text:
How accurate is AN 9.20 – Velāma Sutta?
I would really like to ask here: how accurate is AN 9.20 – Velāma Sutta?

Is stuff exaggerated in places ?
If you give all the stuff Velama gave, wouldn't you get at least a little more than a  "whiff of a heart of good will" while doing so  -  more moments of good will than just one ?

I'm not sure I remember all I want to ask about this sutta so if you have anything to add that is welcomed.

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

Breath, and those interested, those possible worthy of special gifts, capable to take,
assuming that accurate is meant in regard of the followed question that might be rephrased "Does the Buddha say here: Giving does not lead to merits, when saying: 'If one were to develop even for just a finger-snap the perception of inconstancy, that would be more fruitful than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and [in addition to that] if one were to feed one person...'.
Actually this Sutta (or better wrong understandig of it) is in fact for most wester and modern people the reason why they deny that making merits, developing goodness, is needed and so deny the developing of generosity, sila, if even, without goodness cause of letting go for the sake of beyond.
Most western, moder "Buddhist" are actually training in line of th Jains who seek refuge in what is called householder-equanimity by the Buddha, meaning that they develope ignorance in the cloth of equanimity the construct around the actual path of letting go and factually do not give anything but merely amass in this way. Make simply sacrifies to keep the flame of death alive, loka-dana. See: [Q&A] What happens when your tank is empty, and you’ve got nothing left to give
It's message is also (and with the same cause) that giving without virtue "regardless of whether a gift is coarse or refined, if it is given inattentively, disrespectfully, not with one's own hand, as if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come of it", or an object of virtue (without reflecting and keeping "buddha, Dhamma, Sangha", un-deluded in mind, has not much value for the path.
Giving so, no good perception of something worthy for gifts (because there is no worthy known or traced), the gift, sacrify is for like-alike, sacrify for like-alike or even lower, leads one there, keeps one there, simply for the sake of keeping the flame of death alive.
Like many (Brahmans, some even for what they think that it leads them to become Buddhas, being Velama, yet not even have wealth to share, to possible differents to Vemala) here. They possible think that they make merits why carring about an "unclean" place, are attached to like-alike and not directing their sacrifies to the three juwels, the Sangha as the unexcelt field of merits. So they nurish just whe world, what ever one nurishes will grow (inwardl and outwardly), and that counts for staring as well.
Doing "merits" in such a way, it is clear that people putting effort into perceptions which are not worthy of special sacrifies, actually just sacrify for their own sake, becoming and selfish purpose.
That is why one should keep right joy in giving in mind, using the three juwels as persection, Nibbana and what leads there, as object of ones deeds, one who seeks for gaining merits, goodness, that leads upwards and beyound. It such is done in an enviroment that does not provide for developing such, has not the purpose for such, is not supported by proper joy, people directed to Nibbana, but simply fot the worlds and becoming sake, to keep the flame of becoming, death alive, its of no fruits of no merits at all:

"Householder, regardless of whether a gift is coarse or refined, if it is given inattentively, disrespectfully, not with one's own hand, as if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come of it: Wherever the result of that gift comes to fruition, one's mind will not incline to the enjoyment of splendid food, will not incline to the enjoyment of splendid clothing, will not incline to the enjoyment of splendid vehicles, will not incline to the enjoyment of the splendid five strings of sensuality. And one's sons & daughters, slaves, servants, & workers will not listen to one, will not lend ear, will not make their minds attend for the sake of knowledge. Why is that? Because that is the result of inattentive actions."

Is like in MN96:

“Brahmin, it is like a poor miserable man against his wish was told, here good man, you should eat meat and you should not spend money on it. In a likewise manner, without the consent of recluses and Brahmins, have appointed these four services. Brahmin, I do not say all services should be done. I do not say, all services should not be done. When doing those services if there is evil, that service is not good. I say it should not be done. When doing those services, if there is no evil, that service is good. (and vici vera).

Like the person who had put Sister Uppalavannas translation with a lot of sacrifies on the web (obove linked), he had possible made it in a manner of no fruits to aspected from it, althought it might come to frutaions. Possible without keeping Silas, respectless, thinking on amasing for ones own sake or what holding as self/real. Doning for reputations, wealth (physical, mental by knowledge), praise, pleasant feeling... invest his sacrifies for unreal and not to real directed sakes. Not to tend up-wards, most not even tend as it currently is, up simply wasts his als goodness, merits away.
Many of modern lay or opposing undertakings and practices, and their ways, unguided, self-over-estmating in wealth and possiblities, simple waste old merits an goodness possible earlier attained. So it is with all that meditation stuff and well-ness-buddhism, all simple certain ego or not-ego trips.
Be attentive, pay proper attention and learn to judge more wisely, step by step, with real benefical sacrifies and their targets!
[Later Addition (on account of an answer here) to understand quality of Dana better:
There are 3 factors:

The giver (his mindstate, directed to...? free of moha, lobha, dosa, or not) - since Velama was an "ordinary" being, perfection can not be aspected, he also had neither inwardly nor outwardly an access to the tripple gems or the/a Buddha, could possible not even images such.
The recipient (since at this time there where no Buddha no Sangha and the gifts might not have been given to a Pacceccabuddha, they have been directed to "ordinary" people.)
The gift (it was clearly outstanding and therefore had it's certain frutation)

The Suttas give direct 6 factors: Dana Sutta: Giving
When one has the wrong perception of a worthy recipient, holding something not really worthy for worthy, thinking this or that wordling is a Noble one, having no perception of those following the Noble One, it is to be assumed that the gifts are given out of right view and so have not much value in direction of Nibbana. People think normal not in spheres of free of fetters but on what ever benefits or wordily aims. Having the tripple Gems possible still present, many are gifted with that unexcelt field of merits and it is merely "sad" if not used.
That is why just a spoon of rice, with the right mindstate to a worthy person excells even the biggest wealth given if this two factors are not perfect. Or just the Veneration torward a Noble is many times higher as doing charity to torward ordinary people day by day, the whole year. See dhp]
More on Dana, note that the princip in it counts also for the merits sila, samadhi, can be found with references and discussion here: Dana (Generosity, Charity) "Abhidhamma in daily life "
May this sacrify made by me, benefit those able to rejoice with it, lead to highest bliss, path and fruit, and may the Devas inform those who do not have seen or heard yet.
Anumodana!
A possible extended answer as well as space for questions and discussiin can be found here.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, and not meant for commercial purpose or other gains in this world.]

