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

"Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.
"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another good sutta is SN 44.9 which states:

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

Here's another - Dhammapada 400:

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

And another - SN 12.19:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You have a wrong view

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
What is the root condition for (each of the) unwholesome roots of greed, ill-will and delusion (raga, dosa, moha)?
Would it be helpful, wholesome, skillful and wise to investigate the root condition of (each of) the three poisons/unwholesome roots of greed, ill-will and delusion (raga, dosa, moha)? [Why these three and not some random qualities like baseball, terpenes and a Farm Aid concert?]
And why do vast amounts of beings seem to tend more towards lust, ill-will and ignorance instead of wisdom, wholesomeness and skillfulness? Why is our true nature still mostly obscured?

Upvoted to cancel downvote because downvoting without explanation is not helpful.

Original question: what is the root condition for the vast amount of uninstructed worldlings?

All Buddhist teachings revolve around the same core, Dependent Co-Arising, usually described as the Twelve Nidanas.
Dependent Co-Arising refers to the process of development of informational (representational, semiotic) reality, starting with unconscious causational/informational tendencies, to basic inclings of rudimentary representation, to development of mind, to emergence of representational "entities", culminating in an idea of Self as Subject of experience and Agent of action.
This process grows hand-in-hand with (co-develops in conjunction with) development of behavioral tendencies for attraction, repulsion, and judgement in general (of things as "good" and "bad"). When these two things - the representational reality made up of entities and self - and the judgement-based attraction/repulsion - come to maturity, we end up having something that thinks of itself as a sentient being acting in a world of good and bad entities, trying to acquire the good, and get rid of the bad. But because the fundamental assumption this is all based on is false - because in fact the world is not made of fixed entities, and they are not inherently good (desirable) or bad (undesirable), this situation leads to all kinds of turbulence, that to these so-called "sentient beings" looks like a valid struggle against trouble and suffering, towards some imagined idealized happy state. The funny thing though is, the more each of these "sentient beings" acts to obtain happiness for itself, the more trouble they (us) create for each other, and therefore for all of them (us). So to them (us) it looks like they (we) are trying hard to make things better, but in fact they (we) end up perpetuating this confusion and struggle.
This situation is the core condition of the vast amount of uninstructed worldlings. They (we) think their (our) subjective idea of the world is what the world is, and they (we) seriously try to act within it, only causing more trouble, endlessly.
The Three Roots are a distilation of the above to three basic tendencies in the minds of sentient beings. A tendency for assuming something as desirable, a tendency for assuming something as undesirable, and a tendency for taking subjective (representational) things at the face value as if they were objective.
It's kinda sad, if you think about it.  Even tragic, if you ask me. Out of this vast field of energy develop formations capable of representation, and then these formations seriously think they need a new cell phone or a bigger breast. It would be comical if it weren't so sad.

Thanks. It’s boggling how Dependent Co-Arising (and mindfulness too) is said to have been rediscovered by the historical Buddha right? How and why is the realization of Dependent Co-Arising and mindfulness obscured and unobscured? What are the forces and energies associated with the obscuration and unobscuration and what’s their source/origin? Perhaps this is also asking about the who, what, why and how of the yugas and/or beginningless and endless cycles of birth and death?

I think it's just a natural process of evolution/maturation of mind. In the beginning there is no ability to differentiate and recognize, then this ability develops but not without its flaws, and then when it gets fully mature to the level of becoming aware of its own limits and mechanisms that's when we call it Enlightenment. As to the exact forces at play during the early phases of this process of evolution of mind, I think it's up to the future humans to study and fully describe it in all the details. Certainly, Peirce's tendency of the habits to grow plays a key role, as far as I can see.

Reminded of this: “[Bodhi Nirvana] is the primal bright essence of consciousness that can bring forth all conditions. Because of conditions, you consider it to be lost. Living beings lose sight of the original brightness: therefore, though they use it to the end of their days, they are unaware of it”

To say that the original mind is enlightened is a bit of a poetic exaggeration IMO. To give an analogy suppose there was a child who was happy and harmonious with its surroundings until it grew up to an adult and got into a conflict and struggle, but then at some point grew wise and learned "to be like a child". It's not that he actually came back to that childish state, but he did realize that his taking of the adult things all too seriously was actually unnecessary and returned to that open-mindedness and the feeling of trust he used to have as a child.

So it's not that you were literally Enlightened and forgot it. It's more like, as our inteligence grows it first creates these half-baked ideas that it takes seriously and either craves or avoids them, and then it gets over that phase and no longer takes them too seriously and in that sense we can say it returns to its original state. But the reason it no longer takes them seriously/craves/avoids (i.e. the knowing and seeing things as they are) is not at all the same reason it had initially (i.e. the ignorance-as-bliss).

This question goes too far. The Buddha taught greed, hatred & delusion are "roots" and did not teach about the "roots of the roots".

And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of
  the unwholesome. MN 9

Ultimately, the Buddha taught these are lead by "ignorance" and that there is no preceding cause of ignorance:

Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience & lack of concern. SN 45.1

Bhikkhus, this is said: ‘A first point of ignorance, bhikkhus, is not seen such that before this there was no ignorance and afterward it
  came into being.’ AN 10.61

The above defilements are merely elements (dhatu) of nature (refer to MN 115; SN 14.12; AN 7.11). This is all that needs to be known.

