text:
Is it possible for a layman to achieve enlightenment?
Is it possible for a layman to achieve enlightenment by his or her own study without joining the temple and robes? As some of you may know I have studied as a recluse for many yrs and am again considering the possibility of becoming a monk in a temple.
The question is do I need approval from the temple etc to become enlightened or is it possible with doctrines to achieve liberation from suffering on my own experience?

What I know (realised update) there is no permanent self . the I am is only elements . to extinguish my craving is too ID my own desire ie.to b famous / have a nice wife etc the physical/ material world has very little happiness in it ..I can create my own happiness!

From what you wrote here it seems you do not really get the teaching. Enlightenment is not an escape from life, or negation to life, "self"/ "I am" you wrote is not correct understanding in the Buddhist teaching. Therefore if you base on this to make your question, it will not come out with a correct answer.


text:
Opinions and beliefs
When a student becomes aware of the thinking mind and begins to detach from it, would knowledge of how the thinking mind works be relevant to go deeper into the practice?
Would an understanding of how the thinking mind works be an opinion and therefore lead to suffering?

Do you realize that as you ask this you are suffering your thinking mind?

In (Pali) Buddhism, what leads to suffering is craving & attachment rather than opinions. Opinions in themselves are not necessarily suffering. It is only attachment to opinions or opinions born of craving that are suffering. For example, the opinion that the 'sky is blue' is not suffering.

If you had the opinion that the sky is blue and you were attached to this opinion, and someone came and disagreed with you, and you ended up arguing with them, isn't that a form of suffering? Therefore, couldn't ANY opinion potentially cause suffering? I understand that it can only cause suffering if you are attached to them, but couldn't removing opinions be a strategy?

The question you asked is the result of modern compartmental education, it is a hindrance to The Path.

When a student becomes aware of the thinking mind and begins to detach from it

How do you detach from your thinking mind? You still have to use the "mind" to detach from the mind, isn't it? Not "detach", but observe, aware.

how the thinking mind works

It is none of your business how the thinking mind works, as how the lung, the heart... the breathe works, unless you want to be a doctor, not the "student".

Would an understanding of how the thinking mind works be an opinion and therefore lead to suffering?

Opinion formed when you hold on to your "self", then you will have like, dislike; mine, yours; good, bad... etc. If you observe, be aware, then you know; then you will be free from suffering for you are above the like/dislike but see the wholeness, literally speaking.

To start with some background, Basic Satipatthana formula is:

he dwells exertive, clearly aware, mindful,
observing ... in the ...,
removing covetousness and displeasure in regard to the world;
...
...
So he dwells observing the ... in the ... internally,
or, observing the ... in the ... externally,
or, observing the ... in the ... both internally and externally;
or, he dwells observing states that arise in the ...,
or, he dwells observing states that pass away in the ...,
or, he dwells observing states that arise and pass away in the ....
Or else, he maintains the mindfulness that "There is ...," merely for knowing and awareness.
And he dwells independent, not clinging to anything in this world.
And that, bhikshus, is how a monk dwells observing the ... in the ....

Sati’patthāna Sutta

all mental states flow along with feeling (Vedanā samosaranā sabbe dhammā)

Kiṁ Mūlaka Sutta

Now coming to your question

When a student becomes aware of the thinking mind and begins to detach from it ...

In order to be detached from your thoughts you have to remove covetousness and displeasure due to sensations created by the metal activity of thinking. So be aware of the sensations arising and passing due to mental activity as discussed in Pahāna Sutta.

Would an understanding of how the thinking mind works be an opinion and therefore lead to suffering?

What you need to understand is how sensation due to metal activity lead to covetousness and displeasure and if you abandon craving and aversion to this you come out of suffering. More on this from the Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta:

INITIAL APPLICATION [THINKING]
Thinking of sights in the world is agreeable and pleasurable,
—and there this craving arises and establishes itself.
...
SUSTAINED APPLICATION [PONDERING]
Pondering on sights in the world is agreeable and pleasurable,
—and there this craving arises and establishes itself.
...
INITIAL APPLICATION (THINKING)
Thinking of sights in the world is agreeable and pleasurable,
—and there this craving is abandoned, there it ceases
...
SUSTAINED APPLICATION [PONDERING]
Pondering on sights in the world is agreeable and pleasurable,
—and there this craving is abandoned, there it ceases.
...

Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta

Also see: (Kamma,vāda) Bhumija Sutta

What most people understand as opinion would in Buddhism probably be categorized under papañca (see MN18 for deeper explanation).
The knowledge that leads to letting go is something different. It has to be an immediate experience without proliferation. I like the example of the man touching a hot hotplate. If he doesn't understand that him touching the hotplate and keeping his hand there causes him suffering, then he might blame someone else for causing him suffering or form all kinds of opinions. But if he realizes that he's touching the hotplate, he automatically pulls away his hand because he understands the cause of his suffering. Likewise the Buddha said ignorance is the cause of craving and suffering.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Traits of a person manifesting in certain ways in the next life
Somewhere on this site I read in an answer that certain traits you develop or inherit are responsible for your physical appearance. Now of course good deeds in one life will lead to positively perceived things in the next life (wealth, health, noble birth etc.), however my question is this:
Can one deduce ones physical appearance from traits in a previous lifetime? Again, of course, there are many factors coming together, but I think there could also be a general trend in this. What I read here for example was that if you are a calm, patient and kind person and/or practiced and developed patience and kindness, you would be reborn as a person that other people perceive as attractive.
I'm aware of karma and if you are generous, you lay the ground for other people being generous to you at some point in a certain way, but I'm interested in certain traits manifesting in your physical appearance, or influencing your behaviour/demeanor/impression on other people.

I think you are looking for practical causal-relationships:

but I'm interested in certain traits manifesting in your physical appearance, or influencing your behaviour/demeanor/impression on other people.

I try to list some I learnt, to add to your collection:
1. If you put up with insult and "digest" it, without negativeness or hatred, you will have beautiful visage.
2. If you respect others, you will be tall and well-built.
3. If you speak truth and words of love to others, you will have even teeth and nice lip shape, your breathe is pleasant.
4. If you cultivate  merits and do goods for the others, your ear loops will be long and nice shaped like the Buddha's.
5. If you study the Sutras, you will be intelligent.
6. If you are tender to others and be tolerant, your limbs will be flexible and skin texture is fine and soft.
7. If you tell lies and speak ills, your teeth is uneven and with bad breathe.
8. If you are lewd, you will have bad body odor.
9. If you look down upon others, are arrogant, you will be short and tiny.
10. If you harm other living beings, disassembled their body-parts, you may be born crippled, lame.
After you read some more, you will start to gain the insight of how this causal-relationship works on the physical and personal impression. This is also good for doing physiognomy. Sometimes a person maybe from the animal realm in the previous life, sometimes an animal (e.g. dog) maybe from the human, these also have the traits.
Sometimes a human maybe from the celestial realm:
a) like fine clothes, jewelries
b) good looking
c) like elegant things, music, arts...
d) like tranquility, intellectual, cleanliness
e) proud, high moral standard
This is general speaking, to authenticate any trait with cause, sometimes the traits and causes could be from many and complex, it requires wisdom.

That's giving me some great insight, thanks for the answer. Too bad I can't mark both your and Francesco's answers as "problem solved" at the same time

For the physical appearances you should read Lakkhaṇa Sutta. But it is not guaranteed that you can have specific physical appearance in next life because how much extent averse effects you did previous lives and current life. Buddha only have this exceptional and scientifically impossible physical characteristics by practicing specific wholesome acts in many uncountable lives. By practicing the Sila, Samadi and Panna taught by Buddha in this sutta you can attain Nirvana as Buddha or student of Buddha, that is for sure.

Thanks for the answer. Do these also apply to women? Can you even say that these, like a law of nature, like karma, will tend to apply in this way? For example, if someone has even and lustrous teeth, that s/he, in whatsoever former birth, maintained right livelihood?

He/she must tell no lie while he/she was in his/her previous lives, it is difficult to tell just only his/her immediate previous life.

Thanks for the answer, your and Bhumishu's answers are both equally good

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


text:
Kamma and sankharas
Can kamma and sankharas be considered as synonyms? And if not, which are the differences between both? Which is the relationship between them?

Is this already answered, by answers to this other topic, "Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?"?

