnawa as of you stated

I've heard Mithrigala Nissarana Vanaya is a good place. I don't know if they do long retreats but most monasteries will accommodate the sincere aspirants.
In Burma, I've personally hoped to someday spend a long retreat at Panditarama (Vipassana) and/or Pa Auk (Samatha).
In Thailand I've considered Wat Chom Tong near Chiang Mai.
There's also the Panditarama center in Nepal.
The Goenka centers are located around the world, as well as in the above countries, but they are aplenty in India, including at Bodh Gaya. They do 45-60 day retreats, but one needs to work up to it over a few years since they require one to have graduated several preparatory retreats.
The above are all Theravada retreats. If one is interested in the Mahayana tradition I would unhesitatingly recommend Plum Village in France.

Rathmalkanda Meditation Center
Meditation Techniques

Vipassana(Mahasi Sayadaw)
Samatha(Anapanasati/ Kasina)

I stayed there for a short period about 8 years ago. You have to call the number in the website and book in advance. Mostly foreigners come to meditate there. Its free of charge but donations are accepted. Interactions with the locals are minimal. So you wouldn't face any cultural difficulties. The food is quite good. It is situated at a cold mountain area. So you neither need A/C nor have to worry about mosquitoes and snakes. Rooms are clean, spacious and have electricity. The beds are comfortable with warm blankets. There are several mats lying on the floor as well. The bathrooms are western style with hot showers.
Attire: Anything that is decent. It doesn't have to be white.
Rules: Keep quiet and keep clean.
Sila: Eight Precepts (you will be given refreshments in the evening. You can bring a snack to eat at nights if you find it hard to keep to the 6th precept)
Usually I got meditation instructions after the breakfast or lunch. In the evening you can meet venerable Madawala Upali(the head monk) to have a Dhamma discussion. He speaks English well. If you are into Abhidhamma or a fan of modern science, you will enjoy the talks as he was a former science teacher and a visiting lecturer of Buddhist philosophy at the Kelaniya University
Course duration: 2 weeks. But you can stay longer or leave before.

Sri Lanka, Thailand and Burma are the main three Theravada Countries.
In Sri Lanka: Venerable Katukurunde Nananada Thero's Monastery (http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net), Mitirigala Nissarana Vanaya (Burmese Panditarama tradition) are for serious practitioners.

Mitirigala Nissarana Vanaya

Teacher- Ven. Udairiyagama Dhammajiva Maha Thero (U Dhammajiva
Sayadaw), Excellent knowledge in Dhamma, Pali, Burmese and English, Specialty in Mindfulness and emphasizes the value of mindfulness
Meditation Technique - Satipatthana meditation, Burmese Mahasi/Panditarama Technique (Vipassana) and Sri
Lankan Nanarama Method (Vipassana with Samatha)
Retreats - 3 days, 7 days, 10 days, 20 days and extensive periods are
allowed for serious practitioners and for the meditators who are
expecting the ordaination
Location - Mitirigala,Kirindivela, Sri Lanka
More Information - nissarana.lk (Official Website)

Sanghopasthana Suva Sevana

Teacher- Ven. Katukurunde Nyanananda Maha Thero (Bhikkhu Nanananda)
[A famous book author and a meditation master], Excellent knowledge in Dhamma, Pali and English, Advises not to be in a hurry but to practice Samatha also for aiding Vipassana, Slowly-Mindfully-Carefully. Appreciates dedication for practicing.
Meditation Technique - Both Samatha and Vipassana, Metta Meditation
and probably Sri Lankan Nanarama Method (Vipassana with Samatha)
Retreats - Any time is possible with prior notice. No allocated dates. special consideration for dedicated meditators and  dedicated practitioners who are expecting the ordaination.
Location - Kirillawala Watta, Dammulla, Karandana, Sri Lanka
More Information - http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net (Official
Website)

These are two prominent places in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka offers 1 year residence visa easily if you have a recommendation beforehand. Normally in Sri Lanka, temporary ordination is discouraged but permanent ordination is possible at anytime.
Additionally there are more meditation centers which are famous in different aspects. NaUyana Aranya in Melsiripura (Burmese Pa-auk system), Kanduboda M.C. (Burmese Mahasi System), Goenka centers in Kandy, Anuradhapura and Kosgama (Burmese Sayagi U Ba Kin system)


text:
other models analogue of the ''five aggregates''
what are the other models analogue of the ''five aggregates'' USED BY THE BUDDHA, and their references in the sutas used by the buddha that mentioned at the end of this video.
[YouTube] The Five Aggregates Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Oo0ad9Ptf-w#t=924
there is form and the the mind is:
feeling
perception
mental formation
conciousness of senses
but what are the other models for this ?