Great point. If mentioning the cause and process of ignorance would have been skillful for the realization of Nibbana the historical Buddha would likely have mentioned it.

Wondering if there are finer and more subtle dimensions of natural laws — perceivable by the fully awakened — which governed what was taught by the historical Buddha. Maybe we can pick up the analysis of ignorance and refined nuances of natural law after we all realize full liberation/the true heart’s release.

Ignorance does not have a cause (hetu). However, it is sustained or fed by the five hindrances and can be destroyed by wisdom. Please read this link: https://suttacentral.net/an10.61/en/bodhi

Because we chase delight, relishing and craving, there is suffering. Thinking to have only delight, we run away from pain, chasing pleasure. This is delusion.

Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti.
  Delight is the root of suffering --MN1/Bodhi

We build our identities on this chase, running after pleasure, avoiding pain, building up our selves, refusing to see the wisdom of the Four Noble Truths:

The noble truths of suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the way of practice that leads to the cessation of suffering --MN141/Sujato

The way out is the Noble Eightfold Path. Start with Right View:

A noble disciple understands the unskillful and its root, and the skillful and its root. --MN9/Sujato

The terms used in the suttas are precise yet open to personal interpretation. Here are my interpretations:

root is understood to be analogous to the root of a plant. A root emerges from a seed and supplies nutrients for the plants's existence. When plants are cut above the root, many will spring back to life. When plants are uprooted, they are gone and don't come back.
condition is a necessity for something else. A condition for bread is warmth that encourages yeast to rise. Conditions are not causes.
cause makes something happen actively. Yeast causes bread to rise if conditions are favorable.

For example, I would say that ignorance is a condition for delight to become the root of suffering. Even that statement might be inaccurate because it is possible (?) that delight simply would not happen for the Buddha. Delight does happen for me even though I am not ignorant of it or its effect. And delight still causes suffering for me even though I am aware of my ignorance.

The term "Delight is the root of suffering" refers to suffering rather than the causes of suffering.

Without the root, the plant cannot grow. In this sense of dependent origination, delight is the original cause of suffering (greed, hate and delusion).

we have discussed this before. regards

Indeed. So we each have different experiences of the truth.

Ignorance is a cause of suffering. Delight (craving-attachment) is the root of suffering because the mind becomes disturbed when craving-delight-attachment arise. Delight is a form of suffering. Ignorance is not a form of suffering.

@Dhammadhatu please do not misquote the Buddha. The phrase "cause of suffering" occurs twice in the Pali Canon. Please see AN4.9: "Taṇhaṃ dukkhassa sambhavaṃ"  or "craving is the cause of suffering". https://suttacentral.net/an4.9/en/sujato

Dependent origination of suffering has ignorance as the 1st cause. Now, back to the topic of discussion, suffering is like a tree. Delight is its root and  sorrow, lamentation, etc, are is fruits.

Thought “tanha” is the cause of suffering — translated literally meaning “thirst.”

Ignorance is a condition for choices. Later, it is said that craving is a condition for grasping. (SN12.1). The words "condition for" are words I might use to say "light, water, nutrients are a condition for plant growth". But these conditions are not the cause. MN1 clearly states that Nandi (delight/relishing, etc.) is the root of suffering. Not ignorance. Ignorance is a condition which allows all the DO chain to happen. In a barren field with light, water and nutrients, plants will not sprout because barren fields have no seeds. Delight is the seed.

Ok so anyone have explanations/definitions and analogies for “cause(s),” “condition(s),” and “root(s)”?

@vimutti thanks for question. Updated answer

Have also read: “Enjoyment is not the problem; clinging is the problem”

In my personal experience, with practice, enjoyment does in fact become a problem. One chases transient enjoyments, clinging to that chase, extinguishing each in turn. One clings, if you will, to the process of finding and extinguishing clinging. That sounds circular, but our delusions often are loopy.

Yes, “One clings, if you will, to the process of finding and extinguishing clinging” is still clinging. (And in the commentary mentioned above this seems primarily centered around delight/enjoyment.) This may be the highest and/or most significant Buddhist paradoxes.

It's because not seeing, not knowing, Dukkha, e.g. lack of recognising Dukkha, that the roots of Dukkha arise. Is because not hearing/remembering the good Dhamma with proper attention, that lobha, dosa and moha penetrates the mind. And what is the lack of Dukkha, as a cause of Saddhā/Saddha (sacrifice) arising? Birth is the cause of Dukkha. So it's by taking birth, by coming into being at auspicious conditions and hearing/remembering the Dhamma at proper time, that path and fruit, the way beyond is obtained, conditions for further becoming uprooted, abound.
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Posadha 8th precept
The eighth precept refers to using high and luxorious beds and seats. Suppose one was at a café or other public place using a laptop to study Dharma. Would it be a violation of the precept to use a basic chair and table? Sitting on the floor wouldn't seem to be socially acceptable in these situations.

See also How can one define luxurious beds and seats in the eighth precept?

For practicality reasons, some of the rules are not applicable when navigating through modern day society. Even some monastic rules can be quite absurd but one has to be self-reflective enough to determine that for themselves. When you find yourself in luxurious surroundings, it's an opportunity to examine how your mind is responding to that type of environment.
The opportunity to practice is always available in any situation.