They are very different concepts. What lead you to think that they are similar? Telling us that will help to guide the answers

Sankhara is a very broad word with many meanings or contexts (see link). For example, 'sankhara' can mean 'condition thing' therefore a material thing such as a tree or rock can be a 'sankhara'.
In the context of 'sankhara' a mental processes, unusually, the Parivatta Sutta states the sankhara khandha (aggregate) is intention. Since AN 6.63 states: "kamma is intention", it may seem 'kamma is sankhara' but this is not really ideal because it creates confusion. This is because a Buddha or arahant still has a functioning & pure sankhara khandha (aggregate) despite a Buddha has eradicated kamma (in the ordinary sense of the word).
Therefore, it is best to not regard 'sankhara' & 'kamma' as synonyms.
As a mental process, sankhara is 'thought'. There can be pure & undefiled thoughts. However, kamma is generally always impure & defiled, including 'good' karma (refer to MN 117).
There is pure kamma (per AN 6.63) however this pure kamma is the kamma that ends kamma. Because this type of kamma destroys kamma, it is best to not call it 'kamma' since how can the ending of kamma be kamma?

They are not synonyms. Kamma is one entity of Sankharas Dhamma. We can be taught by the following Buddha saying.

Intention (cetana) I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

Cetana is one of the Nama Kaya and as well as Sankhara Dhamma. Collectively speaking, everything is Sankhara Dhamma except Nirvana. Only Nirvana is Asankhara Dhamma (it is not maintained, use no effort to persist, not needed continuous care to survive/last).

I am also trying hard to understand the difference. however no one is giving satisfactory answer. so I have to  discriminate based on my own  gut feeling. So I am trying to explain by taking a case of killing someone.
List of pali quotes

cetanāhaṁ, bhikkhave, kammaṁ vadāmi. AN 6.63    (Note :cetnā =kamma)

ceteyyaṃ   abhisaṅkhareyyaṃ DN9  (dont execute, dont develop)

Cetayitalakkhaṇā, mahārāja, cetanā abhisaṅkharaṇalakkhaṇā cā”ti.(Abhisankhara is characteristic of Cetana, this is deadlock)

akusalaṃ kammaṃ cetanāya cetayitvā (Note : Cetnā is execution of kamma)

evaṁ anassāsikā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā”,
“Bhikkhus, you should not cultivate saṅkhārā.(Note : sankhara are to be developed)

rūpasañcetanā, saddasañcetanā, gandhasañcetanā, rasasañcetanā, phoṭṭhabbasañcetanā, dhammasañcetanā. these are 6 types of sankhara SN 22.6 (sañcetanā= sankhara , here is deadlock. but I guess cetanā is more complex then sañcetanā So we can give benefit of doubt)

Kāyasañcetanā kāya saṅkhāro, vacīsañcetanā vacī saṅkhāro, manosañcetanā citta saṅkhāro ( again sañcetanā = sankhara)

Saṅkhatam-abhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati. Rūpaṃ rūpattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti,  SN 22.79(  Sankhara(Actor) Acts(Abhisankharoti), on SAnkhata(the conditioned)

and most popular

saṅkhāra paccay Viññana
sabbe saṅkhāra anicca

Conclusion
saṅkhāra and kamma are not same.They have different lifecycles. and they meet at point of execution. Kamma is dependent on saṅkhāra. but saṅkhāra is not dependent on kamma. saṅkhāra can strengthen or weaken without kamma. but kamma always strengthens saṅkhāra.
Explanation with example
When you kill some one that is action. kamma.  and you did lot of planning and  preparation to kill one. that is saṅkhāra.
The result of kamma is punishment/reward. whereas result of saṅkhāra is mastery/ addiction.
First time when you kill someone you need lot of mental work , to plan and prepare yourself to kill. you need to resolve lot of internal conflict, shame, fear etc... but this effort reduced by half when you kill second time. and later on killing is so natural for you that you can kill someone just like one kill a mosquito. that is because you have generated saṅkhāra of killing.
Lets say you killed 5 people(ceteyyaṃ abhisaṅkhareyyaṃ). this means your killig saṅkhāra is 5 time stronger(abhisaṅkhareyyaṃ). but you have 5 kamma seeds (ceteyyaṃ)waiting for you to be killed by someone in future. now these are separate  entities.
saṅkhāra  stays with you, as your personality. and thats why it is part of panca-upadan Khanda. whereas Kamma seeds are not part of you. its not your identity. its out there in universe(or deep down ) waiting for appropriate time to come as kamma vipaka.
When you learn driving, the art of driving is part of your saṅkhāra Khanda, but it can not create any good/bad kamma-vipaka on its own.
As child our personality is build by parents, teachers and friends. We see our parent fighting, drinking etc.. This builds saṅkhāra in us. however there is no kamma. As adult your personality is replica of all that you accumulated as child.  but you are unable to generate strong kamma seed with that saṅkhāra during your childhood. If a child kills someone, court also can not punish him strongly.
As an adult you wish to kill someone, but you very well know you can not kill, and you are not seriously planning to kill. so this is weak saṅkhāra but  that does not mean there is no kamma. you have done weak kamma also. which will bring vipaka later.

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


text:
Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism?
Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism?
I think it shouldn't be considered acceptable:

because of the fifth precept
because of the first precept (smoking is physically harmful, so trying to logically defend smoking is rationalizing suicide)
and because smoking is addictive.

The reality of smoking, as I see it, include:

400 chemicals poisoning your physical body
pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packages in Canada
having a parent with emphysema spend the last ten years of life hooked to an oxygen tank
seeing someone die suddenly from a heart attack or complete heart failure
seeing someone go through chemotherapy with toxic chemicals to kill a cancer tumor and the hair loss and vomiting that comes with it
seeing people treated for cancer using radiation therapy that leaves behind second and third degree burns on the skin

Also, I think this is not exactly "craving", but rather, "addiction". The power that is has on us is purely a physical addiction: it is not due to the intentions (volition) which the mind creates, it is due to a physical chemical controlling the brain.
I find it amazing that Buddhists want to dance around the issue of addiction and their unwillingness to discuss addiction in modern terms.
I challenge Buddhists to not hide from modern addiction problems using irrelevant Buddhist philosophy.

Plus it can be intoxicating both physical and mental. For people who practice meditation or Vipasana should avoid smoking since Dizziness and drowsiness might happen if you do. If you need nicotine to keep you fresh, consume just proper amount of caffeine (coffee or tea) during permitted day time.

I have seen something like that, yes: and I'm sorry for your loss.

I put this question on hold: refer to Should this question be reopened and/or edited?

@ChrisW I just edited the question, and is in the process of formulating an answer to go with it.

@SapthaVisuddhi Even after your edit the question still reads like someone is trying to prove a point. It doesn't sound like the OP is interested in an answer.

I felt that too @THelper, but I wanted to intervene very minimally, as it is his OP. I felt that the answers for it could be of another nature, and show that it is not so, and otherwise (as you too have rightly noted). An earlier question too was of this nature (ie. someone trying to prove a point)

See also Does the fifth precept ban smoking?

Reluctantly, I must thank the OP for reminding me to give up. After 53 years of smoking roll-ups it's a tough task but a practitioner should be able to do it. Or so I keep telling myself.  .

Is smoking tobacco acceptable in any school of Buddhism?
I read that smoking is done.
The Broken Buddha includes these (and other) references to smoking.

No Sri Lankan monk
  would dare to smoke in public because this is believed to infringe the Vinaya but it is quite
  acceptable for them to chew tobacco. Thailand’s Thammayut sect likewise considers smoking to be
  contrary to Vinaya but the Mahaniky sect does not.

A study released in
  2002 showed that the leading cause of death amongst Thai monks was smoking related illnesses.

For example, here in Burma, in the afternoon a
  Bhikkhu can drink iced mineral water but not hot water, must not eat fruit but can smoke a box of
  cigars, can eat jaggary but not onions, beetel nut and not coconut.

When last in Upper Burma I noticed the
  number of Christian Missions that had sprung up, and when I asked a prominent man the reason he
  replied, ‘These missionaries have opened schools and hospitals and help us in many ways. They are
  doing the work of the Lord Buddha while our own Bhikkhus do nothing but sleep and smoke all
  day.’

Thirdly. Food. The present food regulations observed by the Sangha do much more harm than good.
  They produce ill health, gluttony, bad habits, and dishonesty. Let me explain what I see almost
  daily. A Monk goes around with a bowl in the morning, gets meat, fish, fowl, rice, etc, food that
  heats the blood and has little nourishment. But he must eat it all before noon and then starve for
  eighteen hours, so he stuffs down much more usually than he can digest and so has to sleep for
  some hours after. Late in the afternoon he gets hungry and then has to chew tobacco, pan leaf and
  jaggery, and smoke innumerable cigarettes and cigars. Bad health often results, and while boys in
  day schools are taught that smoking is ruinous to health, in the Order they are actually encouraged
  to do so.