One = Life, Dukka, Samsara,
Two = Body and Mind, namarupa and vinnana,
five = 5 aggregate  (Skanda),
Twelve = 12 faculties,
Eighteen = 18 Dhathu,


text:
What is Buddhism's view on past lives?
I have often come across this - our past karma will bear its fruits in the present life or in the future one. So how does one identify the events is the because of past karma? Where is information about previous life stored? Is it recorded in the soul? Does soul have answers of all our questions? How do I access this information? Am I delusional? I wonder.

A search of this forum for past lives reveals several questions on this subject, might be useful to read those.

So how does one identify the events in the present life caused by karma of previous lives?
The Buddha was able to do so (able to see in detail the consequences of karma); but it's an unusual ability.
See Wikipedia's Enumerations of special knowledges, which includes,

"Remember one's former abodes" (pubbe-nivāsanussati), that is, recalling ones own past lives;
"Divine eye" (dibba-cakkhu), that is, knowing others' karmic destinations;

and which ends with,

The three knowledges are mentioned in numerous discourses including the Maha-Saccaka Sutta (MN 36) in which the Buddha describes obtaining each of these three knowledges on the first, second and third watches respectively of the night of his enlightenment. These forms of knowledge typically are listed as arising after the attainment of the fourth jhana.[11]
While such powers are considered to be indicative of spiritual progress, Buddhism cautions against their indulgence or exhibition since such could divert one from the true path of obtaining suffering's release.

Where is information about previous life stored?
I think that's not explained in the (relatively early) Tipiṭaka.
I think that maybe later schools of Buddhism introduced various theories, for example:

Ālaya-vijñāna ('storehouse-consciousness')
Citta-santāna ('the stream of mind')
Antara-bhāva or bardo ('intermediate state')

I think this subject causes much discussion and different opinions, perhaps because it's not clearly explained by the Buddha.
In his article titled Rebirth and the in-between state in early Buddhism, Bhikkhu Sujato wrote,

So right away we get a good sense for the soteriological significance of rebirth within Early Buddhism. But we have learned little of the mechanics of it: How does it happen? What makes it work? How do we analyze the process in detail? We must admit that the Āgama Suttas do not offer us a detailed explanation of such matters. But this itself has its own significance: for the Āgama Suttas, the underlying basis of rebirth is not the issue. The issue is that rebirth is suffering, and practice is needed to find freedom. A detailed ‘scientific’ understanding of rebirth is marginal to the liberative teachings of the Āgama Suttas.

Is it recorded in the soul?
Actually, talk about a "soul" doesn't sound like conventional Buddhist doctrine.
Buddhist doctrine includes Anatta.
Here are a couple of quotes about Anatta.

Egolessness (Anattaa)

There are three teachers in the world. The first teacher teaches the existence of an eternal ego-entity outlasting death: that is the Eternalist, as for example the Christian. The second teacher teaches a temporary ego-entity which becomes annihilated at death: that is the annihilationist, or materialist. The third teacher teaches neither an eternal, nor a temporary ego-entity: this is the Buddha.

Miln III.5.6: Soul

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is a soul to be found?"
The elder replied: "According to ultimate reality, your majesty, a soul is not to be found."
"You are clever, venerable Nagasena."
Note:
Vedaguu: a "knower," permanent subject of experience, soul. Vedaguu is an interesting word, originally a brahmanical term related to mastery of the Vedas. The Buddha appropriated it to mean "one who has attained highest knowledge," i.e., synonymous with "arahant." However, as the PED notes: "A peculiar meaning of vedaguu is that of 'soul' (lit. attainer of wisdom) at Miln 54 & 71."

Buddhist doctrine teaches not to view, as permanent 'self', what's found in the present six consciousnesses (i.e. what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch, and think about).
If there is no ego-entity (self-entity) now, then "rebirth" becomes kind of moot.
And in this answer Yuttadhammo Bikkhu wrote,

The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old. etc.

Does soul have answers of all our questions?
Therefore probably not: 'soul' doesn't have answers to all our questions.
The later schools of Buddhism do introduce ideas like Buddha-nature (however I don't know whether that corresponds at all to what you might want to call "soul", and I won't try to describe it here).
In the (earlier) Pali suttas, the Sabbasava Sutta warns that there are questions which should not be attended to:

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

You asked in the OP, "Am I delusional?" Maybe this is an explanation: i.e. attending to questions about self-in-the-past and soul, is a recipe for becoming "inwardly perplexed" and "a fetter of views".
(The antidote, i.e. what should be attended to instead, is the four noble truths etc.)
See also The unanswered questions.