If you give blood to 10 thousand poor people, he maybe give you back
an appreciation (if he even practiced to appreciate). They maybe
vote you to be a councilman in a small town, just maybe.
If you give blood to a king, he maybe give you back an appreciation
(if he even practiced to appreciate), money, reputation, and power.
He can appoint you any position that you require (and proper for
you).
If you give blood to a practiced king, he certainly give you back an
appreciation, money, reputation, and power. He can appoint you any
position that you require (and proper for you). Especially he can
give you good teaching that he learned from awesome teachers such as
buddha. You can use that teaching to develop yourself. The
development can make you to be a good king, too, if you develop
enough.

If you in 1st case is supported by your people to be a king, you tend to be a bad king more than the 3rd case.
So, no stuff in velāmasutta is exaggerated in places. It is the truth. We can found several cases nowadays like the case that appear in velāmasutta.

"heart of good will" here means practicing Metta meditation.
As the Sutta clearly states, Velama Brahmin was not impressed by the recipients. He didn't think they were worthy. So he would have  given those gifts inattentively, disrespectfully, not with one's own hand, as if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come of it. He would've just done it to show off his wealth. Even today we have people spending large amounts of money just to make a statement.
Also, I would imagine that the recipients were making a big commotion, pushing each other to the side with greedy hands to grab as much as they can. No thoughts of Metta comes to the mind when you see that, unless you have trained your mind with Metta meditation.

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

Firstly, when reading this sutta you should understand what the writer of the sutta had in mind while writing it. Read it again and notice the bolded text that I added so you can understand what the writer had in mind (this becomes obvious when you read the first 3 paragraphs and the last paragraph):

"But in that gift there was no one worthy of offerings; no one
  purified that gift."
"If one were to feed one person consummate in view, that would be more
  fruitful than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave."
"If one were to feed one once-returner, that would be more fruitful
  than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and if
  [in addition to that] one were to feed one person consummate in view,
  and to feed 100 people consummate in view."
"If one were to feed one non-returner, that would be more fruitful
  than [the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and] if
  [in addition to that] one were to feed 100 once-returners.
"If one were to feed one arahant, that would be more fruitful than
  [the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and] if [in
  addition to that] one were to feed 100 non-returners.
"If one were to feed one Private Buddha, that would be more fruitful
  than [the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and] if
  [in addition to that] one were to feed 100 arahants.
"If one were to feed one Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly
  self-awakened — that would be more fruitful than [the gift, the great
  gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and] if [in addition to that] one
  were to feed 100 Private Buddhas.
"If one were to feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha, that
  would be more fruitful than [the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the
  brahman gave, and] if [in addition to that] one were to feed a
  Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened.
"If one were to have a dwelling built and dedicated to the Community
  of the four directions, that would be more fruitful than [the gift,
  the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and] if [in addition to
  that] one were to feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha.
"If one with a confident mind were to go to the Buddha, Dhamma, &
  Sangha for refuge, that would be more fruitful than [the gift, the
  great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and] if [in addition to
  that] one were to have a dwelling built and dedicated to the Community
  of the four directions.
"If one with a confident mind were to undertake the training rules —
  refraining from taking life, refraining from taking what is not given,
  refraining from illicit sex, refraining from lying, refraining from
  distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness — that would be
  more fruitful than [the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman
  gave, and] if [in addition to that] one with a confident mind were to
  go to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge.
"If one were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will,
  that would be more fruitful than [the gift, the great gift, that
  Velāma the brahman gave, and] if [in addition to that] one with a
  confident mind were to undertake the training rules...
"If one were to develop even for just a finger-snap the perception of
  inconstancy, that would be more fruitful than the gift, the great
  gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and [in addition to that] if one
  were to feed one person... 100 people consummate in view, and were to
  feed one once-returner... 100 once-returners, and were to feed one
  non-returner... 100 non-returners, and were to feed one arahant... 100
  arahants, and were to feed one Private Buddha... 100 Private Buddhas,
  and were to feed a Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened —
  and were to feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha, and were
  to have a dwelling built and dedicated to the Community of the four
  directions, and with a confident mind were to go to the Buddha,
  Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge, and with a confident mind were to
  undertake the training rules — refraining from taking life, refraining
  from taking what is not given, refraining from illicit sex, refraining
  from lying, refraining from distilled & fermented drinks that cause
  heedlessness — and were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of
  good will."

Velama was giving a lot of gifts, but he was doing it inattentively, disrespectfully, not with one's own hand, as if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come out of it:

"Householder, regardless of whether a gift is coarse or refined, if it
  is given inattentively, disrespectfully, not with one's own hand, as
  if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come of it:
  Wherever the result of that gift comes to fruition, one's mind will
  not incline to the enjoyment of splendid food, will not incline to the
  enjoyment of splendid clothing, will not incline to the enjoyment of
  splendid vehicles, will not incline to the enjoyment of the splendid
  five strings of sensuality. And one's sons & daughters, slaves,
  servants, & workers will not listen to one, will not lend ear, will
  not make their minds attend for the sake of knowledge. Why is that?
  Because that is the result of inattentive actions.

Think about what is in the mind of a person who gives gifts inattentively, disrespectfully, not with one's own hand, as if throwing it away, with the view that nothing will come of it? What is inside the mind of such person?
In that person's mind, there were no positive tendencies as if he is "giving gifts", but there were negative tendencies as if he was "throwing trash". His giving of gifts was no different then just throwing away trash ... unworthy things ... like trash, without expecting that anything good will come out of it. That's why it is said in the sutta:

"But in that gift there was no one worthy of offerings; no one
  purified that gift.

Thus, while on the outside it seemed like Velama is very generous and selfless, in reality, on the inside he was very selfish. That's why the sutta is saying that there was really no one giving gifts and that there were no gifts given, because of negative tendencies as if "throwing trash" as I explained.
That's why it is said near the end of the sutta:

"If one were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will,
  that would be more fruitful than [the gift, the great gift, that
  Velāma the brahman gave, and] if [in addition to that] one with a
  confident mind were to undertake the training rules...