In Ceylon
  and Burma for example, a Bhikkhu can smoke but must not drink beer, but in Tibet a monk drinks
  as much native beer as he pleases but never smokes, which is a most serious offence.

Also this answer was from someone who is known as a monk. I think it's defensive about smoking, saying that:

Smoking is less harmful than cars, chocolate, or burgers (I think he means "less harm for others" rather than "less harm for the smoker")
The fifth precept is more about "heedlessness" and smoking (unlike e.g. alcohol) doesn't cause heedlessness
Sila ("virtue") is about not harming others; a recluse, smoking in private, is relatively harmless

I watched on in shock as a monk in dark red robes smoked a cigar (while wearing aviator shaped sunglasses) at Lumbini (said to be the birth city of the Buddha). Same monk then asked me for money, maybe he wasn't actually a monk but a conman dressed in robes, I have no idea either way. Several monasteries I stayed at or visited in India (usually the Abbott was from Thailand or elsewhere, not India) I saw groups of monks of various ages smoking. It seems to be open and regarded as acceptable in some monasteries. Not here to judge, but I was a bit stunned—in my innocence & idealism of monastics.

Obviously, smoking is not compatible with the Noble Eightfold Path.
In Asian Buddhist countries, the majority of monks serve a social/cultural purpose & therefore do not practise the (entire) Noble Eightfold Path and may smoke as a cultural norm.

Smoking is highly addictive and results in severe craving when one tries to stop smoking. Addicts are not thinking about dharma, only when can I have my next cigarette/cigar. It damages the body and hurts the breath. It interferes with mindfulness of the breath and destroys equanimity.  It is the number one cause of preventable death world wide. It is a poor use of dana, people only smoke to keep the craving at bay and what a poor use of dana when people are going hungry, need medicine and education.  it is slothful and dirty.


text:
Does Buddhism view mind phenomena as chemical or as supernatural?
I was once again challenged by my scientific friends: who say that all mind phenomena is just chemical reaction!
My question is, how does Buddhist philosophy view this question? I'm leaning towards my science friends' view, after reading A Manual of the Excellent Man, where the seven aspects of perception on materiality are considered to be the combination of natural elements.
If so how does a chemical overpower another, and is the transcendental self also chemical / elements? Because if it were not, then we could assume spiritual forces were active in creation, etc.!

Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither exists independently.

Buddhism calls the physical 'material' ('rupa') and the mental 'immaterial' ('arupa') however it also states mind-&-body ('nama-rupa') are dependent upon eachother (refer to Nalakalapiyo Sutta).
Buddhism states the arising of consciousness without a physical body & sense organs is impossible (Upaya Sutta; Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta; etc).
It is likely mentality arises from the physical, as your scientific friends say, since when brain injury occurs, mental impairment follows.
I like the following quote attributed to (Gnostic) Jesus:

(29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit (consciousness), it is a wonder. But if spirit (consciousness) came into being because of the body, it is
  a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has
  made its home in this poverty."
Gospel of Thomas

To conclude, the mind or enlightenment does require a chemical basis, which is why edible food is a requisite of the path. Without physical food, the functioning of the mind is impossible.

First of all, "mind" here cannot be directly replaced by one Buddhist terminology. We are trying to get sensible knowledge from two different systems, literally, a goat's respiratory activity with an orange's.

where the seven aspects of perception on materiality are considered to be the combination of natural elements

I haven't read A Manual of the Excellent Man, "natural elements" here I assumed you mean chemicals. If these chemicals are pulled together, without the "man", can they think, i.e., inject these chemicals into a sole brain, or a highly sophisticated robot? Thus mind is definitely not chemical, although chemicals activities may relate to the process of thinking.
Second, Buddhist doesn't view material as "material", like the science way of material formed by atom, atom combined by electron and proton... baron, quark... etc. Material appears because the "Aware" (覺) stagnated (attached), combined by collected "logos" (names) stored in the 8th vijnana. Buddha used a metaphor in Surangama Sutra, that someone who looked at the empty space for long long time and worn out, he started to see "flowers" (sparkles of lights etc.) in the sky. Because of habitual in many many lives, this "material" interacted with us, like it has it's own property. Like someone walking on a path with a hole on it, after many many times, he gets used to the hole as if it's flat, if this hole leveled, he may feel like to walk on a mound in the beginning. The hollow, flatness is not the property (permanent, self-existed) of the hole, neither the mound.
Third, there is nothing "supernatural" in Buddhist teaching. All phenomena is as-is, including sometimes we read in the Sutras describing the abhiññā demonstrated by some arahants. "Supernatural" if we used this term is just because we don't understand how it happened.

Does Buddhism view mind phenomena as chemical or as supernatural?

Thus this is not a correct way to phase the question. I noticed "mind" is used widely in English discussion on Buddhism. This seems a confusing translation that often "mind" being viewed as the ultimate essence. Therefore, we have the term "mindfulness" to be praised and worked hard on. This is not, although I'm also in the process of learning can't be sure if I'm correct, as much as I've understood and learnt.

Does Buddhism view mind phenomena as chemical or as supernatural?

Neither. Buddhism views mind phenomena as relational. Mind is interplay of information - a transient flow of appearances arising from structures and relationships occurring between the ever changing forms (sankharas - transient conditionally existing assemblies of various factors). If you see it as such, mind is the other form of matter organization, it's dynamic side, it's structure and potentiality as it plays out over time. So the mind, strictly speaking does not require chemical basis, but it does always require some kind of media for information to ride upon.


text:
What is volition?
This is a third attempt at formulating a question.
This question and this question have been asked, but not formulated in a way that conveyed the question.
So now, in a third attempt, the formulation shall be: what is volition?
EDIT:
The answers still do satisfy the question in the mind, although they are answers to the question on 'paper'. Apologies for the lack of skill in phrasing the question. Let us see if the following clears up what is being asked:
Imagine life as a series of moments; one moment after another in a line infinitely long. Imagine that there is a decision that must be made, to chose A or B, both equally likely to be chosen (for whatever reason, such as lack of understanding which is the right choice). This decision is present only in a single moment within the infinite series of moments. What is that single moment of choice? What is that single moment made of, what substance, what phenomena? Who/What is doing the choosing? Why A over B, or B over A, if both are equally likely?

Good question! Some questions do not have particular, satisfying answers. Questions are tools. How can we truly understand how a shovel moves dirt? We can never fully know, because it would require knowing everything. Your quest--ion seems like that. Keep up the good work!

Decision (choice) is a pause or break from the ever-ongoing stream of choiceless activity.  This doing is done willingly apart from reflexive behavior like sneezing

What is Volition?

‘It is volition, bikkhus, that I call kamma. For having willed, one acts by body, speech, or mind.’ – Buddha
Kamma is not fate. It literally means action, that is volitional action. A deed done deliberately through body, speech or mind. Every volitional action (except that of a Buddha or of an Arahant) is called Kamma. Kamma-formations (sa"nkhaara-cetanaa, 'karmic volition') constitutes both good and evil. In Karmic Volition (kusala Akusala Centanaa), good gets good, evil gets evil. Like attracts like. It is natural law that every action produces a certain effect.
Kamma denotes volition (cetanaa) and the other accompanying mental states found in any particular moral or immoral type of consciousness. Mind is the forerunner of all good and bad mental states. Cetanaa or volition is the most important of all mental states. It is this volition that constitutes Kamma, for the Buddha says - 'I declare that cetanaa (volition) is Kamma'. Mind precedes all actions and serves as the principal element both in performing and in assessing deeds. It is mind that rules and shapes action. Words and deeds are also produced by mind.
Volitional thought when occurring as kamma leading to rebirth on the sensuous plane, feeds and conditions sensuous existence. When occurring as kamma leading to rebirth on the fine-material or immaterial plane, it feeds and conditions the corresponding existence.
There are six classes of volitions (cetanaa): will directed to forms (ruupa-cetanaa), to sounds, odors, tastes, bodily impressions, and to mental objects. The `group of Mental Formations' (sankhaara-khandha) is a collective term for numerous functions or aspects of mental activity which, in addition to feeling and perception, are present in every single moment of consciousness. All such volitional constructs were conditioned by ignorance of the reality behind appearance. It is this ignorance that keeps us from making skillful decisions.

How the word functions in the "thought world" of the Dhamma?