When using a laptop... sitting in a cafe... fearing sozial lose..., possible using others wlan, "enjoying allowed tonics" and others resources... a question, "is it suitable to sit on a chair?" is really pointless, isn't it? That is how the Uposatha observance pulls one out of dangers, by simple precepts. (and to get it not wrong, yes, it would be merely crazy to play the occupy game and sit on the flour while not having left the benefits of common society). Brahmacariya actually "cuts off" of socializing as usual, but to tend toward societies living differently. Maybe this is of help for getting the meaning of purpose, step by step: Methuna Sutta: The Discourse on Coupling (The seven bonds of sexuality).
It's not so, like in other answer suggested that Dhamma should be modified that it fits to ones usual ways but to pull one willing outof Samsara on the lane of letting go and liberation.

Sangama [fr. saŋ+gam] 1. meeting, intercourse, association Sn 681; J ii.42; iii.488; v.483. -- 2. sexual intercourse M i.407; J iv.106.

Talk in German: Sozialisieren - សង្គម [Sangama]
If willing to come down from a householders-chair, there are some explainings on how to observe preceptsn Rituals & Ceremonies - [Rituale & Zeremonien] sikkhāpada & pūjāvidhi
(It's possible of use to chance posadha into Uposatha in the question header)
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

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


text:
What is the history and (current) location of the root text sources comprising the Pali Cannon?
Seeking physical and online resources; books; articles; etc. concerning the history, public (and private) images and (current) location of the root text sources comprising the Pali Cannon

What for? For which purpose? ??

To give transparency to the validity of the publicly available version of the Pali Cannon and for the well-being of all.

Nobody, including Sujato & Brahmali, knows anything real about the history of the texts. Dhamma is an experiential tradition. The Dhamma refuge is: " this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves."

You may like some other facts not from the main stream to decide how to assert the Pali Canon. The Chinese Vinayas, five of them preserved from the earliest 18-Buddhist Schools, mentioned writing sutras were readily available and existed during Buddha's time. Oral recitation is just the case for Pali Canon, due to their lack of writing means or not civilized as the mainland India at that time?

@Mishu米殊 Do you know what the earliest surviving Chinese manuscripts are, how complete they are, and what medium[s] they're written on? I think that writing existed -- but that paper, also palm leaves, parchment, etc., aren't durable. Small quantities of writing may survive e.g. if it's inscribed on stone, or clay, or metal (sometimes gold leaf). But the Tripitaka is about 15,000 pages of modern small print.

@Mishu米殊 The way the Pali Canon was transmitted by oral tradition, is consistent with the way the Vedas was transmitted for thousands of years. The composition is in a poetic form, using mnemonic formulae for memorization and recitation. The recitation would have also served a ritualistic or ceremonial purpose. Even the tradition says that in the First Buddhist Council, Ananda and Upali recited the suttas and the vinaya. Even if they did not recite in Pali, they would have recited in a Prakrit dialect that's very similar to Pali.

I agree with you, archaeological evident depends on the mercy of time, @ChrisW. The point here is, there are double standards employed by certain scholars who wanted to promote their views. They libel the Mahayana Sutras' authenticity one factor is no physical text existed that can carbon-dated to 500BCE, the Buddha's time, though the physical Mahayana text did exist which dated 75CE v.s. The Pali Canon dated 1600CE. Meanwhile the Ashoka Edicts dated 250BCE has the Mahayana text inscribed. But they said the Mahayana is not authentic Buddhavacana only the Pali Canon is...

... they teach the Theravadins to libel the Mahayana - the major part of the Buddhavacana. You know well simply reading the posts in this forum. I knew you haven't engaged in it, if any affliction that's totally accidental since you can only rely on the English or French media. If you have bit of confidence on the Buddha's word, not merely a scholastic or intellectual exercise, you should know that libeling the authentic Buddhavacana is very undesirable to one's merit (good fortune) for Dharma. About the Chinese text, Fangshan Stone Tripitaka is dated to 600CE, probably you knew about it.

@ruben2020 Reciting Sutras of course is a practice in the monastery at Buddha's, even today in Chinese Mahayana monastery they recite the Heart Sutra and Diamond Sutra. My point is, in the vinaya texts, not just one, at least 3 out of 5 survived in the Chinese Tripitaka, incl. the earliest school the Mahasamghika, reported textual sutras existed at Buddha's time. Why your tradition has to insist only oral recitation can transmit the Buddha's words? When Kindle is available, doesn't the printed book also?

I can guarantee you @ruben2020, with my personal honour, that Pali is an artificial language invented based on the Sanskrit, the first "Pali Canon" was written in Sinhalese letters, until Buddhaghosa copied them into the Pali Canon with the Pali script. Then the Sinhalese text was burnt - the mythology of the Deva burnt it to test Buddhaghosa. That is the real story.

I don't dislike Pali Canon nor question its authenticity, I only dislike it claimed its the totality of Buddha's words, which is false; and I dislike it said the Buddhavacana only transmitted through their oral recitation, which is false again. We base on evidence to discern the truth that's beneficial for Dharma cultivation, not base on propaganda, authority, scholar or status - Bhikkhu. When you write those posts to say the Buddha said OK for eating meat, and engaged in selling meat etc., please specific your view is based on the Theravadin teaching, that I would much appreciate @ruben2020

@Mishu米殊 BTW, meat trading business is against Right Livelihood. It is true that Theravadins may not accept Diamond or Lotus Sutras as Buddhavacana, but I don't see why you need the acceptance or approval of Theravadins, for your practice. Similarly, I think Tibetan Buddhists don't need to care if some of their teachings or practices are not accepted by Chinese Buddhists or Theravadins. To be honest, I've tried to understand and link Mahayana emptiness to Theravada emptiness in this question, so I do appreciate the Mahayana teachings.