Here it is simply saying that Velama, while giving gifts, had not even a whiff of a heart of good will in him. There was nothing good in him. He was just "throwing trash". That's why just one little whiff of a heart of good will, would be more fruitful than all the gifts Velama gave. The sutta is not exaggerated.
The sutta is teaching us that it is not the action that is important, but the intention behind the action. You can give all the gifts Velama gave: feed one person consummate in view, feed 100 people consummate in view, feed one non-returner, feed 100 once-returners, feed one arahant, feed 100 non-returners, feed one Private Buddha, feed 100 arahants, feed one Tathagata, feed 100 Private Buddhas, feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha, build a dedicated dwelling to the Community of the four directions, go to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge, undertake the training rules, etc. .... you can do all this and many more, but it will not be worth more than a whiff of a heart of good will if the intention behind all these actions is unwholesome ... it would not be worth not even more than a finger-snap the perception of inconstancy.
The message of this sutta is that it is not the action that determines the outcome, but the intention behind the action. If the intention is pure, wholesome, selfless (steming out of anatta) ... then the outcome will be good. If the intention is unpure, unwholesome, selfish (stemming out of atta) ... then the outcome will be bad.
Even one little action done without "self", is bigger than all the gifts Velama gave with "self" ... is bigger than even all the other actions (feed one person consummate in view, feed 100 people consummate in view, feed one non-returner, feed 100 once-returners, feed one arahant, feed 100 non-returners, feed one Private Buddha, feed 100 arahants, feed one Tathagata, feed 100 Private Buddhas, feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha, build a dedicated dwelling to the Community of the four directions, go to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge, undertake the training rules) done with "self".
The intention behind the actions is important. Not the action.

If you give all the stuff velama gave wouldn't you get at least a little more than a "whiff of a heart of good will" while doing so - more moments of good will than just one ?
The point isn't what Velāma gave; the point is whether Anāthapiṇḍika's family's gifts are fruitful.
And, as I read it, "the heart of good will" isn't something that you get as a result of giving. What it says (literally) is ,

If one were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will, that would be more fruitful than...

The bit I didn't expect was this at the beginning:

Householder, regardless of whether a gift is coarse or refined, if it is given attentively, respectfully, with one's own hand, not as if throwing it away, with the view that something will come of it: Wherever the result of that gift comes to fruition, one's mind will incline to the enjoyment of splendid food ...

I'm surprised because "enjoyment of splendid food" isn't something I would usually expect to be taught is the fruit of attentiveness; but maybe it was an appropriate doctrine for Anāthapiṇḍika (who was rich).

i understand that the heart of good will isnt a result of giving but something that happens with the giving - a heart of good will is metta ? cause when someone gives stuff to others as a donation usually it comes with some feeling of metta by his part - no ?
You may be right but I don't know what "someone" usually does and feels.
There's a slightly similar Christian story called the widow's mite:

Then he sat down opposite the offering box, and watched the crowd putting coins into it. Many rich people were throwing in large amounts. And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, worth less than a penny. He called his disciples and said to them, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others. For they all gave out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had.”

The overt story there is about the relative quantity.
As for motive I assumed that the motive of the "many rich people" was their social status or something ... maybe pride rather than metta ... conceit. The reason why I assume that is because there's another, similar Christian message, about praying but not to publicize that you're praying:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen. And your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

So I think that Christianity has the notion of "giving but without metta", maybe that's to beware of.
Note that Anāthapiṇḍika was incredibly wealthy and gave a vast fortune to the Buddhist monks:

He was extremely wealthy and a patron of the Buddha. He gave Jeta Park to the Buddha having purchased it from Prince Jeta. He honored the Buddha with laying out 1.8 million gold pieces in the grove. Anathapindika upon death entered Tusita heaven, or the heaven of the Bodhisattvas. Anathapindika was known as the "foremost disciple in generosity" as well as character.

I'm not here to judge his metta! But when the Buddha asked him, he said ...

Gifts are still given in my family, lord, but they are coarse: broken rice cooked with bran, accompanied by pickle brine.

... it was that which sparked this dhamma talk.
You might be right that "giving" is meant to help cultivate metta (towards others), and equanimity (towards "losing" or spending "your own wealth"). There's quite a striking picture (a modern painting by an Indian/Hindu artist), illustrating the Wikipedia article on Dana. I'll leave it to you to guess her feeling!
Anyway I don't think that the Buddha is denying that Dana and Metta may be connected. Perhaps it isn't right to assume they're automatically connected; I think the lesson is that someone might spend a ton of money without much goodwill (or give it "inattentively, disrespectfully, not with one's own hand"); and that good will and so on are paramount (and more important than how much is given, and how many people of what worthiness are fed with what quality of food).

I'm not sure, I'm not going to look them up now, maybe that emphasis at the end (about refuge, training rules, goodwill, and the perception of inconstancy) makes this unlike other suttas on giving, which maybe put even more emphasis than this one on the importance of giving to worthy, giving to the worthiest, recipients.

i understand that the heart of good will isnt a result of giving but something that happens with the giving  -   a heart of good will  is metta  ?  cause when someone gives stuff to others as a donation usually it comes with some feeling of metta by his part - no ?

I added to the answer to try to address your comment.

yes that is more helpful  - this point was the least important to me but yet i did want an answer for it  so thanks for the good reply  i do think it answers this issue  (second point)

Notice this definition of "conceit" too -- thinking, "I am better". I'd guess, if you had that much to give and more, then one might give that much but end up feeling more conceit than metta.

My view is this sutta was not spoken by the Buddha because any sutta that includes the phrase: "I was [this person] at that time" is contrary to the principles found in SN 22.79.
This type of sutta, of which there are only a few (eg. AN 3.15; MN 81, MN 123, etc), about literal past-lives is in the style of the Jataka Stories, Buddhavamsa & Apadana, which were written hundreds of years after the Buddha.
This being said, the following is true:

If one were to develop even for just a finger-snap the perception of inconstancy, that would be more fruitful than the gift, the great
  gift, that Velāma the brahman gave...