When contact is there, these three things are born: feeling, perception and volition (vedana, sañña, and cetana). These three things are born dependent on contact. Therefore, when there is consciousness, all these factors arise: attention, contact, volition, perception and feeling, with a combination of the four great elements. Mentality (nama) consists of: feeling, perception, volition, contact, and attention – the same factors. Viññanam paccaya nama-rupam – dependent on consciousness, mentality and materiality arise.
The Buddha says ‘Bikkhus, I do not say that there is a termination of volitional kamma that has been done and accumulated as long as one has not experienced its results.’ Therefore, he stresses, that if you fear and detest suffering, do not commit evil deeds openly or secretly. From what we perceive we create sankhara (mental formations). If the mental factor was directed to a certain matter, on that occasion there is volitional activity, and this is called sankhara.
Sankhāra means either 'that which has been put together' or 'that which puts together'. To better understand the different ways that Sankhāra is described you could read ‘Anicca Vata Sankhara’ by Bhikkhu Bodhi. In the passive sense it refers to any compound form in the universe, a human being, or a thought. All these are sankhāras. All such things are impermanent, arising and passing away. Sankhāra is used in this first sense to describe the mental conditioning that gives any individual human being his or her unique character and make-up at any given time. In the active sense (sankhāra-kkandha) it refers to the form-creating faculty of mind (volition) that propels human beings along the process of becoming by means of actions of body and speech (kamma).

What is that single moment of choice?

The single moment is an intention (volitional effort) - a ‘Sankhāra’.  So this single moment of choice – intention - needs to be skillful. An intention occurs according to what we perceive. Intentions occur about sounds, smells, tastes, and contacts that are recognized. When a mind’s thoughts are perceived, intentions occur according to those thoughts. All these intentions that are formed in various ways are Sanskhāra Upādānaskandha. The usual case is that the world is created within ownself as a result of ignorance. The consciousness created within ownself as volitional actions (sankhārā), proceeds on in search of worldly comforts sunk in the darkness of ignorance.

What is that single moment made of, what substance, what phenomena?

For an intention (volitional effort) to occur, feeling and perception should be in the mix. This is called contact. There are six kinds of contact. Contact of eye is the coming together and meeting of: eye, form and consciousness of eye. When we close our eyes, there is no contact of the eye, as consciousness of eye is not there at that moment to cognize a form. When there is the meeting of the three factors for contact of eye, then feeling, perception & intention (volitional effort) arises. The same is true for contact with the other five faculties: ear, nose, tongue, body and mind.

Who/What is doing the choosing?

There is no doer. This is dependent arising (paṭicca-samuppāda), the law of cause and effect, whereby everything that exists arises due to specific conditions. As for what is doing the choosing…. Buddha said: "cētanāhan bikkhavē kamman wadāmi" ('O' monks, I declare that the volitions are kamma). The arising of volition (cetanaa) is the result of mental factors.  They may be wholesome or unwholesome intentions.  Mental factors are not permanent, they constantly change.  They are the result of desire.
For instance if our consciousness is with the physical food we consume, we have a desire for food.  We derive pleasure from what we eat.  We have a passion for what we eat.  Thus our mind is attached to the food.  When our mind is attached, consciousness arises and grows.  It grows like a tree.  Therefore the cause for the growth of consciousness is passion, delight or pleasure and craving.  When consciousness arises, mentality-materiality (nama rupa) is established.  It is a reaction in our body - contact and feelings have arisen automatically.  There are six factors that manifest itself.  The four elements that constitute our body - the material phenomena (rupa); contact (phassa), feeling (vedanaa), perception (sannaa), volition (cetanaa) and attentiveness (manasikara). This is Kamma in the making.

Why A over B, or B over A, if both are equally likely?

Your actions are the results of choices that come and go.  You can change yourself through changes in your actions. Like the porridge in the story of Goldilocks, you have all kinds of choices, but what you want is the one that’s just right. You always shape your life by the choices you make in what you say and do. If you’re not convinced of the importance of your actions, your actions are careless. The usual culprits are distractions, either internal or external. The internal ones are other thoughts, other intentions. Usually we are not in charge of our thoughts and act impulsively. It is our cravings and our ignorance / Avijja (Avidya) that determine what those choices we make. A lot of them are buried in subconscious parts of your awareness. We shape our life by the choices we make in what we say and do.
The aggregate of volitional activities (sankharakkhandha) is a burden. Life demands that we satisfy our daily needs and desires and for that satisfaction we decide on A over B, or B over A.  This choice gets encouragement from our volition prompted by desire.

Volition is an act of will or decision to act. The volition may be produced from both ignorance (not-knowing) & wisdom.
There are three kinds of actions born of volition: (i) thoughts; (ii) speech; (iii) physical movement. All actions start with a thought (mental action), which is why the Dhammapada states:

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering
  follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.
2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness
  follows him like his never-departing shadow

It is crucial to distinguish between: (i) feelings, moods & drives; and (ii) thoughts.
Feelings (of pleasure & pain), moods & drives occur for a number of reasons: (i) having a nervous system that feels pleasure & pain; (ii) having in-born natural instinctual drives; and (iii) having conditioned drives or 'habits'. In short, 'nature & nurture'.
Thoughts & volition arise as a reaction to feelings, moods & drives. Buddhism teaches to have mindfulness & wisdom when feelings, moods & drives arise in order to not allow thought & volition to create suffering from those feelings, moods & drives. If the mind does not act upon feelings, moods & drives, particularly the moods & drives will start to lessen due to not being fed/nourished.

Bhikkhus, sensual thoughts arise with a source, not without a source; thought of ill will arises with a source, not without a source;
  thought of harming arises with a source, not without a source. And how
  is this so?
In dependence on the sensuality element there arises sensual perception; in dependence on the sensual perception there arises
  sensual intention; in dependence on the sensual intention/volition there arises
  sensual desire; in dependence on the sensual desire there arises
  sensual passion; in dependence on the sensual passion there arises a
  sensual quest.
In dependence on the ill will element there arises perception of ill will...
In dependence on the cruelty element there arises perception of harming...
In dependence on the renunciation element there arises perception of renunciation...
In dependence on the non-ill will element there arises perception of non-ill will...
In dependence on the harmlessness element there arises perception of harmlessness. In dependence on the perception of harmlessness there
  arises intention/volition of harmlessness; in dependence on intention of
  harmlessness there arises desire for harmlessness; in dependence on
  desire for harmlessness there arises passion for harmlessness; in
  dependence on passion for harmlessness there arises a quest for
  harmlessness.
SN 14.12

Whether choose A or B is depend upon volition, volition is, you have your choice whether choosing A or B. when lack of understating which one has to choose; possibly you may choose wrong without knowing it is harmful. But when you choose right that is "conscience" (sense of right and wrong).
Volition (will power, desire, incline, volition, inclination, intent, readiness) are you have chosen A or B even conscience or without lack of understanding. And conscience will come from inside of you with your soul.
That makes a choice.
Everyone's experience would vary because all aren't the same but on the way to Nirvana then we would choose A or B with a conscience.
My own experience as you asked in your prior question was if your friends offer marijuana my friends also offer me drinks but when I consume it, I felt desperate that I'm intoxicated. It depends upon our mind and our soul whether choose A or B for the rest of our life.

I think that "volition" is what Buddhists call "intention", especially in the context of "Right Intention" (and wrong intention).
This might be circular (therefore unsatisfactory) definition, i.e. "volition is intention"; but a benefit of that definition is that you can find a lot written about it, for example, RIGHT INTENTION (Samma Sankappa) by Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Intention follows view:

And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong resolve as wrong resolve, and right resolve as right resolve.

Related terms include vitakka and chanda.
To answer previous questions (e.g. "how do you develop intention where there was previously no intention?"), I think that "view is the forerunner" implies it's by developing a (new) view. For example if you previously viewed, "that is desirable", but then develop a new view (a new understanding, a new perception) that "that is unsatisfactory", then a consequence of the new view might be new intention.
See also e.g. this answer (on the subject of "free will") which I think implies that "what is volition?" as an abstract question matters less than actual decisions and their consequences.

What is Volition?
Volition is movement. It gives birth to time and space, in which it moves in.
It's what turns and churns the wheel of samsara. Creating karma.
Volition is what operates when delusion is present.
Why?
Because that's what happens when there is no realisation of anicca, anatta, and dukkha.
When delusion is present.You don't see things as being inherently empty. Then "I am" is born.
Volition itself is not self.