As of my understanding,
There is no such a thing called 'soul', which we take from this life to next life ans so forth. There is only continuous thought sequence.
How I thinks these Karma works on our lives is this. Once we did a thing which cause to a Karma, immediately it generates it's fruits which we will experience either this life or in future. It's like Newton's third law. If we did something, there are counter forces which generated.
Let's say I offered a flower to the Blessed one. First I think I should do this and then I do it. this action has a power which generates a counter power as well. Our thought sequence will experience this counter power in someway. All the incidents, situations to experience this counter power will done by the world/universe.
What lord Buddha said about this is, We as normal people can't think how this happens with our normal minds. But we can think that it happens (like if we did a good thing, a good thing will happen to us. If we did a bad thing a bad thing will happen to us. like wise).

If we have a something called 'soul' which remains all the time and comes with us for all our lives, then Buddha's word of saying that everything is Anitta' will be false. and hence whole foundation of Buddhism will be scattered.

We don't know if there is a soul or not! After all, this is all belief, at least ours...

We are all talking about things according to Buddhism here. So according to Buddhism, there is no soul.

Hey @draks...  we know there is no soul because we are Buddhists! If you have any doubts about Lord Buddha's teaching what are you doing in Buddhism SE?

@Theravada, please don't be offensive to other members. If someone has doubts about Buddha-Dharma, they are very welcomed on this site, to ask and clarify their doubts.

yeah i agree. But i don't understand why people don't use this site to clear their understanding.They just post it. What happens if another newcomer learns that and follow it? People should be more humble to seek out and straighten their views before answering a question that actually has some value to someone.

As we Buddhists believe there is no Soul. Karma is a universal force that is not yielded or governed by anyone but acts alone in its own right.
There is no personal Karma,Karma is an Universal entity that effects every living thing with the exception of an "Arahant(A one who has reached nirvana)"
So when you do things that generate karma your future immediately changes.
As to Lord Buddha there is no Soul.
The six receptors (eyes,ears,tongue,body,nose,mind) take in preferred forms of input (light,sound,taste,touch,smell,thoughts).Then the mind recognize them and start making thoughts and logic.
This process ends with death.
Lord Buddha said that a dying mind creates a copy of itself when it dies in the next place of birth of this being (Just like you backup your phone or computer).So this new mind will be what this being will recognize as itself.
so there is no soul, it is a backup process of a dying mind. all the memories and karmas get copied.
Please note this is a loose interpretation of a deep "Abhidhamma" teaching. So please refer a good "Abhidhamma" book for further understanding.
The confusion you are in is normal once you learn the right teachings you will get out of it.

"Lord Buddha said that a dying mind creates a copy of itself" -- Can you reference this statement, i.e. say where it comes from?

I can give you some guidance to find it but i am sorry i do not remember the name. This is in "Tipitaka". There is a teaching on the last few steps of a mind that is about to die. Refer this word it might help (Javan / Jahan sitha). I heard this in a sermon and if you ask a Sri Lankan you will find it right away. @ChrisW

Thanks for the reference. There is a word "Javana Citta" described in the Abhidhamma (see e.g. this answer and these posts). And there's something called "maranasañña-javana" and "cuti-citta" (mentioned in section VI of this) ... but although these are Buddhist beliefs, I suppose I don't think of the Abhidhamma as something which the Lord Buddha said -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidhamma_Pitaka#Origins

We as Sri Lankan Buddhists believe Abhidhamma as a  part of Theravada Buddhism. By the way if we accept it as a theory doesn't it fill in the blanks? I mean  this is the only explanation I've ever found as an answer to the question "what happens to memories when we die". Now when i think of it this might be a great question to ask form our friends. By the way Abhidhamma may or may not be Lord Buddha's but no one has ever proven it wrong or misdirecting (Not even an arahant) @ChrisW

From what I understand, the concept of soul does not  exist in Buddhist teachings.
It helps to define it properly in English:

Self (there is a self)

No self (there is no self)

Non-self / Not-self
Excerpt below quoted from Strategies of Self & Not-self:

Tonight I'd like to talk more about why the Buddha refused to get involved in the issue of whether there is or is not a self. This will involve discussing in more detail two of the points I made last night.
The first point is that the Buddha's teaching was strategic, aimed at leading to a specific goal: total freedom in the minds of his listeners. The second point is that, as part of this larger strategy, the Buddha had strategic reasons for putting questions of the existence or non-existence of the self aside.
Part of his teaching strategy was to divide questions into four types, based on how they should be best approached for the purpose of putting an end to suffering and stress [§9]. The first type includes those that deserve a categorical answer: in other words, a straight "yes" or "no," "this" or "that," with no exceptions. The second type includes questions that deserve an analytical answer, in which the Buddha would reanalyze the question before answering it. The third type includes questions that deserve a counter-question. In other words, he would question the questioner before answering the original question. And the fourth type includes questions that deserve to be put aside as useless — or even harmful — in the quest to put an end to suffering. And, as I said, the questions, "Is there a self? Is there no self?" are ones he put aside.