@Mishu米殊 I'm grateful that on this site I'm able to get some introduction to the Pali canon, and to Mahayana doctrine (as well as various people's insights about how to interpret and summarise them). For example, thank you for your posting (recently) an answer about the Diamond Sutra, including your recommended translation of it. Also one of the first answers I researched (this one) involved a study of the agamas alongside a Pali sutta. Of course I have also been glad to find that at least the Pali is so accessible, via English translations etc.

Please read the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" (hard copy can purchased here) by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali.
The abstract states:

This work articulates and defends a single thesis: that the Early
  Buddhist Texts originated in the lifetime of the Buddha or a little
  later, because they were, in the main, spoken by the Buddha and his
  contemporary disciples. This is the most simple, natural, and
  reasonable explanation for the evidence.
Our argument covers two main areas:
  1. The grounds for distinguishing the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) from later Buddhist literature;
  2. The evidence that the EBTs stem from close to the Buddha’s lifetime, and that they were generally spoken by the historical
  Buddha.
Most academic scholars of Early Buddhism cautiously affirm that it is
  possible that the EBTs contain some authentic sayings of the Buddha.
  We contend that this drastically understates the evidence. A
  sympathetic assessment of relevant evidence shows that it is very
  likely that the bulk of the sayings in the EBTs that are attributed to
  the Buddha were actually spoken by him. It is very unlikely that most
  of these sayings are inauthentic.

Also, "A History of Mindfulness" (and here) by Bhikkhu Sujato (as suggested by Andrei Volkov).
Another good source is "History of the Buddhist Canon" by Daniel Veidlinger, who teaches Comparative Religion at the California State University.
Also: "On the Very Idea of the Pali Canon" by Steven Collins.
This chapter maybe interesting to you: "Recent Discoveries of Early Buddhist Manuscripts: And Their Implications for the History of Buddhist Texts and Canons" by Richard Salomon.
For a scholarly paper on early manuscripts, see "The Senior Manuscripts: Another Collection of Gandharan Buddhist Scrolls" by Richard Salomon. But this paper discusses only one set of manuscripts that was discovered.
Perhaps, it should be made clear that the oral tradition of the Pali Canon is much more important than the written version. Please see "Pali Oral Literature" by L.S. Cousins. I quote below:

Early Buddhist literature is an oral literature. Such a  literature is
  not without its own characteristic features. A widespread use of
  mnemonic formulae is one of the most typical of these. I would refer
  to the considerable body of research on the nature of oral epic
  poetry. In such poetry the formulae are used both as an aid to actual
  performance and to maintain the continuity and form of the epic
  tradition.
Both these features are certainly present in the sutta literature. In
  the first place many suttas are clearly designed for chanting. We
  should assume that, then as now, their chanting would produce a great
  deal of religious emotion - the pamojja and piti-somanassa of the
  texts. The difference of course would be that the language of the
  suttas would still be directly comprehensible to the hearers. In these
  circumstances suttas would be chanted by individual monks both for
  edification and for enjoyment. We may compare the recitations
  attributed to Ananda and Upali in accounts of the First Council. In
  practice they would have to be tailored to the needs of the particular
  situation ~ shortened or lengthened as required. An experienced
  chanter would be able to string together many different traditional
  episodes and teachings so as to form a coherent, profound and moving
  composition.

Also, The History of Mindfulness by Ajahn Sujato.

Thanks. Before diving into the recommendations: 1) Is the physical medium of the original Pali texts mentioned (e.g. India ink on papyrus)? 2) Are there references to scientific reports of the Pali source texts being carbon dated to better determine age? 3) Are current methods of preserving the physicality of the original Pali source texts addressed? 4) Are the physical locations of the above mentioned texts given?

@vimutti Chapter 3 of "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" talks about both oral and textual transmission, and provides references to other scholarly works. Please see the references for section 3.6.

The oldest extant complete Pāli Canon in manuscript form is from 1500 AD, 2000 years after the Buddha, but that this collection preserves older text is well-known, because of the amount of parallels it has with older literature, such as that preserved in China.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=8jPYUCy-GxQC&pg=PA4&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
There used to be a very old Pāli Tipiṭaka housed at Aluvihare Rock Temple in Sri Lanka, but it was destroyed during the Rebellion of 1848.
More on the poor state of preservation of Pāli manuscripts (largely due to war, poverty, and climate) here: http://www.academia.edu/6508616/Pali_Manuscripts_of_Sri_Lanka
Also in the above article you will find recounted the tragic destruction of most ancient Sri Lankan manuscripts, which had to be reconstructed with Burmese and Thai manuscripts.
Compare this with the Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama, Lesser Sarvāstivāda Saṃyuktāgama, Dharmaguptaka Dīrghāgama, & related vinaya texts from the 팔만 대장경 (Palman Daejanggyeong, or the “Goryeo/Koreana Tripiṭaka”), which is from the 1200s. That is the oldest complete collection of EBTs currently extant. These texts were translated in China from an unknown Prākrit language (many speculate Gāndhārī) between 200 & 400 AD.
The Koreana Tripiṭaka is housed at Haeinsa Temple in Gayasan National Park, South Gyeongsang Province, South Korea.
Document collections older than that are highly eroded and fragmentary in nature, here is a link on the numerous śrāvakayāna & bodhisattvayāna Gāndhārī fragments that date from between 100 BC and 100 AD, with some from as late as 900 AD: http://www.historyofinformation.com/expanded.php?id=149