What is that single moment of choice?
It's a moment that was conditioned/influenced by past choices. Choice doesn't arise singularly on its own. Every choice we made arose conditioned by something else. We pick A over B or vice versa because of past conditioning. Even when it's neutral, it's neutral because of something else.

What is that single moment made of, what substance, what phenomena?
It's as empty as the last moment and the next moment to come. There is no substance. It's an empty phenomenon. The only thing giving it substance or meaning is volition.

Who/What is doing the choosing?
It's not about who or what is doing the choosing, it's about how the choosing is being done.
For someone who is not enlightened, volition does the choosing.
For someone who is enlightened, volition does not do the choosing. So Who or what does the choosing for an enlightened being? As long as we are asking that question we are still standing at the wrong vantage point. We are still under the assumption that there is a "being behind our eyes" operating. When really no one gets enlightened. And if no one gets enlightened then who is doing the choosing? Well the answer is the choosing chooses itself. Experiences experience themselves. Consciousness is conscious of itself. Phenomenon happens to itself. All without us. The biggest illusion is thinking we're part of the picture. Nature follows its own rules. You don't need volition to do things. Try lifting your arm without willing to... see...lol. I think NIKE sums it up well: Just Do It. You don't need volition to make decisions either. So it's not about who or what does the choosing but HOW the choosing is being done.

I like your tag: I think NIKE sums it up well.Just Do It. :) However, who is writing that (your) answer? The answer answering the answer itself?? ;)-

What do you mean by " empty phenomenon" do you mean "noumenon" if not then there seems to be some contradiction how can there be empty manifestation?

@ Bhumishu 米殊
Conceptually,Akasha is sitting  and writing an answer. But who/what is Akasha?Is Akasha the hands writing,is Akasha the thoughts being written unto a piece of paper, is Akasha  the physical body sitting down.If Akasha is the physical body..which part can you find Akasha? Is it the eyes,or the hair,or nails,which one is Akasha. If you break down the process where is Akasha?

@ Bhumishu 米殊There is no self-involved in the process of writing down a thought. Writing writes and thoughts think,body moves,consciousness is conscious.It is their nature.What we call self is a collection of processes that is constantly changing.If that is self then which one is it.Is it the self one second ago or the self one second to come.Which one is the real Akasha.Both Akasha and the thoughts being written are changing. But because delusion is present,volition  is present. And volition think it generates everything when it itself is generated by delusion.

@user10552.Yes it’s more a noumenon.But also empty as in it’s not self as we tend to want to own experiences.

@Akasha You do have a mind for the philosopher! Yesterday I just studied the महायान महापरिनिर्वाण सूत्र，Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra 《大般涅槃经》in it Buddha used a metaphor: A worm biting the wood however by chance of lightening or what a letter formed by the bites, an ignorant person then thinks: Ah, this worm is having intellect for it is biting out a letter!

What is volition?

Volition is the result of the 'stubborn-ed' "Self". Yes, Buddhist teaching is "non-self". But before you are enlightened, after you become one of the "sentient beings" (眾生), you have a "self" - literally speaking. This is from the mechanism of the 7th vijnana, an interplay with other faculties. While you can use this to attain Buddha-hood, Bodhisattva vowed to save all sentients with this; it will get you trapped in the Samsara as well.
=====
Further Elaboration:
Here are the words related to "volition":

執 clinging, grasping, holding-onto
念 thinking, minding (it's hard to translation, the character is formed by the "heart" (心) at the bottom; the "now" (今) at the top, thus this is an abstract word like saying "citta (heart) now", ie, at this moment the mind/heart dwelt.
願 wishing, willing

I learnt from this forum that there are a lot of issues related to whether there is volition when if it is "not-Self". This is my first time to participate in English discussion on Buddhism. For some reasons and for some people that they discard Mahayana and Chinese Sutras simply they are Mahayana and Chinese, I have to declare that my opinion is based on what I learnt thus it's Mahayana and from Chinese Sutras. I would say that volition should never be an issue to exist hand-in-hand with "not-Self", it could be resulted from mis-understanding Buddha's teaching when reading the - most likely English translated - Sutras. I discovered a contradictory translation initially when compared Chinese with the English Sutra in posts here and here. This still needs to elaborate and cross-check to ensure.
In short, "I" exists even it is "not-Self". This "I" is created by all the 8 vijnanas when they are "polluted", thus this "I" is not-true but it does exist (Something can still exist even it is not true, right? All the people and events in the movies but the movie is just a movie, not true; likewise a lie can be told and heard but it's a lie; someone can act in accordance to the lie if he/she doesn't know it's a lie). That's why the Dharma always uses the metaphor of dreaming (in samsara) and awaken (enlightenment) to describe the Path to Liberation.
Now since we can allow this "I" exists, there this "I" is the master of all when living in this world, "I" is the doer and "I" make the choice of what to do for "I" is the subjectivity to "animate" all the phenomena that's lack of the "Self", ie, "not-Self". As we talk about "not-Self" thus impermanent, inconstant, subject to change; this subjectivity is interacting with to achieve the "changes", else nothing will change/ (or we don't know since an observer is required to report), then "not-Self" will be permanent/ (or we don't know since an observer is required to report), right?
Therefore volition is "I" it's intention/choice/preference/insisting, ie, will.

What is that single moment of choice? ... Why A over B, or B over A, if both are equally likely?

When a thought arises, it's making the judgement: "choice". Buddha said that there are 84000 (means many many) thoughts in a single breathe, some you are aware, some you are not. This "I"'s existence is fed by these thoughts 念. When a particular moment required a choice, first of all, it is conditioned by Karma. That is the force, tendency that's accumulated in previous lives. For instance, you naturally like A dislike B, because the past Karma the memories stored in your consciousness/subconsciousness/collective consciousness/group consciousness related to A and B dictated. Most of the time, when someone are not acting with awareness/mindfulness, they will be taken by the Karma. Like in fact B is good for you but you will choose A, following your Karma/ habit (執, holding onto biased view without awareness). When "I" is in awareness, then you can choose consciously (念, awareness at the moment).
However, this is not the ultimate, since "I" is the result of "pollution", thus your judgement is "colored", these "colors" are from the 5 aggregrations and the 6th vijnana and the subjectivity (that's needed to make sense of what perceived, like the pole to lift up the earth for Archimedes) of the 7th vijnana, since the 7th vijnana is the house of "I". In fact, as we learnt in the Dharma, "not-Self" is the ultimate truth. Therefore with all these "mal-functions" of the vijnanas we created the world (samsara) and thinking there is an "I" existed, like someone in a dream. That's why the Buddha called these, the 5 aggregations and 6th vijnana, are the thieves.
But don't "despise" or be afraid of this "I", the Bodhisattva made the vow from the volition of "I", and you make wishes by it too. Until someone reached Buddha-hood, this "not-Self" state cannot be achieved. Therefore Buddha is all-knowing since there is none of the "pollutions" or "colors lens" in all the faculties/vijnanas, in fact a Buddha doesn't use any of the vijnanas to perceive but still perceive. These vijnanas are names only, a tool for the practitioner. Therefore in the Lankavatara Sutra or Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment it is said that using the illusory "I" to cultivate for reaching the ultimate truth/ liberation. It seems contradictory but Buddha has explaint why and how does it work, it's too complex to elaborate here. But remembered that Form is Empty, Empty is Form from the Heart Sutra, you may get more understanding out of it. Like placebo will have effect on illness, illusion could be "consolidated" to something "real", ie, thoughts can become things, therefore things are in fact thoughts, ie, illusions. Modern physics is coming closer and closer to see this, atom, electron, neutrino... observed further then matters are in fact "not solid" but just vibration... empty. A lucid account has been given in the Surangama Sutra, about how the world was created, from "emptiness" to "full of things", how the Four Greats (attributes, not really the fire water wind earth we used in common language) work, etc.

Could you expand on "it will get you trapped in the Samsara as well"? What will trap? How will it trap?

Now it's easy to see that "I" is the answer. But we can't get rid of it, literally speaking.
I hope these clumsy words help. Don't take into the words, but into the thoughts inspired by these words.

thank you. Could you expand on "it will get you trapped in the Samsara as well"? What will trap? How will it trap?

@Andrey apologize for the late reply. i will put my answer to the elaboration section.

what is volition?

Simply put it it is the intention to act. The intention gives arise to fabrications / conditioning which manifests them self later as Karmic results.

What is that single moment of choice?

Now or the present moment is the single moment or choice and you cannot change the past or time travel to do something in the future.

What is that single moment made of, what substance, what phenomena?