Here's the passage where the Buddha explains why:

"Then Vacchagotta the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings and courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One, 'Now then, master Gotama, is there a self?' When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. 'Then is there no self?' The second time the Blessed One was silent. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
"Then not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Venerable Ānanda said to the Blessed One, 'Why, Lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'"
And here's the Buddha's response: "Ānanda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans and contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans and contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of the self]. If I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
And Venerable Ānanda said, "No, Lord."
Then the Buddha said, "And if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self, were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self that I used to have now not exist?'"
— SN 44.10

That talk and that sutta are also in the topic, How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

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


text:
Is radiating loving kindness increase attachment?
In the early stage, it's said that radiating loving kindness to opposite sex can potentially arouse lust. While I'm not sure if the person who we radiate loving kindness to can have their lust aroused, is radiating loving kindness in any stage of practice by any means can increase the attachment to that person? What is the proper way to do this?

Lovingkindness, good-will (metta): Near enemy – attachment/lust; far enemy – hatred
Compassion (karuna): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty
Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (mudita), joy at the good fortune of
others: Near enemy – comparison,hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for
others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy
– envy
Equanimity (upekkha): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed

Practicing loving kindness towards the opposite sex does not increase attachment or arouse lust. But if you are a lustful person, you can easily mistake the counterfeit near enemy as the loving kindness and as a result arouse lust and increase attachment in you.
So if you have an urge to make physical contact with someone or chat up and winover, you should avoid practicing loving kindness towards them until you are skilled enough to identify the counterfeit from authentic Metta.

Can you describe or summarize, or recommend where to read more about, the difference between Metta and its "near enemy"?

More details can be found in Visuddhimagga where it explains about Brahmavihara and Metta meditation

Generally you should not do Metta to:

Lingavisabhāga (opposite sex - generally directed at a specific person)
Kālakatapuggala (a dead person)

See page 81 of Knowing and Seeing revised edition by Pa Auk Sayadaw (Pa Auk Lineage):

To develop the sublime abiding of loving-kindness (mettà), you need first
  of all be aware that it should not be developed towards a person of the
  opposite sex , or a dead person.
A person of the opposite sex should not be used as object, because lust
  towards him or her will probably arise. After you have attained jhàna,
  however, it is possible to develop loving-kindness towards the opposite
  sex as a group with, for example, `May all women be happy.'

Also page 66 Loving Kindness Meditation Ven. Sujiva (Mahaisi Lineage), and page 16 Matta: The Practice of Loving-Kindness As the Foundation for Insight Meditation Practice by Sayadaw U Indaka (Mahasi Sayadaw) make the same observation:

Let’s now talk about another category of persons who should not be the object of metta
  meditation. When we start practising metta meditation, we should not develop metta for a
  person we feel attracted to. The commentary to the Visuddhimagga says that this arouses lust
  or tanha. This passage, in fact, refers to metta practice which has not yet become well
  established. However, Chanmyay Sayadaw has said that it is possible to practise metta for a
  person we have an attraction to without any difficulties when our practice is well developed.
  Then it is possible to develop pure and genuine metta.

What is the proper way to do this?
If you are generally spreading Metta as say "May all women be well and happy" then it is fine.
In the early stage, it's said that radiating loving kindness to opposite sex can potentially arouse lust. While I'm not sure if the person who we radiate loving kindness to can have their lust aroused, is radiating loving kindness in any stage of practice by any means can increase the attachment to that person?
This is the reason you should not do it directed at a specific person of the opposite sex. This can lead to lust and attachment.
Also see this answer.


text:
How is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima connected to the Buddhist community?
How is he connected to the Buddhist community?  Is he a to be Buddhist leader or simply a successor?
And does his imprisonment by china has anything to do with Buddhism or is it just a political matter?
Did his imprisonment affected the Buddhist community? If yes, then how?

The founder of the Gelug tradition, Lama Je Tsongkhapa, had two main disciples:

Gyaltsab Je and
Khedrup Je

While Khedrup Je was the 1st Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima was recognized, by H.H. the Dalaï-Lama, as the 11th Panchen Lama. He was also recognized as such by the Chinese government that decided to have a say in the so-called “Tulku system [of recognition]”.
Although Gyaltsab Je was the Spiritual Leader of the Gelug tradition (Ganden Tripa) after Tsongkhapa, Khedup Je also became the Ganden Tripa in time, after Gyaltsab Je's passing.
As a result, their philosophical work is highly regarded by Gelug teachers and students. Gelug students still study the 1st Panchen Lama's commenteries, along with Gyaltsab Je's.
Khedrup Je was also a teacher of Gendün Druppa, the 1st Dalaï-Lama. From the time of the 5th Dalaï-Lama, the Dalaï-Lama & the Panchen Lama held the responsibility of recognizing one another['s reincarnation].
It is believed that Khedrup Je was a reincarnation of Subhuti (the one depicted in the Vajra Cutter Sutra, a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha).
Whether his imprisonment affected the Buddhist community, and if so, in what way, is difficult to tell. His imprisonment means:
… a teacher of H.H. the Dalaï-Lama being imprisoned
… a candidate to the regency of H.H. the Dalaï-Lama being imprisoned
… one of the main disciples of the founder of the Geluk tradition being imprisoned
… a candidate to the position of Ganden Tripa being imprisoned
… a potentially influential of textual commentaries being imprisoned