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


text:
Does DN2 and MN36 provide an irrefutable statement on the fact of rebirth?
Some Secular Buddhists and some members of Buddhism.SE do not accept that "Rebirth has always been a central teaching in the Buddhist tradition" (according to Thanissaro Bhikkhu in this essay). They usually interpret this as something else, e.g. rebirth in the animal realm, as momentary animalistic states of mind etc.
In my view, the DN2 excerpt below, provides an irrefutable statement by the Buddha on the fact of rebirth.
A very similar statement can be found in MN4, MN36, MN19, MN119, SN12.70, SN51.20, AN9.35, AN5.28, AN3.100(xi-xv), DN1, DN12 and KN (Iti 3.50). This statement can be found in all the five nikayas. MN36 is said to be one of the earliest suttas by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Questions:

How could this be interpreted in any other way?
Or do Secular Buddhists doubt the accuracy of the translation of this sutta and all the other referenced suttas?
Or do Secular Buddhists doubt the authenticity of this sutta and all the other referenced suttas?

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
  free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the
  recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his
  manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand,
  one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of
  cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion,
  [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had
  such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure
  and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I
  re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan,
  had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of
  pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that
  state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in
  their modes and details.
Just as if a man were to go from his home
  village to another village, and then from that village to yet another
  village, and then from that village back to his home village. The
  thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that
  village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way,
  talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that
  village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a
  way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in
  such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way —
  with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished,
  free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of
  the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past
  lives... in their modes and details.

In response to the comment of Ilya Grushevskiy
Rebirth has everything to do with the Buddhist soteriology because if it weren't for rebirth suffering could have been easily ended at natural death or at any moment "in the here and now" with suicide, and the entire teaching if the Buddha would be pointless and vain.
But it is because of rebirth that beings need a method of salvaging themselves from suffering, propagation of which was the purpose of the Buddha's ministry.
It is exactly because of rebirth that liberation must be attained here and now, otherwise next birth follows.
The stock phrases are not to be dismissed, it's agreed that they actually constitute the core of the Dhamma. Besides these stock phrases there're many suttas which deal with destinations for next existence based on the behavior in the current life.
Secular Buddhism is a cherry picking Buddhism, its proponents only select what conveniently fits in with their preconceptions rooted in Western rationalism, discarding the rest as 'superstitious'. They don't seem concerned with samsara and ultimate predicament of existence, they're happy enough to alleviate some suffering in this life using the Dhamma as a psychotechnic. But this is not exactly the gist of the Buddha's teaching.

I agree, I don't say it's not part of the teaching or even its core, as it is even part of mundane right view. To understand that conditionality does not simply 'cease' arbitrarily is to understand anatta and dependent origination. Secular buddhism is distorted by scientific and philosophical thought, that will need to catch up. (I enjoy the stock phrases and past lives and stories, they often have excellent lessons themselves)

@Dhammadhatu this answer serves well the normal human being who is not as advanced as you are in the understanding of Dhamma.

It doesn't because the normal human being wants to end suffering but not kill themself. The answer is terrible. Any answer that mentions suicide as a method to end suffering is terrible. Some Buddhism forums forbid & delete answers like this.

@Dhammadhatu I think you should re-read the first phrase  of  a couple of times because your answer indicates a clear distortion of the phrase's meaning.

yes i know, mention, mere mention, to the exclusion of the actual context thereof, of suicide has become taboo in the radical left wing circles and by extension in the Western Buddhist discourse because of popularity Buddhism enjoys amongst left wingers, but i'm not ideologically indoctrinated, i'm a sane, sober and open minded person, imagine if there were taboos on topics of discussion for the Buddha, we would have never had the Dhamma

of course it is ridiculous, that's exactly why i build my argument upon it to drive home the importance of the concept of rebirth... Dhammadhatu aren't you Deelee in another web incarnation?

Rebirth  is not important. Only puthujjana who crave for rebirth assert it is important. When a mediator tastes Nibbana in the here-&-now, the meditator bows down to the Buddhas & to the Dhamma is complete gratitude.

it depends on how one looks at it, i don't think the idea of rebirth should discourage a person from striving for Nibbana, because rebirth means continuation of suffering, this understanding must go hand in hand with the insight into the non-self, it obviously is not there to serve the purpose of perpetuation of self-view, the realization is comprised of multiple elements, it's complex

Rebirth is an obstacle to Nibbana because it is wrapped up in self-view & becoming and ignores impermanence. It is not complex.

not in my book, neither in the Buddha's, please consider: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.003.than.html - great sutta... what's complex is the realization, it took the Buddha a few moments to achieve and 45 years to teach

your interpretation of it i don't

There is no evidence the Buddha spoke SN 15.3. Regardless, you do not understand the language in it. This is shown by your PASSION for rebirth, which is contrary to SN 15.3, which states: "enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.". Please read my answer or post, which includes SN 15.3. Regards

sure, so far as i'm aware there's no evidence the Buddha spoke even a single sutta, including those you rely upon, which pushes us to casting doubt on the entire Cannon and being left with nothing solid... so the Buddha too had passion for rebirth because according to the suttas he often spoke about it, he even managed to recall his past lives in one of the tevijja

Wrong. The suttas say the Dhamma is verifiable. Which ever suttas can be practised & verified to end suffering are verified to be words of a Buddha. This is why only stream-enterers are qualified to teach the Dhamma. Many suttas are verifiable, such as 4NTs, 3Cs, DO, emptiness, etc. But the interpretations of Brahmali, Sujato, Bodhi, etc, are not verifiable and therefore fall outside the sphere of Buddha-Dhamma.

yes you are Deelee aren't you, the air of accusations is familiar, and i'm not even Brahm's adherent or have ever been one

Have fun. Be light. Be happy. If people practise the noble eightfold path, there is no need for anyone to commit suicide. Take care.

man i wish you were a sotapanna, i would listen to you, but how should i know?

if the mind cannot dissolve self-view, it cannot be sotapanna. "I" cannot be sotapanna. Kind regards

excuse me, but this is demagogical, in this case neither the Buddha was the Buddha, for putthujanas speaking supramundane language is ridiculous, even the Buddha at least once made a point that he was using normal human language

I am with @Dhammadhatu in this argument. Closing the comments though, this is getting out of hand. This conversation was moved to chat.

The so called "Secular Buddhists" have their own religion consisting of their own fixed beliefs. One of those fixed beliefs is the belief that there is no life after death. Their typical game is to hijack the Buddhist Suttas to give their own interpretations to somehow map the wording to their fixed secular beliefs. If any Sutta proves too difficult to achieve that purpose, they call them later additions or not the word of the Buddha. So in reality they actually take refuge in their materialist/nihilistic views, not in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.