This single moment is made of contact. As every mind state arises due to contact. The substance of the moment is that you make the mental examination is this stimuli arising from contact favorable, unfavorable or neutral and reacting with sensations or it being present if favorable evaluation, unpleasant if it is an unfavorable evaluation and neutral if it is a neutral evasion. Pleasant feeling leads to craving and clinging and unpleasantness lead to aversion and neutral feeling leads to delusion. This keeps creates future contact and experiences which are entirely unsatisfactory.

Who/What is doing the choosing?

The person experiencing the contact makes a choice. Due to past habits we we tend to make our choices reactively. The objective is the make the choice such that what when future contact and experiences manifest themselves these would be pleasant.

Why A over B, or B over A, if both are equally likely?

What is most likely is you habitual or reflexive reaction. With much effort you can change this to one would be conducive for the future.
Say someone spills a drink on you. You think the person is careless and you beat him up. Beating someone up will give bad results. The person could immediately retaliate. If the previous would be your natural response if you make a choice to compose yourself then will not happen but the mental intention will carry some Karma. With more practice you take a step beyond there even the invention to assault the person does not arise you do not create any Karma.

You have hit upon a Vexing Question. The solution is to change the focus of your attention to something non-vexing.
I was told about the idea of Character, Story, Texture by Bart Marshall and Deborah Westmoreland. (Perhaps it came from Richard Rose originally.)
- Character means the person in the role of 'you'.
- Story means thoughts and ideas that you tell yourself and others.
- Texture is the experience you are having at the moment, "how things are".
Story keeps us stuck, abandon it. I was told: "decline to answer questions that bring up Story." This gets you unstuck. Character is simply the intersection of what and when, how you respond, choose, etc. Observe, but be unattached to it: "Oh, look what he is doing this time!" Texture is experience. "Why would we want Texture to flatline?"
With these three ideas / tools, your question will resolve itself eventually. It does not have a direct answer.


text:
What are the benefits of Dhamma in this very life that could be understood by a beginner?
Please limit the benefits to the here and now, because an ingenious youth hearing the benefit of future rebirths and also hearing hard to grasp concepts of karma might surely say “what’s in it for me now? what do I care what happens in the future?”.  In other words, one who is a beginner and who lack virtues will say “Ooh this karmic concept you teach is like borrowing money from someone I don't know and I don't have to pay right now so why should I care?”
By saying the above I’m not trying to open a discussion about Karma / Self etc… a virtue done because of idea of self as proposed by other religions where you get tormented in the future for action done here is a phony virtue, its like being temperate toward your wife for fear of losing her.

Karma works in this life too. If you are kind to people, you create friends, then friends will take care of you. This is called karma - creating conditions for your future, in this life.
When you are driven by emotions, like obsession or negativity - you become kind of blind, so you create bad conditions for yourself. So seeing your mind and developing ability to stop harmful thoughts is useful for you, in this life.
Stupid people always argue about things, they always see them from one side only. Buddhism teaches you that things have many sides, and when you see it from all sides - you don't argue. This is useful for you, in this life.

"Beginners" should be taught what is honest & true (rather than speculations & superstitions).
For example, the Maha-Mangala Sutta lists the many blessings of the Buddha-Dhamma, without mentioning 're-birth' or 're-incarnation'.
Following the guidance given in the Pali scriptures, beginners can be taught the following dependent upon their needs & aspirations:
(1) The many benefits of morality (non-harming), which include the preservation of psychological 'normalcy', integrity, self-respect, trustworthiness, social relationships & freedom from remorse & regret.
(2) The benefits of giving/generosity, which include happiness, beauty, strength & self-respect.
(3) The dangers of sensuality & extreme behaviours (such as gambling, intoxicants, etc), which include addiction, loss of freedom, breakdown of relationships, loss of wealth, bad health, etc.
(4) The benefits of the Brahmavihara, here.
(5) The benefits of concentration meditation, particularly how it brings a free here-&-now pleasure/happiness that is superior to worldly/sensual happiness.
(6) The benefits of wisdom, in ending sorrow & suffering & guiding life safely.

The Blessed One discoursed to him a graduated sermon, that is to say, he spoke on the subjects of liberality, virtue, the heavens, on the
evil consequences, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures,
and on the advantages of renunciation.
When the Blessed One perceived that the mind of Upāli, the householder, was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and
lucid, then he revealed to him that exalted doctrine of the Buddhas,
viz. Suffering, its Cause, its Ceasing and the Path.
Upali Sutta

The immediate benefits of Dharma are many many, depends on how the student gets it. As a personal experience, from someone who almost "despised" when learnt the "world religions, Buddhism" on primary school history lession formed a negative perception, to a particular occasion tasted the authentic favour of the Dharma:

You will understand how the world is formed and why everything exists, literally speaking.
You will realize that confrontation is useless, war will not end war, protest will not bring equality... you will be much wiser in dealing with matters.
You will know that humans are limitless, instead the body and mind is the cell to block our knowing.
We are the master of our destiny. What we sow is what we reap, therefore, we could be in peace with ourselves and what we do and what happen, no one to blame, no unfairness, in fact; in the long test by time.
There is a perfect stage that can be reached by mere human, not by any salvation, by any mercy of a god. This perfectness is all knowing and in bliss.
You will naturally start to treasure and respect all living beings, including plants, insects, animals... because they have the same essence in you, and you somehow involved in creating them, literally speaking.
You will become more intelligent, and with better temperament.
Your appearance will become more lovely, people will become more friendly to you and like to be around you.
You will not be driven by the hectic and noisiness of the now-a-day life pace, for you have found the center/pillar, instead of drifting like a log in the sea.
You will not fear death as if you fear darkness in an bottomless abyss or endless night; but you will fear death because the rotting of the body after death (my current stage, especially seeing the photos of the Sky Burial).

There are many many more...

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


text:
Buddhist Verse Closest To Christian/Jewish Verse
What verse that has actually meaning and carries value is similar in both Buddhism and Christianity?
This may be closed as to broad but I think it holds value to have a verse that crosses between such distinct and different religions.

How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me? Veludvareyya Sutta
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. Luke 6:31

*

In the same way others each love themselves, Therefore one who cares for himself should not harm another. Udana 5.1
‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Mark 12:31

Love the 2nd one a lot.  Is Ud short for Udana?

what type of verses are you seeking? there are numerous similar sayings

These were  good

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay
no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your
brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time
there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank
out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck
from your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:3-5

One should not consider the faults of others, nor their doing or not
doing good or bad deeds. One should consider only whether one has done
or not done good or bad deeds.
Dhammapada 50

For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. — Matthew 25:29,
If you have a staff, I will give you one.  If you have no staff, I will take it away.  -- Mumonkan Case 44


text:
How does Buddhist Logic work?
In the Wikipedia article Buddhist Logic, it is mentioned that Buddhist Logic is different from classical western logic.

‘Indian Logic’ should be understood as being a different system of logic than modern classical logic (e.g. modern predicate calculus), but as anumāna-theory, a system in its own right. ‘Indian Logic’ was influenced by the study of grammar, whereas Classical Logic which principally informed modern Western Logic was influenced by the study of mathematics.

How does Buddhist logic work then? And how is it used in the exegesis of Buddhist scriptures?

This is a very interesting article! https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth

@IlyaGrushevskiy Could you repost that as an answer, please, instead of as a comment.

@IlyaGrushevskiy great article referred, thank you

This article goes through the catuskoti - the fourfold statemnt of 'is, is not, both is and neither' - and attempts to put Buddhist logic into 20th century Western logical terms.
https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth
The Buddha would not have accepted the three classical laws of logic imo:
The law of identity: 'X=X', is different from the Buddha's declaration of "treat this as this and that as that, not this as that and that as this". In other words, treat X as X, but don't axiomatically assume equality. (on a side note, 'X=X' is a tautology, and provides no information, so not a very useful rule when dealing with the perception of identity!)
The law of non-contradition is dealt with in the article really well, and the law of excluded middle, weeell - I think we can all surmise what the Buddha would have said about that!
The Buddha saw the limits of rationality and logic, at the very least in his understanding that language is limited in that it cannot describe the ineffable, possibly paralleling Tarski's undefinability theorem.. but I am biased! :p
Of the six methods of acquiring knowledge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana), as seen within classical Indian philosophy, Buddhism embraces perception and inference. But in seeing the limits of inference ends up with the point made in the Kalama Sutta (as in another answer),

So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for
  yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering'...

placing perception as the only method of laying down the burden.