Great answer! If those scholars wanted to argue the authenticity of a tradition by the dating of the Sutra that could be found and verified with physical existence at this very moment, the Pali Canon will queue at the very back - the end of the line ;). Even the Diamond Sutra fragment, the oldest printed book, dated 11 May 868CE, is older than the Pali Canon.

The problem is that the OP wanted a "complete" Pāli Canon. The canon is simply too large. We have many fragments and pieces from it dating back to as early as the Gāndhārī fragments, which actually include whole sūtras, like the Rhinoceros Sūtra, vinaya texts, etc. But the oldest "complete" one is in the  Koreana Tripiṭaka from the 1200s, the oldest complete canon in Pāli is from the 1600s at the very earliest, with some attestation in the 1500s. The oldest documents ever discovered in Pāli are from 800 AD at the earliest.

You should see the OP is looking for evident to authenticate the Pali Canon, he is not really looking for the source to study. And the Rhinoceros Sutra and other Gandhari fragments are not written in Pali, they are written in Kathorithi or Prakrit, which is the Chinese Canon based on to translate. Pali is an invented script to write the Sinhalese letters loaned so-called "Pali Canon", by Buddhaghosa. And then the Sinhalese lettered "Pali Canon" was burnt, that's why they now existed collection is the 2nd version...

... Why they have to invent Pali? Because over time, the oral recitation differ from the Sanskrit, they can't determine and revert back from the Sinhalese loaned text to exact the Sanskrit, therefore they have to invent a new script to hold the pronunciation. That's why Pali has many derived words from Sanskrit, when tracing back the root of the word, inevitable they have to go back to the Sanskrit word to get the root meaning...

... The problem is, the Ceylon school the Bhantes are not telling the fact as fact, they mythologize everything and trying to lead people to believe they are originally from the Buddha - which is true even they don't have the exact words after long history of recitation and adaptation; but the wrong they did is, trying to lead people they have the complete teaching of the Buddha by oral recitation (IMPOSSIBLE!). They don't admit they just have part of the teaching but reverse to attack other lineage libeling their Sutras not authentic, in order to justify their small portion of suttas...

They didn't invented Pāli. Pāli is a partially Sanskritized dialect of Magadhī Prākrit. When dealing with Sanskrit and Prākrits, we have to differentiate between classical Sanskrit and Vedic Sanskrit. Classical Sanskrit is a newer language than Pāli, but it is based on the older Vedic Sanskrit. All of the Prākrits come from dialect clusters that centre around Vedic Sanskrit. Buddhist Sanskrit scriptures are Sanskritized from Prākrits. We Buddhists even have our own dialect of Sanskrit because of the distinctive way we chose to Sanskritize, which didn't always match the official standard.

... Now, it seems their scheme, aided by the Western scholars, are taking the force. If you read wikipedia, or general media, almost all words, terms, etymologies of Buddhism are replaced by the Pali words - which are artificial. And the true Dharma is going to ruin in this way.

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: "Scholars regard this language (Pali) as a hybrid showing features of several Prakrit dialects used around the third century BCE, subjected to a partial process of Sanskritization. While the language is not identical to what Buddha himself would have spoken, it belongs to the same broad language family as those he might have used and originates from the same conceptual matrix. This language thus reflects the thought-world that the Buddha inherited from the wider Indian culture into which he was born, so that its words capture the subtle nuances of that thought-world."

"They didn't invented Pāli." That is wrong. Pali didn't exist before the Pali Canon, see my links on the OP's, read about the facts related to it. And the Ashoka Eddicts doesn't have Pali on it. It is not a natural language spoken by people of ancient or modern. It just is invented to write the Pali Canon. Other than Pali Canon, you can't find this language exist in any literature. If Pali was used, it was after the time of Pali Canon existed. Of course if an artificial language is invented, it doesn't need to be invented like in the novel Lord of Rings, it is based on Sanskrit to invent Pali

Pāli certainly existed before the canon being written down, because the canon was oral before it was written down. On terms of comparing the language of the Aśokan Edicts, we can do that here:

Magadhī Prākrit: savata vijitamsi devānanpiyasa piyadasino lāño evamapāpavantesu yathā coḍā pāḍā satiyaputo ketalaputo ā tanbapanī antiyake nāma yona lāja ye vā pi tasa antiyakasa śamino lājāne savata devānanpiyasa piyadasuno lāño dive cikiccā katā manusa cikiccā ca pasu cikiccā ca osadhāni ca yani manusopagāni ca pasuopogānāni ca yata yata nāsti savata pālāpitāni ca lopāpitāni ca mūlāni ca phalāni ca yata yata nāsti savata holapitāni ca lopāpitāni ca ma gesu udapanāni ca khānāpitāni lukhāni ca lopapitāni pati bhogāya pasu manusānam

Partial Pāli reconstruction: "sabbattha vijitamhi devanampiyassa piyadassino rañño evaṁ apāpantesu yathā coḷā pāḍa(?) saccaputto ketalaputto (ā?) tambapaṇṇi antiyake nāma yonā …" <--- this is Ven Sujāto's reconstruction, but you can have any other scholar of Middle Indic look at it and they will produce the same conclusions.