If we interpret any of Gotama's words straightly, then we miss (we leave out) any context, any background.
For pure understanding we need to:

understand the level and paradigm of asker, auditory culture, background model (brahmanic, upanishadic, samanic, dravidic... et cetera).
have understanding about ancient simple Language - they has no words and sciences, has no language for modeling modern texts with modern meanings.
What is the meaning of "my", "his life" not in that context but in Dhamma language?

If he says "Me", does he talk about Soul? :) Rupa dhammas? No. Vedana? Sanna? They are gone with death.
Vinnana is clear, and has no memory without sanna and vedana.
He told about new-generated nama-rupa (puggala, manussa), whose non-mindful vinnana was craving to some kamma by moha → contact phenomena →  sankhara; and stupid person are mixing past Vipaka with his own "oh, it is my kamma, my fate, my destiny" ... and catch and prolong vipaka as "kamma in his life" by behavior. So, by this way, any catching kamma from past come to real life of present person by the mind about "My". And person are produce new kamma to the world, into the future.
So, by dhamma, abhidhamma: any kamma - anatta, an-atta. Only non-emancipated people are catching vipaka of kamma. So, Arahants cut the craving by wisdom, cut the belts of stupidness and didn't catch any kamma-vipaka anymore. This is the way to Arahantship.
You bunch affection in the head, you cut affection in the head. All in the mind, not in "external reality in time". Mano-settha, mano-maya.
Stupid are bunching "me+some kamma", student are practicing non-bound empathy to any kamma-makers in the world (without any "me" or "not me"), wiseman see internal sankharas (kamma and this kamma-makers in past), arahant cut it. Every step in the head.
But in your citation, buddha teach about one kind of practice. In phrase it looks similar to Anapanasati sutta, Satipatthana sutta and many others, where he gave us methodology teachings: "he directs and inclines..." "He recollects..." - very similar to Metta and Brahmavihara style.

In summary I think you're saying it's "skillful means", i.e. expressing a concept in a way which the audience will understand.

Oh yeah, your saying "understand the Buddha's audience" because that effects what the Buddha is going to say about rebirth?  I see you were recently reborn to a Buddhist forum, Welcome :)

buddha never use the "rebirth" word. becoming, generating, new generation, next generation, but not vedic "rebirth". ;)

But until a normal person reaches that level of understanding and wisdom, all you say is meaningless to him. That is why there is a gradual training.

Buddhism has the Triple Refuge, for which the Dhamma as refuge was declared by the Lord Buddha as follows:

Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhītiviññū: wise.
The Dhamma is well expounded by the Blessed One, directly visible,
  immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally
  experienced by the wise.

Since the Dhamma is said to be visible here-&-now, a Buddhist of proper faith takes this as this standard & inspects the teachings according to this standard. To choose blind faith over this standard is to destroy enlightenment & the purpose of Buddhism. For example, about Dependent Origination, MN 38 states:

Do you speak only of what you have known, seen, and understood for yourselves? — “Yes, venerable sir.” - “Good, bhikkhus. So you have
  been guided by me with this Dhamma, which is visible here and now,
  immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be
  experienced by the wise for themselves. For it was with reference to
  this that it has been said: ‘Bhikkhus, this Dhamma is visible here and
  now, immediately effective, inviting inspection, onward leading, to be
  experienced by the wise for themselves.’ MN 38

With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the
  recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes).

The above translation is admitted by the translator to be false, because they include "lit: previous homes" in the translation.
The clear & straightforward meaning of this teaching is found in SN 22.79 Khajjaniya Sutta & Haliddakani Sutta. It does not mean reincarnation. The question is answered & finished.

Imo, translators, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi & Thanissaro, who translates "pubbe nivasa" as "past lives" slander
 the Tathagata because they each have, on certain occasions, translated "pubbe nivasa" correctly in certain places as "abodes" & "homes"; therefore they have demonstrated knowing the exact meaning of "pubbe nivasa".

He recollects... one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one
  hundred thousand,

The word "jati" ("birth") is clearly defined in the suttas (eg. SN 12.2) to be the production of "beings" ("satta"). The word "satta" ("a being") is defined in SN 23.3 and SN 5.10 to be "clinging" and "a view".
"Birth" does not mean past & future lives. When the Buddha recollected his previous births, as explained in SN 22.79, the Buddha recollected when the mind, in the past, ignorantly clung to one or more of the aggregates as "self".

Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then
  from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to
  him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I
  stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and
  remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that
  village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a
  way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From
  that village I came back home.' In the same way — with his mind thus
  concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects,
  pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk
  directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past
  abodes. He recollects his manifold past abodes ... in their modes and
  details.

The analogy above shows the teaching is not about reincarnation because the man in the analogy "returns home". Thus, the analogy shows there is a "home village", such as the primal ignorant mind, from which the mind creates ideas about self via the process of becoming & unbecoming.

And "cosmic aeons"?

These are translations Chris. Refuting birth & lives is enough to show the true meaning & to show the materialistic interpretations are false. Each dhamma has a here & now meaning, such as "nutriment/food (SN 12.63)" a and "name & clan" (SN 22.22). The word "kappa" does not always mean "eon" but simply "period of time".

Chris. If you ask yourself the question: "What does the phrase many aeons of cosmic expansion mean?", you might realise how stupid the translation is.

"many aeons of cosmic expansion... "anekepi saṃvaṭṭakappe"... saṃvaṭṭa = rolling or cycling forward; kappe = cycle/period of time; anekepi = many. To understanding the meaning of "cycling" (vatta), refer to SN 22.99 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.099.than.html

I just tried to answer that question, here.

the Buddha is known to have said he doesn't have a closed fist neither some esoteric teaching, so why would he speak in riddles? and to be sure he didn't, in the suttas he often would unpack similes right after having used them, and where there's no direct explanation there his words must be understood literally unless there's reasonable evidence to the contrary... rebirth it seems was a running concept in his environment, and he could redefine it as he had done with other brahmanic concepts, but for rebirth there's no evidence of that

My answer is based in a literal reading of the suttas. It is your view that is materialistic riddles. The suttas I quoted, namely, SN 23.2, SN 5.10, SN 22.79, etc, are not riddles. They explicitly define the words that you merely interpret. SN 23.3 & SN 5.10 define word "satta", which is central to the definition of jati in SN 12.2. SN 22.79 literally explains what recollecting pubbe nivasa is. Take care.