Most Tibetans still mourn him. If you go to McLeod Ganj or Boudhanath, you will see plenty of posters with his pictures, and printed characters such as “Give back the Panchen Lama!”
Kyabje Lama Zopa Rinpoche (that many think of as clairvoyant, or even enlightened and thus omniscient) said that Gedhun Choekyi Nyima (from whom we have never heard of again otherwise) is still alive, safe and sound.

Thank you for answering.  Can you also answer the third qn please.  It is not about politics.  It is about whether the Buddhist leadership hierarchy got affected by the incident.

Welcome. I answered your third question and slightly reviewed the whole answer.


text:
What are the rotating cylinders in monastries, and why are they there?
Sorry, as I don't know the right term for them.
But, I have noticed these huge copper cylinders(when I went to visit a temple in Dharmashala), which are kept like 5-6 in a row.
They have engravings (probably in some script) on them, and they are rotated by the people who are walking past them.
So, what are they?  And what are the engravings on them?  And why people are rotating them?

These are Tibetan Buddhist prayer wheels and they often have 'Om mani padme hum' engraved on them:

According to Tibetan Buddhist belief, spinning a prayer wheel is just as effective as reciting the sacred texts aloud. This belief derives from the Buddhist belief in the power of sound and the formulas to which deities are subject. For many Buddhists, the prayer wheel also represents the Wheel of the Law (or Dharma) set in motion by the Buddha.
The prayer wheel is also useful for illiterate members of the lay Buddhist community, since they can "read" the prayers by turning the wheel. Prayer wheels come in many sizes: they may be small and attached to a stick, and spun around by hand; medium-sized and set up at monasteries or temples; or very large and continuously spun by a water mill. Prayer wheels at monasteries and temples are located at the gates of the property, and devotees spin the wheels before passing through the gates.
  Prayer Wheels

I have also seen solar powered prayer wheels on car dashboards...

Is there any merit in having the Sun turn the wheel for you I wonder ... ?

I have no idea. There surely is merit in having a constant reminder to be peaceful and mindful when driving though!

... yes while keeping your eyes firmly on the road ;)

It's called Prayer wheel. These round cylinders are mantras, with thousands of prayers handwritten outside each in Sanskrit and Tibetan letters. Each full clockwise turn of the mantra is said to work the good merit of the prayers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_wheel


text:
How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception?
How does the buddhist teachings differentiate between reality and perception ?
Can anyone point me to on-line resources where in I can read more about this topic ?

There's a helpful Wikipedia page that might be useful to you https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism

According to which school?

I would be happy to hear thoughts for different schools @TenzinDorje

It is a topic expounded in:

philosophical texts
classifications and presentations of tenets (Tib. grub mtha')

In several instances, "reality" refers to "ultimate truth". You will find it so meaning in expressions such as "concealing reality", "seeing reality", "understanding or ascertaining the meaning of reality". It seems it is also how Sankha Kulathantille understood it, since he gave the Vaibhashika definition of ultimate truth.
I will indicate how Geluk presentations of tenets (grub mtha') define ultimate truth in relation to different philosophical school. My main sources here are Jetsun Chokyi Gyaltsen's Presentation of Tenets and Geshe Sopa's Cutting Through Appearances. These sources are more "doxographical" than they are philosophical.
Vaïbashika definition [of ultimate truth] : A phenomenon that is such that, if it were broken or mentally separated into parts, the mind apprehending  that object would not cease. Ex.: directionally partless particles, temporally partless moments of consciousness, uncompounded space, any of the five aggreegates.
Sautrantika definition: A phenomenon that is able to perform a function ultimately. Ex.: Any impermanent phenomenon.
(That is to say an appearing object of a conceptual consciousness is not an ultimate truth, and a conceptual consciousness is necessarily mistaken with regard to its appearing object)
Cittamatrin definition: That which is realized by means of a valid direct perceiver that realizes it clearly without dualistic appearance. Ex.: An emptiness that is a form and its form-apprehending valid cognizer’s
emptiness of being other substances, and an emptiness that is a form’s
emptiness of existing by way of its own characteristics as a base for assigning the term ‘form’.
Madhyamika-Svatantrika definition: An object that is realized in a non-dualistic manner by the direct valid cognizer that directly realizes it. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of true existence.
Madhyamika-Prasangika definition: An object which is found by a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence and with respect to which a valid cognizer analyzing the final mode of existence become a valid cognizer analyzing for the final mode of existence. Ex.: A pot’s emptiness of inherent
existence.
The Prasangika stand is, in brief: anytime a conventional truth appears to the mind of a sentient being (i.e. a non-buddha), it appears together with the appearance of inherent existence. Thus, all conventional cognizers in the continuum of a sentient being are mistaken with regard, not to the thing, but to the mode of existence [of things]. Innate ignorance is the mistaken conception of true existence that conceals reality (i.e. emptiness which is the absence of inherent existence) and is the opposite of wisdom directly realizing emptiness (which is the absence of inherent existence).