"If Pali was used, it was after the time of Pali Canon existed. Of course if an artificial language is invented, it doesn't need to be invented like in the novel Lord of Rings, it is based on Sanskrit to invent Pali" <--- I am not totally sure what you mean here, but yes, I think most scholars agree that Pāli has always been a ritualistic and ecclesiastic language, and has never been spoken as a vernacular by anyone. The same can be said of Buddhist Sanskrit, though.

This is my last response to you, Caoimhghin. I think you are smart and intelligent, perhaps I didn't say it clear, the Pali script is not craved on the Ashoka Edicts, ok? I think the Ashoka Edicts can be translated to English, German, Dutch... etc. too, not needed to be done by the V. Subjato, but any scholar well versed in Sanskrit, or the ancient text engraved on the pillars. Do you get what I mean? I'm sure those sound minds without bias understood very well what I said here. Judge with your own intelligence, don't defile and humiliate your own intellectual gift

You are right, there is no Pali script on those pillars, because it is written in Brahmi script. If you look at the two texts side-by-each, the Magadhī Prākrit and Ven Sujāto's Pāli-ized version, you can see how extremely close Pāli is to Magadhī Prākrit. Pāli is more Sanskritized, but that is about it. Ven Sujāto was not "translating" the Magadhī Prākrit into anything, he was demonstrating the close relations between these two Middle Indic Prākrits.

This is a useful paper: "The Origin of Pāli and its Position among the Indo-European Languages" (1988) by K. R. Norman

Do all the older fragments and pieces of the Pali cannon match the earliest known copies of the complete Pali cannon?

Could Pali also have been invented as 1) a special language concocted and agreed upon to preserve the Buddha’s teachings and words in an unique “official” language? Or 2) a later agreed upon language for oral transmissions to honor the Buddha’s teachings after his death? Or 3) a new language created by the Buddha (specifically for emphasizing and denoting what had been realized at the foot of the bodhi tree)?

If not already published, a work about all known original (or close to original) Pali cannon text fragments — including photos of the fragments; locations; and transcribing the (partial) Pali text fragments into easily readable modern Pali typeface — seems a most needful research project


text:
Body energy and vibrations
I’ve recently started meditation after a very stressful time. I’m having strong vibrations and energy. It feels like I’m starting to learn to control it some. My mind is telling me it can be used used to heal others? I’m trying to figure this all out, but it’s very powerful.

In "Awareness Itself", Thanissaro Bhikkhu reported this from the life of his teacher Ajaan Fuang:

A Bangkok magazine once carried the serialized autobiography of a
  lay meditator who used his powers of concentration to treat diseases.
  One installment mentioned how he had visited Ajaan Fuang, who had
  certified that he (the layman) had attained jhana. This didn't sound
  like Ajaan Fuang's style, but soon after the magazine came out,
  unusual numbers of people came to the wat under the impression that
  Ajaan Fuang, like the author of the autobiography, could treat
  illnesses through meditation. One woman asked him if he treated kidney
  diseases, and he answered, "I treat only one kind of disease: diseases
  of the mind."

Supernaturally healing others' physical illnesses in any way, is not a part of Buddhist practice.
However, healing one's mind and helping others to heal their minds (if you're a teacher), is part of Buddhist practice.
For example, Ajaan Fuang told another person:

After the (cancer) treatment Ajaan Fuang visited her at the hospital. She told
  him that she had been able to concentrate her mind so as to endure the
  pain, but it had left her exhausted. He advised her: "You can use the
  power of concentration to fight off pain, but it squanders your
  energy. You have to approach the pain with discernment, to see that
  it's not you. It's not yours. Your awareness is one thing, the pain is
  something separate. When you can see it in this way, things will be
  easier."

The Buddha taught this in SN 22.1 (below), instead of supernaturally healing people.

"When this was said, the Blessed One said to me, 'So it is,
  householder. So it is. The body is afflicted, weak, & encumbered. For
  who, looking after this body, would claim even a moment of true
  health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should train
  yourself: "Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will be
  unafflicted." That is how you should train yourself.' That's how I was
  sprinkled by the Blessed One with the deathless ambrosia of a Dhamma
  talk."

Treatment of medical conditions is best left to medical professionals. The Buddha forbade monks from providing services of medicine, surgery or pharmacy to lay people in DN 2.
The Buddha also advised people to take good care of their health, for e.g. he advised against overeating in the Donapaka Sutta.

This is quite normal for a beginner. There are many wrong assessments about the person's attainment.
It is advisable you read Path of Purification so you will have a better understanding of various experiences you encounter in mediation.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf


text:
Which (semi)secret societies influence Buddhism?
What are the names of the (semi)secret societies — any and/or all of them — that have influenced, are influencing (and, via common consent, may influence in the future) Buddhism?

I've seen talk of secret societies before in relation to Buddhism but can't imagine where it comes from. Perhaps it arises from the conspiracy theory culture we live in.