AN 4.121 Attanuvada sutta explains how one may refrain from an impulse to perform a harmful action by considering the associated danger:

Bhikkhus, there are these four [motivating] fears (/threats). What four?
Fear of blame from the self, fear of blame from others, fear of punishment, and fear of bad rebirth (duggatibhayam, lit. threat of misery).

Bhikkhus, what is [motivating] fear of blame from the self?

Here, bhikkhus, someone reflects thus - If I were to misconduct by body, words or mind, won't I blame myself for those actions? He, frightened of blame from the self, dispels [the impulse for] misconduct and develops right conduct.

Bhikkhus, what is [motivating] fear of blame from others?

Here, bhikkhus, someone reflects thus - If I were to misconduct by body, words or mind, won't others censor me for those actions? He, frigthtened of blame from others, dispels [the impulse for] misconduct and develops right conduct.

Bhikkhus, what is [motivating] fear of punishment?

Here, bhikkhus, someone sees the king punishing a highwayman or a robber in various ways such as whipping, beating with the, jungle rope, poisoned stick. Cutting hands, cutting feet, cutting hands and feet. Cutting the ears, cutting the nose, cutting ears and nose. Putting in the gruel pot, giving the shell tonsure, putting in Rahu's mouth, garlanding with a flaming garland, burning the hands with a torch, beating until the body is like straw, making to behave like an antelope, hooking the flesh, cutting squares out of flesh, burning in an alkaline solution, driving a spike from ear to ear to turn, making like a straw foot stool, sprinkling boiling oil on the body, giving to the dogs to be eaten, raising on a pole until death and also cutting the neck. Then it occurs to him the king punishes the highwayman or the robber in various ways for his evil actions and if I do evil actions the same will be done to me, such as whipping ... and also cutting the neck. So he does not rob, fearing punishment from the king. This is called fear of punishment.

Bhikkhus, what is [motivating] fear of bad rebirth (misery)?

Here, bhikkhus, someone reflects thus: Bodily misbehaviour leads to bad hereafter, verbal misbehaviour leads to bad hereafter, and mental misbehaviour leads to bad hereafter. If I misbehave by body, words or mind, I too after death will go to misery, to hell, to a bad state and thinking thus he dispels  [the impulse for] misconduct and develops right conduct.

The function of rebirth is to serve as a motivating factor. The name of the sutta is Attanuvada, "the doctrine of self".

how are you with Dhammadhatu when in your comment you agree with me on rebirth being a motivaton?

An illusion can still perform a motivating function ;)

It's a stock answer that appears here and there, seemingly in its current form to help pass the old oral tradition. Rebirth, in that it deals with the mostly 'not here and not now', has little to do with ending stress/suffering in the 'here and now'. It's not that it is inaccurate, nor that it is Essentialist. AN 4.77 https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.77, in stating that the full results of Kamma are unconjecturable (undecipherable?), imples that rebirth is the same, as the two are intrinsically linked. I've always had issues with remembering past lives because again, they are not me, they are not mine. (within the Pali canon too, given MN27, proof requires direct experience, not scriptural evidence)

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: Баян Купи-ка

sort: votes


text:
Cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction
DN2 talks of many aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction.
What does this mean in Buddhist cosmology?
Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?

What does "aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction" mean in Buddhist cosmology?
Quoting from Dharma: Its Early History in Law, Religion, and Narrative
By Alf Hiltebeitel:

An "aeons of cosmic expansion and cosmic contraction" is a translation of saṃvaṭṭa-vivaṭṭakappa:

vivaṭṭakappa
  masculine
  an ascending aeon

and/or:

Vivaṭṭa, (m. & nt.) (vi+vaṭṭa1) 1. “rolling back, ” with ref. to the development of the world (or the aeons, kappa) used to denote a devolving cycle (“devolution”), whereas vaṭṭa alone or saṃvaṭṭa denote the involving cycle (both either with or without kappa). Thus as “periods” of the world they practically mean the same thing & may both be interpreted in the sense of a new beginning. As redupl. -inter. cpds. they express only the idea of constant change. We sometimes find vivaṭṭa in the sense of “renewal” & saṃvaṭṭa in the sense of “destruction, ” where we should expect the opposite meaning for each. See also vaṭṭa & saṃvaṭta. Dogmatically vivaṭṭa is used as “absence of vaṭṭa, ” i.e. nibbāna or salvation from saṃsāra (see vaṭṭa & cp. citta-vivaṭṭa, ceto°, ñāṇa°, vimokkha° at Ps. I, 108 & II. 70).—Fig. in kamma° “the rolling back of k. ” i.e. devolution or course of kamma at S. I, 85.—Abs. & combd with saṃvaṭṭa (i.e. devolution combd with evolution) e.g. at D. I, 14, 16 sq.; III, 109; A. II, 142 (where read vivaṭṭe for vivaṭṭo); Pug. 60; Vism. 419 (here as m. vivaṭṭo, compared with saṃvaṭṭo), 420 (°ṭṭhāyin). In cpd. °kappa (i.e. descending aeon) at D.

... in other words, according to the book quoted above, "a period in which the world is created and destroyed".

The word kappa is usually translated as an aeon. The PTS dictionary says,

-- 2．（temporal） a “fixed” time，time with ref．to individual and cosmic life．As āyu at DA．I，103 （cp．kappaṁ）； as a cycle of time=saṁsāra at Sn．521，535，860 （na eti kappaṁ）； as a measure of time：an age of the world Vin．III，109； Miln．108； Sdhp．256，257； PvA．21； It．17=Bdhd 87=S．II，185．There are 3 principal cycles or aeons：mahā°，asaṅkheyya°，antara°； each mahā° consists of 4 asaṅkheyya-kappas，viz．saṁvaṭṭa° saṁvaṭṭaṭṭhāyi° vivaṭṭa° vivaṭṭaṭṭhāyi° A．II，142； often abbreviated to saṁvaṭṭa-vivaṭṭa° D．I，14； It．15； freq．in formula ekampijātiṁ，etc．Vin．III，4=D．III，51，111= It．99．On pubbanta° & aparanta°，past & future kappas see D．I，12 sq．paṭhama-kappe at the beginning of the world，once upon a time （cp．atīte） J．I，207．When kappa stands by itself，a Mahā-kappa is understood：DA．I，162．A whole，complete kappa is designated by kevala° Sn．pp．18=46~125； Sn．517； also dīgha° S．II，181； Sdhp．257．For similes as to the enormous length of a kappa see S．II，181 & DA．I，164=PvA．254．-- Acc．kappaṁ adv．：for a long time D．II，103=115= Ud．62，quot．at DA．I，103； Vin．II，198； It．17； Miln．108； mayi āyukappaṁ J．I，119，cp．Miln．141．Cp．saṅkappa．