When Nargarjuna said that "The nature of things is non-nature", that statement is both true and ineffable? I have difficulty assigning a value to this statement (using plurivalent logic in the article). What is your opinion?

Who is Nargarjuna? And is he even a theravadin Buddhist?

@Kyoma - There is much misunderstanding on this issue. You need only use Aristotelian logic.I cannot explain this here but try https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2017/05/aristotle-nagarjuna-and-law-of-non.html

The Buddha would, I suspect, have fully endorsed the law of contradiction. He would not have endorsed the misuse of it we see all the time in non-Buddhist philosophy.

On the one hand, there is logic which is a set of rules for making deductions, inductions, etc. Even in the West, there are various. For instance, (1) classical logic and (2) intuitionistic logic. I believe that they have different ways of dealing with the law of excluded middle. I used to study more philosophy of logic than logic itself, and there are great differences in that respect between formal and intuitionistic.
In Buddhism, when logic is applied, there is no "set of rules for making deductions" that is different from those of classical formal logic.
Ilya Grushevskiy gave an explanation of the law of identity and law of non-contradiction that makes you think that Indian logic is different from classical logic. However, Tibetans give another explanation. We say: X does not exist inherently. Therefore, X is not inherently one with X, but it is conventionally so. It is not inherently different from not-X, but it is conventionally so. And so forth.
In the same way, the first verse of Nagarjuna's Karika says "Neither from itself nor from another, Nor from both, Nor without a cause, Does anything whatever, anywhere arise." We explain: of course, a tree arise from another conventionally, since a sprout, or a seed, is not a tree. But since it is not inherently produced, it does not inherently arise from another. We call that "refuting the four extremes of production."
When you say "Indian Logic should be understood as being a different system of logic than modern classical logic[...]" it could refer, not to logic itself but to:

Dialectic, as for instance that of Nagarjuna. Western scholars tend to describe it as negative, but that is a category that is applied as well to that of Western philosophers (such as Kierkegaard, for instance)
A set of propositions.
Epistemology.

Indian and Indo-Tibetan epistemology mainly describes types of consciousnesses. Consciousness is qualified as an object-posessor since it knows its object, and so we speak of seven types (or more or less, depending on the text). For instance, a "wrong consciousness" that engages its object erroneously, an "inferential cognizer", etc. Consciousness is always described in relation to the causes of its arising (a sense power, an object, a immediately preceding condition) and is thus not taken independently.
In the Indo-Tibetan traditions, one studies epistemology so as to know how mind works. It is all aimed at mind training and is not merely "philosophical" in that sense.

When you say "formal logic", I think you mean to "classical logic". Both classical logic and intuitionistic logic are formal logics, and there are many other formal logics with their own syntax and semantics (reasoning about time, duty, causality, etc.). You have a formal logic if you have a mathematically precise way to make statements (syntax) plus a way to determine if those statements are true or not (semantics). You have a deductive system if you have a mathematically precise way to make inferences about your logic.

Gödel proved that human mathematical reasoning cannot be caught in traditional "complete and consistent" logics, because humans are not consistent in a mathematical sense (and I'd say we don't reason mathematically symbolical) giving rise to e.g. paraconsistent logics.

To be more precise, Gödel proved that there are statements about natural numbers that are true, but there is no way to create a consistent formal system of axioms and algorithms to prove all these statements. So only if you assume that humans can prove all these statements to be true, the conclusion holds that human reasoning cannot be a consistent & complete system. I think that's obvious because our reasoning is inconsistent (we believe wrong things sometimes) and maybe incomplete (there may be things we may never know).

@Maarten I changed "formal" to "classical", since it makes things clearer indeed. Thank you. As for "reasoning about time, duty, causality, etc" I wouldn't qualify that as logic itself (syntaxic, grammatical). It is propositions, expressions.

Reasoning about e.g. time is mostly formalized as a modal logic which usually (but not necessarily) extends classical logic. Kripke created new syntax and semantics for these kinds of logics which was a true revolution in thinking about formal logic.

I would still think that Indian logic is different from classical western logic. Indian logic has 4 truth values ({T}, {F}, {T, F} and {}) while classical western logic only has two. As for the Tibetan explanation of the law of identity, as given in your answer, I could see that there is a distinction made between nominal truth and ultimate truth (the two truths doctrine of Nagarjuna). I am trying to reconcile what Ilya said with what you said on this matter. Maybe it is a difference between Theravada and Mahayana?

@Maarten = Gopel's incompleteness does not apply for the Buddhist world-view. This is because the latter denies the truth of all positive statements. This allows the non-dual world-view to transcend incompleteness - and all without any modification to Aristotle's rules.  .

Buddhist logic is to acknowledge that there is suffering.
Buddhist logic is to acknowledge that there are causes to these  suffering.
Buddhist logic is to acknowledge that it is possible to be free from all suffering.
Buddhist logic is to acknowledge that there are paths that lead one to be free from all suffering.

This is the Four Noble Truths, not logic?

The article shown by @llya Grushevskiy is discuss very interesting logic. Some extracts from it gives bellow.

... The four original possibilities, {T}, {F}, {T, F} and {}, as t, f, b
  and n, respectively....And now there is a fifth possible value – none
  of the above, ineffable, that which lies beyond language. Call it i,
  ....
We started with two possible values, T and F. In order to allow things
  to have both of these values, we simply took value of to be a
  relation, not a function. Now we have five possible values, t, f, b, n
  and i, and we assumed that value of was a function that took exactly
  one of these values.  Why not make it a relation instead? That would
  allow it to relate something to any number of those five value.....In
  this construction, something can relate to both t and i: and so one
  can say something true about something ineffable after all.
The similarities between this and our Buddhist paradox of ineffability
  are, you must admit, pretty unnerving ....

i like to give example to 'i'.
Take "Life" as a fact.
So t = life is,
f = life is NOT,
b = life is AND life is NOT,
n = NOT life is OR NOT life is NOT,
then what should be the i?
i = 'life is'  BUT 'a dream'.

....This does not, of course, show that they are true. That’s a different
  matter. But it does show that these ideas can be made as logically
  rigorous and coherent as ideas can be. As the Buddha may or may not
  have said (or both, or neither): ‘There are only two mistakes one can
  make along the road to truth: not going all the way, and not starting.

Nice point. If you check out George Spencer Brown's 'Laws of Form' he explains the logic of form and formlessness by way of a calculus and he uses 'i' to do it just as you suggest. He was a self-avowed buddha and friend of the advaitan teacher Wei Wu Wei. . . .

PS - Brown developed his logic to solve a problem in railway switching-systems. and then realised it solved metaphysics. It's an interesting story of how logical analysis can lead one to water even if it can't make us drink.

In Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, it has mentioned Vacchagotta used Catuskoti to ask questions from Shakyamuni Gautama Lord Buddha. But Shakyamuni Gautama Lord Buddha has rejected all the conditions in Catuskoti.

"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."

This is because Dhamma (doctrine) is atakkavachara. In other words, Dhamma is beyond reasoning and logic.

"In other words, Dhamma is beyond reasoning and logic" - Well said.

I would say Buddhist logic is no different from Aristotle's. Nagarjuna uses Aristotelian logic in Fundamental Wisdom to refute all false views. This is often misunderstood for two reasons.
First, where he addresses positive metaphysical propositions he refutes not just the proposition and its contradictory alternative (this or that) but also their combination or separation (neither or both). This is sometimes seen as a novel form of logic but if we see this as two contradictory pairs of proposition then it is just the application of Aristotle's dialectic method.
Second, Nagarjuna denies that positive metaphysical statements form legitimate contradictory pairs of the form A/not-A. Thus when we ask 'Does the world begin with something or nothing' he would deny that this is a Aristotelian contradiction and this is why he is able to propose a third alternative without breaking Aristotle's rules.
Nagarjuna's logic would not work if he rejected Aristotle's rules. Buddhist logic does not reject them but transcends them. I would say that if you understand Aristotle's logic them you understand Buddhist logic.
Many people do not understand this issue because they forget Aristotle's definition for a true contradictory pair. For a legitimate case of A/not-A for which the 'laws of thought' would apply it must be the case that one of A and not-A is true and one false. Nagarjuna shows that metaphysical dilemmas and Kant's antinomies do not take this form and this is how he is able to refute both the extreme views that create these antinomies and endorse a third alternative.  He does this without any need to modify Aristotle's rules.
This issue is much misunderstood because a surprising and dismaying number of philosophers do not properly apply Aristotle's rules in their own reasoning.
In short, it is my opinion that Buddhist logic is no different from the logic we use every minute of the day in our thinking. Were it to break the 'laws of thought' we would not be able to understand Buddhist doctrine.
As a consequence, and as Nagarjuna demonstrates (also Francis Bradley, Spencer Brown and others) it is possible to logically prove that all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible and in this way prove by the dialectical method and 'abduction' that Buddhist non-dual metaphysics is the only global theory that works.
For this reason the dialectic is big deal in Buddhist education.