To clarify, the key word here is “influence.” Not so much that there are secret Buddhists withholding secret Dhamma. Rather, we can see how some large public organizations are now very interested in the popularity of mindfulness which may result in a knock-on effect on “Buddhism.” Where attention goes, energy flows. So then, why wouldn’t those in power attempt to exert influence? Furthermore, wouldn’t those in power (outside of Buddhism) have less power if they were 100% transparent? As a reference please look to the vast amount of State secrets and the “security clearances” involved.

You may look at Theosophical Society, it shaped the Theravada and constructed the term Early Buddhism. They have involved in instigating the two WWs. Of course there are more... do you think the one in power wanted everyone to get enlightened? What we get in general public, the most popular, the voted answers, or the highest scores... are resulted from devices and schemes to herd people in certain direction. Even in scientific field there are curfews not to mention arts like Buddhism

@Mishu米殊 Please post that as an answer not a comment.

@Mishu request to please list the societies when it was referred to: “of course there are more.” Thanks.

... I just am not sure if this forum can contain it? Secret society is touchy and "conspiracy" is designed to put doubts to the minds of many, it doesn't bare a good name. I avert the name "conspiracy theorist" which I am not, and among them are double-roled spies who mix in hilarious theories to discredit the real one... Definitely there are infiltration into the Samgha & Sangha... Some Bhiksus/Bhikkhus are financed and promoted to spread or market certain views... If I post a post to state this it will not work here... and it's too complicated to explain... involves history... politic

I guess you could say that lots of people "influence Buddhism". An article like this mentions the names of many people and organizations. It's really unclear what you mean by a "secret society" or a "(semi) secret society" -- also what you mean by "influence Buddhism". I suppose that generally every person and every organization (or "society") has some limited effect (often a local effect) or influence.

Or you could say that the Dhamma is centuries-old and timeless; or that people are mostly influenced only by their teachers (i.e. the "sangha" or "lineage"). There are modern individuals who found popular organizations ("S. N. Goenka" for example). I don't think this question is answerable as-asked -- too broad, too vague. And questions which ask about secrets may be unanswerable by definition (because if it can be answered then it's not secret). The three current answers all more-or-less refuse to answer it.

Example: the book Freemasonry's Cult Abuses: Human and Gay Rights Controversy http://www.thevinnyeastwoodshow.com/uploads/1/3/1/2/1312301/__freemasonrys_cult_abuses_ebook.pdf It exposes firsthand some of the secrets of Freemasorny which may be considered a semi-secret society as Freemasorny is well known around the world and even open to the public at times while still maintaining (mostly) secret rites, oaths, signs/gestures, ceremonies, rituals, handshakes, passwords and other secrets. There’s plenty of documentation on semi-secret societies. True secret societies wouldn’t be secret if known

The Dhamma(teachings of the Buddha) is the sole authority on Buddhism and the Sangha are the guardians of it. There is no need for secret societies in Buddhism. It is not supposed to be secret or hidden.
The Dhamma has the following 6 qualities:

Svakkhato: The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is Excellent in the beginning (Sila — Moral principles), Excellent in the middle (Samadhi — Concentration) and Excellent in the end (Panna — Wisdom),
Samditthiko: The Dhamma is testable by practice and known by direct experience,
Akaliko: The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.
Ehipassiko: The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test and to experience it for themselves.
Opaneyiko: The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.
Paccattam veditabbo vinnunhi: The Dhamma may be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.

It is like the moon. The more it is revealed to the world, the brighter the world becomes.

In DN 16 (below), the Buddha said that he did not hide anything with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. He did not separate some doctrines as exotic or esoteric from other doctrines.
So this removes the need for secret or semi-secret societies in Buddhism. In fact, all that the Buddha taught can be found online in English, barring those which have not yet been translated to English or not yet digitally transcribed.
So, we should openly reject any groups that claim to teach some secrets in Buddhism that is accessible only to those who join those organizations and swear to keep secrets.

Thus spoke the Venerable Ananda, but the Blessed One answered him,
  saying: "What more does the community of bhikkhus expect from me,
  Ananda? I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of
  esoteric and exotic doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
  to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed
  fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.

In SN 56.31 (the parable of the Simsapa leaves), the Buddha said that he taught only part of what he directly realized and did not teach a lot of other things. But he said that the things he did not teach were not useful to the path to end all suffering.

Mara and his host, inwardly and outwardly, as for the Dhamma-Vinaya. As for Buddh-ism, it's not secret that it's born from trends of self-identification.
They, those unknowingly or knowingly destruct the Dhamma-Vinaya are usually of pseudoliberal, marxistic views like "The more it is revealed to the world, the brighter the world becomes." Dhamma is something that no-one can reveal for others, yet some might be ready to follow the Noble track. Others, not capable letting go of house (identification) are using all ways to pull it into their outer lands domain.
If this would be true, that this times of easy access would not be the most destructive and harming times since the last Buddha arose. What is not seen or ignored? That this Dhamma is naturally just fir those ready and willing to be tamed and not thought for common folk.
Can you see Mara grasping after the moon?
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

Are there naturally occurring processes also (self-)identifying as beings who constitute gatherings (in one way or another) related to Mara and his hosts? If so, what are any and/or all names attributed to such gatherings?

Some gather on BSe or use it...

Can " @vimutti " see them now?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer provided

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there problems or technical hindrences to do if interested?