Reality is that which stays the same when you try to subdivide. They are called Paramatta Dhammas. Perception is that which changes when you subdivide the supposed object it points to.
ex: Table is a perception. If you break it into pieces, it becomes a pile of wood. It's not a table anymore. Man is a perception. If you pile up the bones and flesh separately, it's not a man anymore.

Is there "a table" before  break it into pieces.?

There's a perception of a table. That is merely a Cetasika which rises and passes away. Not a table.

The general usage term for this "The perception of a table" is  "Nama-rupa" . We had detail discussion on this topic in this Question. like to know is there any ambiguities.

Nama-rupa is the whole experience containing the 5 skandhas. Perception is what gives the sign of the table.

Is this in the same line of aggregate

These five

"Right view, right understanding, is actually knowing the characteristics of paramattha Dhammas as they really are." So  why can't just have a right view and understanding on just a part of reality? Let's say only my reality excluding all others. After viewing this reality correctly I could tell you how to do it...

Plato's Cave

There are 3 groups of peoples are there.
1). Prisoners  (  world of faculty's)-Believe perception.

Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived
  chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall.
  The people watch shadows projected on the wall from things passing in
  front of a fire behind them, and they begin to give names to these
  shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing
  reality.

2). Philosophers (world of sankara) - Believe Reality.

He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed
  from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do
  not make up reality at all, for he can perceive the true form of
  reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

3). Those who escape from the cave.(Buddhists who liberated from the samsara)
Nirvana - Beyond the world - who can see through the reality.

Socrates remarks that this allegory can be taken with what was said
  before, namely the analogy of the sun and the analogy of the divided
  line. In particular, he likens our perception of the world around us
  "to the habitation in prison, the firelight there to the sunlight
  here, the ascent and the view of the upper world [to] the rising of
  the soul into the world of the mind" (517b).

The question is about Buddhist teachings (not Plato's cave).

This question is about perception and reality. The two truths for two steps (analogy of the sun and the analogy of the divided line.) that need to follow to realize truth.(Awake) @ChrisW Buddhist teaching shows the path for escape from the cave.


text:
The desire of no desire
I have been thinking on the notion of desiring to have no desire. The idea of striving to not grasp, therefore grasping onto the idea in the first place and rendering it a contradiction and inevitably a failure(?). Is this simply the Great Paradox of Buddhism? Of life? Is it better to act through impartial/passive acceptance of things, and does this come from longterm, present and active striving to 'abolish' desire, or from gradual, passive acceptance of the self to be translated into a lack of desire? Or do the two intermingle?
Also, do these different courses of action depend on the specific sect of Buddhism?
This may be way too simple, or way too complicated.
I'm sorry if I'm not translating my thoughts too well.

also http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11331/is-it-possible-to-abandon-desire-by-means-of-desire

also http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8776/stopping-tanha-or-craving

also see http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5312/whats-the-aim-of-avoiding-attachment/5314#5314

also http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/200/attachment-is-a-poison-why-is-attachment-to-the-buddha-and-to-buddhist-philosop

This question was also asked 2500 years ago:
Brahmana Sutta: To Unnabha the Brahman http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn51/sn51.015.than.html

"Master Ananda, what is the aim of this holy life lived under Gotama the contemplative?"
"Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire."
"Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"
"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire."
"What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"
"Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."
"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."
"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an endless path, or one with an end?"
"You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an endless one. Magnificent, Master Ananda! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Ananda — through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, and to the Sangha of monks. May Master Ananda remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge, from this day forward, for life."