When used, the word kappa may have a prefix which qualifies it (as in saṃvaṭṭa-vivaṭṭakappa above), which describes what kind of kappa it is. If it doesn't have a prefix it's assumed to be a Maha-kappa (a great kappa, a world kappa, an aeon). Maybe for that reason it's translated "aeon". I'm unsure whether kappa always definitely means long time periods (i.e. longer than a human life).
Even if it does imply a long, long time (which it seems to, both, in general, and in context in this sutta), I don't want to accuse the Buddha of exaggerating or false speech, but people do sometimes describe subjective time loosely or figuratively (e.g. "the bus took ages to arrive").
Anyway, it appears to mean some kind of time period, especially related to life, maybe the life-time of something.
Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?
I doubt it; and generally I presume that nothing in Buddhist phenomenology is similar to physics.

"What does this mean in Buddhist cosmology?"

Due to ignorance, everything is subject to construction.
Due to this very same ignorance, everything is subject to decay.
Due to this very same ignorance, everything that decays is subject to (re)construction.
No matter what you choose to observe, as long as it can be observed it stems from ignorance, thus it will always be subjected to this cycle: construction, decay, (re)construction.
Since every thing that exists is subjected to this cycle, even the universe is subjected to this cycle.

"Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?"

I would say yes. There is no other explanation.
The Buddha meditated and came to the conclusion that I described above. Since he came to that conclusion, he knew that everything is subjected to this cycle, even the cosmos.
Due to ignorance, everything is subjected to construction. Even the universe. That's why it expands. It grows. It wants to grow.
Due to this very same ignorance, it's also subjected to decay. It will not be able to grow indefinitely. Then it will start to breakup, until a point of destruction is reached when it will start to grow again.
Then again it grows and the cycle continues until ignorance is eradicated.
That's the law of nature.
This cycle is suffering. It does not lead to cessation of suffering. That's why we must strive to end it with wisdom.

Contrary to the translations of Thanissaro & Bodhi, the word 'loka' ('world'; 'cosmos') is not found in the Pali. The Pali is:

anekepi saṃvaṭṭakappe anekepi vivaṭṭakappe anekepi saṃvaṭṭavivaṭṭakappe:

anekepi = numerous; countless
kappe = period of time
saṃ = forward
vi = back
vatta = to cycle or circle, as follows:

Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
He assumes feeling to be the self...
He assumes perception to be the self...
He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
consciousness.
He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
SN 22.99

Is this similar to Big Bounce in physics?

The above is a view of materialism, as explained by the Thai monk Buddhadasa, as follows:

People language is used by the ordinary people who don't understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so dense that
they are blind to everything but material things.  Then, there is the
language which is spoken by those who understand reality (Dhamma),
especially those who know and understand reality in the ultimate
sense.  This is another kind of language.
No Religion

The Pali words materialistically believed to be the "Big Physical Bounce" are about 'monkey-mind', as follows:

Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that,
it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. SN
12.61

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


text:
Is this picture of a statue of the Shakyamuni Buddha?
I really need help identifying who the below represents... is it
Siddhartha Gautama (Shakyamuni Buddha)?
Thank you.

Yep.  Probably Thai judging by the pointed top knot.

Im not sure that is made in Siam, it may be Lao, Lanna (shan), Khmer or some Burmese counries.
But, it is statue of image of imagination of autor's sight on the mind about Shakyamuni )


text:
What should one meditate upon as a beginner?
I am planning to start meditation.
As a beginner , what things I should meditate upon from the Buddha's perspective?

This book says mediate on Love , Joy ,Pity ,Impurity and Serenity. That looks pretty straightforward to me.

That's like asking "what should I eat".
If liking to taste, here are the 40 meals, or better working places: Kammaṭṭhāna
For which one might be good for your tendency it would be best to look after a skilled meditation teacher but generally the ten recollections, best starting from below (and develope proper perception for them) are fine for one living at home, as well as the Brahma-viharas, later on.
What ever might be pleasing for the mind to go with it best possible without much laps.

I am just a beginner...Just give me high priority 4-5 things to meditate upon.

First three recollections are of the virtues of the Three Jewels:

(1) Buddha
(2) Dharma
(3) Sangha

Next three are recollections of the virtues of:

(4) morality (Śīla)
(5) liberality (cāga)

Suttas in regard of them: Recollections
It would be good to ask first and likewise for Refuge and for the precepts first, taking them, best from a Monk or Nun, Dheeraj Verma.
(If having no access, but serious and having patient, one might be always welcome for such online.)
Mudita & Anumodana
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other gains in the world]

I am just a beginner...Just give me high priority 4-5 things to meditate upon.

There are different types of meditation.
For basic insight meditation based on the mindfulness of breathing, you can consider starting with Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's "How To Meditate" series for beginners, which is available as a YouTube video playlist or as an online booklet. This meditation is based on the four foundations of mindfulness. It comes in the varieties of sitting and walking meditation.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "A Guided Meditation" and "Basic Breath Meditation Instructions" instruction sets combine mindfulness of breathing with body scanning (or sweeping). There's an audio version of these instructions in this YouTube video. This meditation is quite suitable for beginners. I like the fact that it begins with some thoughts of loving kindness (metta) before proceeding to the rest of the meditation.


text:
What happens to grasping at 'self' after termination of life?
Please answer these two questions:
1a. Suppose there is an ignorant person named X who is grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose X's material body is being destroyed by cancer. X is suffering very much because of grasping. For X the incoming termination of life is hell in the here & now because of grasping. For X termination of life is reality in the here & now because of grasping. Suppose X life will be terminated while X is grasping. My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?
2a. Suppose there is an enlightened person named Z who is not grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose Z's material body is being destroyed by cancer. Z is not suffering because of freedom from grasping. For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping. For Z termination of life does not exist in the here & now because of freedom from grasping. Suppose Z life will be terminated while Z is free from grasping. My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?