In the original Pali scriptures, it is taught to not rely on logic:

So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for
  yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to
  suffering'...
Kalama Sutta


text:
Buddha teaching regarding eating
Some one please tell me the story of Buddha said to some one how one should eat as if they are eating their own child having lost in a desert

It's in Puttanmansa Sutta.

"And how is physical food to be regarded? Suppose a couple, husband &
  wife, taking meager provisions, were to travel through a desert. With
  them would be their only baby son, dear & appealing. Then the meager
  provisions of the couple going through the desert would be used up &
  depleted while there was still a stretch of the desert yet to be
  crossed. The thought would occur to them, 'Our meager provisions are
  used up & depleted while there is still a stretch of this desert yet
  to be crossed. What if we were to kill this only baby son of ours,
  dear & appealing, and make dried meat & jerky. That way — chewing on
  the flesh of our son — at least the two of us would make it through
  this desert. Otherwise, all three of us would perish.' So they would
  kill their only baby son, loved & endearing, and make dried meat &
  jerky. Chewing on the flesh of their son, they would make it through
  the desert. While eating the flesh of their only son, they would beat
  their breasts, [crying,] 'Where have you gone, our only baby son?
  Where have you gone, our only baby son?' Now what do you think, monks:
  Would that couple eat that food playfully or for intoxication, or for
  putting on bulk, or for beautification?"
  "No, lord."
"Wouldn't they eat that food simply for the sake of making it through
  that desert?"
"Yes, lord."
"In the same way, I tell you, is the nutriment of physical food to be
  regarded. When physical food is comprehended, passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended. When passion for the five
  strings of sensuality is comprehended, there is no fetter bound by
  which a disciple of the noble ones would come back again to this
  world.
SN 12.63


text:
Are there any teachings about how we should censure happiness which arises without right view?
Please note that I’m not referring to momentary happiness from distractive actions, like narcotic or alcohol consumption: I’m referring to excessive happiness that arises, from birth of a child, or success in career, which are not unwholesome in themselves.
Socratic/stoic tradition identifies intense pleasure as a nail that rivets us with the desire of the body, and causes cyclic rebirth again and again. To remain detached, the stoics say we should never give full license to the appearance of happiness, and should not allow our pleasure to go as far as it chooses: instead we should check it, and curb it. For example they say, when kissing your child, to remind yourself that he who you love is mortal and momentary, you should say with a lisping voice, "tomorrow you will die"; and to a friend also, "tomorrow you will go away or I shall, and never shall we see one another again".

The Buddhist tradition arose before the Socratic/stoic tradition and, since Greeks were very interested in Buddhism, it is likely the Socratic/stoic tradition was influenced by the Buddhist tradition. In other words, what is written in the question is essentially Buddhism. The following links are merely a small sample of similar Buddhist teachings:

Kisa Gotami was the wife of a wealthy man of Savatthi. Her story is one of the more famous ones in Buddhism. After losing her only child,
  Kisa Gotami became desperate and asked if anyone can help her. Her
  sorrow was so great that many thought she had already lost her mind.
  An old man told her to meet Buddha. Buddha told her that before he
  could bring the child back to life, she should find white mustard
  seeds from a family where no one had died. She desperately went from
  house to house, but to her disappointment, she could not find a house
  that had not suffered the death of a family member. Finally the
  realization struck her that there is no house free from mortality. She
  returned to the Buddha, who comforted her and preached to her the
  truth. She was awakened and entered the first stage of Arhatship.
  Eventually, she became an Arhat.
Kisa Gotami

210. Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.
211. Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or
  unloved.
Piyavagga

Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no
  desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying
  out, "Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone,
  my only little child?"
Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said to
  him, "Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady
  in his own mind. There is an aberration in your faculties."
"Lord, how could there not be an aberration in my faculties? My dear &
  beloved little son, my only child, has died. Because of his death, I
  have no desire to work or to eat. I keep going to the cemetery and
  crying out, 'Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you
  gone, my only little child?'
"That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who
  is dear, come springing from one who is dear."
Now at that time a large number of gamblers were playing dice not far from the Blessed One. So the householder went to them and they said:
  "That's the way it is, householder [said the gamblers]. That's the way
  it is. Happiness & joy are born from one who is dear, come springing
  from one who is dear."
So the householder left, thinking, "I agree with the gamblers."
Piyajatika Sutta

Then Sakka, ruler of gods, and the divine King Vessavana had the venerable Maha Moggallana walk all over and explore the Vejayanta
  Palace: "See, good sir Moggallana, this loveliness of the Vejayanta
  Palace! See, good sir Moggallana, this loveliness Vejayanta Palace!"
Then the venerable Maha Moggallana considered thus: "This spirit is living much too negligently. What if I stirred up a sense of urgency
  in him?"
Then the venerable Maha Moggallana performed such a feat of supernormal power that with the point of his toe he made the Vejayanta
  Palace shake and quake and tremble.
When the venerable Maha Moggallana knew that Sakka, ruler of gods, was stirred to a sense of urgency with his hair standing on end, he
  asked him: "Kosiya, how did the Blessed One state to you in brief
  deliverance in the destruction of craving? It would be good if we
  might also get to hear that statement."
Good sir Moggallana, I went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, I stood at one side and said: ‘Venerable sir, how in
  brief is a bhikkhu liberated in the destruction of craving, one who
  has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost
  among gods and humans?’ When this was said, good sir Moggallana, the
  Blessed One told me: ‘Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that
  nothing is worth adhering/attaching to".
Cūḷataṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta

(1) Bhikkhus, when an uninstructed worldling meets with gain, he does not reflect thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute
  … (5) … blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is.
Gain obsesses his mind, and loss obsesses his mind. Fame obsesses his mind, and disrepute obsesses his mind. Blame obsesses his mind, and
  praise obsesses his mind. Pleasure obsesses his mind, and pain
  obsesses his mind. He is attracted to gain and repelled by loss. He is
  attracted to fame and repelled by disrepute. He is attracted to praise
  and repelled by blame. He is attracted to pleasure and repelled by
  pain. Thus involved with attraction and repulsion, he is not freed
  from birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is not freed from suffering, I say.
Lokavipatti Sutta

With contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a
  pleasant feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it and remains
  holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one.
  When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and
  laments, weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the
  underlying tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched
  by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand
  as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the
  gratification, the danger and the escape in regard to that feeling,
  then the underlying tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus,
  that one shall here and now make an end of suffering without
  abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling,
  without abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful
  feeling, without extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in
  regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge — this is impossible.
With contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a
  pleasant feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and
  remain holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not
  lie within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one does
  not sorrow, grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and
  become distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not
  lie within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant
  feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the
  disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard
  to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not
  lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of
  suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant
  feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards
  painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance
  in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge — this is possible.
Chachakka Sutta

The story of Kisa Gotami etc. doesn't seem to me to be an example of censuring oneself when excessively happy.

Possibly however it establishes a easy to understand foundation for the other teachings. The questioner did ask about children.

Instead of (or, perhaps, as well as) censuring "happiness that arises without right view", Buddhism maybe praises "happiness that arises with right view": including for example Sukha and Pīti.
I'm not sure that the "censure" you mention is distinguishable from right view: right view will tell you that, right view is the view that, things are impermanent.
I think that Buddhism warns against "attachment", Upādāna, and to that extent it might be be analogous to the "nail that rivets us with the desire" which you mentioned. According to The Twelve Nidanas, feeling is a prerequisite for craving, which is a prerequisite for attachment.
So far as I know, Buddhism doesn't "censure" by saying e.g. "don't be too happy". It says that "the all" which we experience is the result of contact between things (sense-objects) and our senses (including "ideas" and "mind" as a sixth type of sense-object and sense-organ), and that such contacts are impermanent (and that it would be unfortunate to become attached to them).

Thank you for your response Chris, What I mean by “censure” is nothing but to recall a right-view whenever we feel delight, and my questions is specifically for ethical delight excluding both aesthetical delight we get through our senses as expresses in Potaliya Sutta and delight from non-ethical action that I alluded on my question.