Wow, the modern man is really in danger of getting lost in his own abstractions! :) There is no "desire of no desire" in Buddhism, it is something people's logical minds make up out of mathematical relationships between things they hear about. There is no "desiring to have no desire". There is no "striving to abolish desire" either.
Here is my understanding:
What there is, is desire to be free of pain, desire to not be driven by troubles - the desire of peace. Consequently, there is striving for peace. There is nothing contradictory in striving for peace. You need to identify the obstacles to peace and remove them. Accepting the obstacles to peace will not lead to peace.
In Buddhism, the obstacles to peace are, starting from the coarse ones: actions like stealing, violence, lying and verbal abuse, sexually-motivated trouble, and getting intoxicated.
It is pretty clear that these cause trouble, right?
Next, we get to understand that the cause of trouble is not just our behavior, it is our mind, our attitude. So we speak about the Three Root Poisons: attraction, repulsion, and confusion. Or obsession, aversion, and delusion. Or lust, hate, and ignorance. Many partial synonyms, same idea. Our minds are colored by various mixtures of these three "kleshas" - as a result we see things in wrong light - and - get in trouble.
Next, we understand that the above really boils down to getting stuck on stuff, what's known as attachment. This is a very broad category. Getting stuck is when reality moves on, but your mind is still in the old place. Or when, reality does not move, but your mind wants to get to some imaginary point. From this mismatch between "is" and "should" comes "dukkha" the feeling of wrongness, colloquially known as suffering. This is the First and Second Noble Truths, dukkha and origination of dukkha.
All things exist in dependence on some necessary and sufficient conditions. When the necessary conditions are no longer in effect, the things can no longer exist. This gives us leverage over things, including leverage over dukkha. By dropping the attachment we remove the basis of dukkha -- the mismatch, and dukkha disappears. This is the Third Noble Truth - cessation of dukkha.
However, because all circumstances depend on some conditions, and those conditions depend on other conditions - all circumstances are inevitably subject to cessation, whether we want it or not. So our idea of permanent peace is a big fiction. Permanent peace would need to not depend on any conditions in order to be permanent. Which is impossible. Hence, permanent peace is false. Things are impermanent. This is first Mark of Existence, "anicca".
Also, because things depend on conditions and always in flux, having "me" be always happy or always free would require a permanent "me" - otherwise the freedom will end with the end of the "me". Because "me" depends on causes-n-conditions, it is conditional just like everything else. There is no solid core that is "me", it is only a temporary arrangement. This is second Mark of Existence, "anatta".
All things are like this, only temporary arrangements. But for simplicity our mind builds a semi-static model of reality, in which it fabricates the notion of "objects", as if things existed statically. Because this is the way mind works, the stable objects it sees are only virtual constructs, conceptual overlays, on top of the soup that is always in flux. Because the things in flux always change, the mind always falls behind updating its models. So the mind model of reality is always mismatching the actual reality, at least to some degree. As we saw above, it is exactly this mismatch from which comes the dukkha or suffering. Therefore the mind that builds models of reality is always subject to suffering. This is third Mark of Existance, "dukkha".
When we understand the above, we understand to which degree we can have control over our experience, and how to minimize dukkha by dropping attachment to legacy  or unrealistic models, and keeping our models in sync with reality as much as possible.
On the other hand, the mind generates joy when its model does match reality. In modern psychology this is known as the reward mechanism. When we know this we can hack the mechanism. We can generate joy by following these steps: 1) getting rid of course action that gets us in trouble (violence etc.), 2) then by getting rid of the three "klesha"s of attraction, aversion, and confusion (the coarse mismatch) - and their derivatives; and then 3) by contemplating the Noble Truths and three Marks of Existence and appreciating how lucky we are to have achieved such insight into the nature of phenomena and control over our experiences. This self-generated joy can give us some nice refuge to dwell in. This is First Jhana.
The Jhanas then naturally progress from more coarse and artificially generated happiness, to more subtle and natural happiness, then to calmness and surety. These are Second, Third, and Fourth Jhanas.
And then you realize that to be stuck in calmness is rather constricting - and allow yourself to get disenchanted and lose any form altogether. You are no longer defined by any strategy. You are done. But by having gone through all the previous stages you ensure you are not caught up in the coarser issues either.
At this stage the question of reality is no longer relevant. Reality is an interpretation we make. We choose the interpretation as needed to face the situation at hand.
So, as you see, desire of no desire is a very naive simplification. In practice it is not desire that we are working with, it is attachment, in its various forms, and the process goes through many stages from coarser to subtler until it gets thin enough to short circuit. This process is the Fourth Noble Truth, the path.
You can't skip the obstacles by dropping the path, the peace is not achieved by accepting the war.
Something like this.

Wow Grate idea. "coarser to subtler until it gets thin enough to short circuit".

Why do you point out that it's dupe and post an answer? Let's close this and the others...

Why do I point out a dupe and post an answer? Because I want to be helpful. We have lots of dupes already, but if people keep asking I assume they still have questions.

Identifying that you are doing something wrong and doing it right is called wisdom. Not desire.
For example, coming to the realization that drinking is not the answer to your problems and stopping it is wisdom. It's stopping of wrongdoing. Craving in itself is wrongdoing. Not craving is stopping of that wrongdoing.

sabba papassa akaranam - do no evil!