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The escape from doubt is taught in brief here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
Does one need to make amends for a bad-action done accidentally?
Note: Originally I wrote "unintentionally" and not just "accidentally" but I have realized that even the "accidental" action described in the example below involves the person's intentions of their movements and thus even if the person's intention wasn't to break the vase they still broke the vase through their intentional action and I believe they would necessarily suffer for breaking the vase.
Example:

A person is walking through a friend's house and accidentally knocks a vase and causes it to fall and break. The friend asks for the person to buy them a new vase, but the person refuses.

Does the person necessarily suffer for refusing to buy their friend a new vase?

I am finding a trend in your questions: they mostly revolve around justice. But, to me, karma and the dharma are not about justice. And trying to impose theories of justice on them will pull you away from their true meaning. You should check out this article.

The degree that someone feels stress depends on the person's way of dealing with it. For example, if the person blames the vase's position, then they no longer feel guilty. Or, they can rationalize that the vase was ugly and deserved to be broken. The mind deals with situations in many ways, typically to help relieve the situation(most of the time this is done without thinking about the other person, but only the self.)

I think the basis of the four noble truths is that there is a way, but I do see how you can interpret as sometimes there is no way. Thich Hanh mentions that it is not about ending suffering, but suffering less.

Perhaps this is a lack of mindfulness. At any rate, this seems to the lesson of the broken vase.

You say "unintentionally" but your friend might see it as "negligence".

I didn't mean to break it!
Yes but you should have looked where you were going! No one else broke it...

I suspect that Buddhism might classify negligence too as volitional, karmically active, and a cause of suffering.
Anyway, I think that arguing about it with the friend probably counts as intentional.
FWIW a civil court might try to apportion blame e.g. based on where the vase was placed. Who knows, maybe it would be appropriate to share the blame.

Answered on this and some on this version of the question.
Good part of the question, householder Angus, has been answered here: What happens if you drop and break a plate of fruit from the Buddha's altar?.
In regard of so called unintentional action, an older reflection on it might help: , since un-careful has also effects, is to that extend intended.
Unwholesome done knowingly and unknowingly

(keine lösung = no solution/release)
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Sadhu for the care householder Angus. How ever, do not stress you to much in trying to change the past, although it is good to remove traps one possible has laid out in rage. The path is gained by being resolved on present and future actions.

Sadhu, sadhu, for effort and care.

Atma thinks that there is a "rollback" function when viewing the revisions. That might make efforts probably easier, althought, don't forget, others may have answered at another time. The issue, general, was once raised, suggested that questions should not be changed after answers arise (in regard of meaning, of course). Since it can couse stress for others and oneself. It was, how ever, not beloved in this spheres here, often more up in having nice thing to present.

"But on the internet what is written is always "present" unless deleted?", if it would remain as trap, written may lead to long and anewed troubles. See first link on traps. Delete, of course does not change the previous action, but if reminded and thinking "oh, I don't care whether still wrong", that would be again ones kamma with it. Therefore: Sadhu with care and effort!

Btw. great on topic here and to penetrate it in the here and now by oneself. Mudita!

Thought of simply linking to the version of question: not possible for now, since having no dates for the answer. Maybe.later. That should take away the stress and burden with trying to display the past correct. Let's see if possible tomorrow (remembering that changes where made while still on writting).

I have done many bad deeds in my headless life. Many living entities have been destroyed because I have been unaware: while doing ordinary karmic activities like sweeping or cleaning, while riding a car or bicycle. All these things, if not done while working for the benefit of the Whole, will create bad karma.
The solution to compensate for your bad deeds is to perform metta and expand your awareness. I was doing metta for all human beings and this practice changed my consciousness. I went out of my room with expanded awareness and saw how I can do things without destroying living entities. Living entities are everywhere and the only way to avoind destroying them is to become more aware. Metta is a very good process to create good karma and make spiritual advancement. Your awareness will expand.

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

The friend asks for the person to buy them a new vase, but the person refuses.

Well, intentional or not, the damage's already been done to the host's property and the guest cannot say that s/he's completely free from the responsibility. So even if the host did not request for payment, it should be the right thing for the guest to offer some payment to cover for the host's lost property. In terms of kamma, since the cause was unintentional, the fruit will certainly be of a different degree of severity than that of an intentional one. But that doesn't mean it'll guarantee that the guest will 100% be free in the future. Who knows, maybe in some near future, this guest might invite some of his own guests over, and his own guest in turns, will unintentionally break some property in his house! In short, if in doubt, try to play it safe and try one's best to be reasonable and responsible for one's own actions.

Well, that's why I said "when in doubt". Unless we're arahants, there's no way we can say with 100% certainty that that guest will be 100% free from his unintentional action. So one should err on the safe side to avoid any regrets later on. The cultivation of the whole Path itself is difficult, arduous, take a lot of time, and confusing sometimes. But that doesn't mean one should not give it a try!

consequences or suffering or not, there's not explicit declaration that he's 100% free from his unintentional action. That's the whole point. We just don't know with 100% certainty, hence the "play it safe" approach.

Breaking of the vase unintentionally is not bad Karma, but

Refusing to acknowledge that it is your mistake and not apologizing when it really is your mistake is usually caused by ego. That is bad Karma.
Refusing to correct that mistake when one has the means to do it is usually caused by ego and greed. Any thoughts arose, words uttered, actions performed to justify this ego and greed are all bad Karmas.