It is not craving that makes a being progress towards Nibbana. It is the understanding of the four noble truths.
You don't crave to stop doing something wrong. You just don't do it :)

Sankha, could you expand on that? The essence of the original question was the apparent contradiction inherent in having attachment to not having attachment. For example, what if someone does desire to stop doing wrong and start doing right. Sure, that may be wisdom, but it is also desire. In other words, what happens if someone desires -- is attached to -- wisdom. Your answer doesn't really tackle that at all.

Added some more details.


text:
Are there any websites that contain Buddhist dictionaries?
I believe that there many words translate from Buddha Sutra and I want to ask is there any website can translate the words meaning in English? Example Samman Samadhi

I think this is more of a list type question so I'm converting to a wiki. Can always be reverted if people desperately disagree.

Answers to this topic also contain answers to this question.

I recommend the Digital Pali Reader (a browser extension for Firefox and Pale Moon).

Wisdom Library is one of the most reliable. E.g. Samma Samadhi.
Also Access To Insight has a glossary.

Other than this, is that have some official website like that?

There cannot be any "Official" as there is no authority to decide which is official.

For Sanskrit I use http://spokensanskrit.de/ and for Pali http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/

I've tried the PTS Pali-English dictionary (for Pali).
There's a trick to using it though.

Enable Search entry words only (not definitions)
Type in the word you're looking for e.g. Samadhi

When you search it may not find the result. So:

Also select Words starting with  (Example: bud)
Type in fewer (just the first few) letters of the word you're looking for e.g. Sama

This may display several results -- hopefully you can find the word you're looking for on this list (maybe Samatha in this case).
This searching for a prefix (instead of for the full word) if often necessary, because Pali words have declensions and conjugations when they're used in sentences, which alters their suffixes.

I think that samadhi versus samatha (used in the example above) is a difference between Sanskrit and Pali.
The fact remains, however, that when looking for Pali words in the PTS dictionary it's often necessary to search for the prefix.
Another reason why that's so is, I think, that Pali words are joined together (like in German). Look at this answer for example (which uses the Critical Pali Dictionary instead of the PTS dictionary), which shows for example various words created from ārāma.
I note that ārāma isn't in the PTS dictionary however arañña is — which is another reason why you may need to look for prefixes (I found it by searching the PTS dictionary for ara after a search for aram found no results), i.e. that the Latinesque alphabet spelling might not be standardized.

Beware that the PTS dictionary requires of you a semi-exact spelling when you do a lookup, for example to find Kālika you must search for Kālika (and searching for Kalika won't find it).

There's also this Glossology.
It only lists dhamma-related words (so it's not a full dictionary), but its entries are a bit fuller than the dictionaries'.

Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism is another source. http://www.international.ucla.edu/institute/article/149341

I found this one, which seems to aggregate answers from several different dictionaries. Still a LOT of words missing from the Dhammapada (which I'm working on adapting) but a very useful resource for trying to pick apart Pali texts:
http://dictionary.sutta.org/

For Pali, I use The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary.
Here are the options I choose for best results (in general) i.e. Search entry words only and Words starting with (as mentioned by ChrisW in his answer)

For Sanskrit, I use Sanskrit Dictionary and Spoken Sanskrit.
I will even use Wiktionary e.g. for etymological information. In fact, I tend to look up a Pali word, explore its Sanskrit ancestor/relative in the Sanskrit Dictionary and then check etymology in Wiktionary.


text:
Is there a defined sequence of events when a Buddhist enters a temple?
As there are sequence of events which happen in other religions, do such things happen in Buddhism also?
For example:
Consider Christianity, it starts with a worship, then a sermon follows, followed by offerings and then end with a blessing from the priest.
Consider Hinduism, it starts with entering the temple, a silent prayer, followed by a blessing from the priest.
So, is there a defined set of sequences when a Buddhist enters the (Buddhist) temple?

Wait, I'm confused. When a christian enters a church, there is always a sermon etc.? I think you are mixing two things: what you do when you enter a temple vs. what a standard "service" looks like.

@AndreiVolkov It was just an example.  I meant to highlight the sequence of events tradition which happen at most religious houses.

sequence of events that practitioner does, or that the priests do?

@AndreiVolkov Practitioners.

It depends on the temple and what part of it you're entering.
For instance, I used to be involved with my local Mahayana Temple.  Whenever we entered the meditation hall, we did the following..

Took off our shoes
Bowed to the altar, with our hands together in front of our chest.
After meditation, bowed each time the meditation leader rang a bell (some leaders had us do full prostrations instead).
When leaving, we turned to face the altar and repeated #2.

1, 2 and 4 were common to all the Buddhist Temple meditation halls I visited.