1a. will grasping stop?
Grasping will not stop, grasping occurs.
2a. will grasping re-arise?
Grasping will not re-arise, grasping will not stop, grasping occurs.
There is no enlightened person, there is no ignorant person, there is just grasping, aka neurosis. This neurosis is what's passed from life to life. Once you learn to be free from neurosis, you learn to be free from termination of life, from "person" etc.

Andrei, is your answer regarding 2a same as the answer of ChrisW? (read in the comments section of his answer for further clarifications).

Yes, I think they are very similar.

In case one, there is re-birth - hence he continues with grasping.
In the second case (for an Arahant), there is no rebirth.

The question is whether (in each case) grasping will stop or re-arise.
So far as I understand it:

Aggregates arise and cease
Aggregates may cease here (death) and re-arise there (birth)
Generally clinging-aggregates are dukkha (says the first noble truth)
View of 'self' (identity views) are dukkha (says the doctrine of anatta)

The above are (and remain) universal truths regardless of X and Z.
X and Z inherit their own kamma. One is and the other isn't ignorant of these truths, one does and the other doesn't suffer.

Please let me know if I understood your answer correctly. In the case 1a aggregates would re-arise and grasping to the aggregates as 'self' would continue? And in the case of 2a you're saying that aggregates would re-arise, but there will be no grasping to these aggregates as 'self', thus grasping will stop? If I didn't understand it correctly, then please just add a simple answer so that I can understand.

In the second case and the first, aggregates continue to be born; but when person Z stops grasping she is liberated.

So, 1a: grasping continues for X. 2a: grasping stops for Z. Further explanation: 1a: when grasping continues for X, aggregates (people) continue to arise, but X is not liberated from these aggregates. 2a: even though grasping stops for Z, aggregates (people) continue to arise, but Z is liberated from these aggregates. If what I wrote corresponds to your answer, you can, if you think it would be helpful for other readers, add it in your answer, because right now your answer can be interpreted also in some other way.

I'll leave your comment in case it helps, but the answer was as clear as I could make it. IMHO your question belongs to the category of "will I exist in future?" (Sabbasava Sutta).

Ok. If my comment is in conformation with your answer, then it's ok to stay and I understand your answer. Thanks for answering.

My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in
  the ground?

I sense this 1st question falls outside of the sphere of Buddhism because in the suttas I am not aware of any teachings about "grasping" & "rebirth". The teachings about "rebirth" are about good & bad kamma, which are mundane/worldly (refer to MN 117). Where as "grasping" falls into the supramundane/transcendent teachings. For example, in MN 144, it is said the monk that has "grasping" prior to the termination of life is "blameworthy" rather than is subject to kammic inheritance. The common idea in the suttas intepretated & translated as "rebirth" or "reappearance" is about kammic inheritance. These teachings assume there is grasping because these teachings refer to "a being" ("satta") that inherits kamma. The word "satta" literally means "grasping" because the word "satta" itself means "to cling" (refer to SN 23.2).
In summary, a person or mind that has comprehendeded "grasping", per the instructions on the 1st sermon, should abandoned the cause of that grasping (i.e, craving) to reach Nibbana. Where as the teachings about "kammic inheritance" (aka "rebirth") are for puthujjana who have not comprehended grasping.
Any mind that has truly comprehended the nature of grasping (the 1st noble truth) must truly comprehend the other noble truths. This shows the question here is merely intellectual.

For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping.

The suttas list many types of liberation of mind (ceto-vimutti) that occurs to a living mind, such as:

The immeasurable (loving-kindness) mind-release, the (perception of) nothingness mind-release, the emptiness (sunnata) mind-release, the
  theme-less-mind-release... MN 43

The Z mind (not the 'Z person') was liberated before the termination of life. At the termination of life, there is no liberation because there is no mind, as follows:

'... after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being
  relished, will grow cold right here.' MN 140

The term 'liberation' in Buddhism is liberation of mind (rather than liberation from mind). At the termination of life, there can be no liberation of mind because there is no mind anymore.

My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried
  in the ground?

The mind free from grasping views the termination of life as merely the ending of the aggregates. Please refer to SN 22.85 here, which answers the question conclusively.

Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
  supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
  have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
  Dhamma.
Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: "A
  monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?"
Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling...
  Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is
  unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to its end.
Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.
SN 22.85

You didn't answer the two questions 1a and 2a. The questions were: 1a "Will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?" and 2a "Will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?"

I will try to answer it later. I have important things to do now. In the mean time, try to realise what the absence of grasping is. If this occurs, the questions you have written may become irrelevant. I will return in a few hours within which "you" might attain stream-entry.

I didn't downvoted your answer. I think it's useful. At least to me because I want to understand. Also I'm very thankful for taking the time to answer. Thank you. Please let's just put the suttas aside for a moment and do baby steps so that even me can understand. If I understand your answer to question 1a correctly, your answer is "grasping stops"?

Can you please answer my last question in the comments?

I can't factually answer your question, because it is speculation, however there are suttas (MN 38; SN 22.53) that seem to say mind cannot exist without sense organs & without a physical body (rupa). Regards

Yes, I completely understand where you're coming from. I understand it can't be factually answered. To answer such question great wisdom is needed. But I feel you have such wisdom. To me it seems like you had your own enlightenments. From your own personal enlightenments and all the other studies you have done on this subject, would your answer to the question 1a be "grasping stops"?

Or would your answer to 1a be "I don't know"? I'm asking because I'd like you to clarify what's your answer. Is it "grasping stops" or is it "I don't know"?

Please answer what is your position on your answer regarding 1a: Is it a) grasping stops b) I don't know c) I don't know, but it seems like it stops ??

Ok I got it. Since you said "I can't factually answer your question, because it is speculation" I see your answer to the question 1a is b) "You don't know". In addition, since you said "however there are suttas that seem to say mind cannot exist without sense organs & without a physical body" and since all your interpretations of the suttas and your own writings about reincarnation are about non-existence of reincarnation, your answer to 1a is "I don't know, but I believe in no reincarnation or post-mortem rebirth". Thus your answer to 1a is "I don't know, but I believe grasping stops".

There is no life after death because consciousness cannot transit mental defilements to another physical body. Any genuine insight will confirm this. The Pali suttas also say there can be no arising of consciousness without a physical body. Reincarnation obviously does not exist because, if it did, the human world would get wiser & wiser (which it is not). Life after death is a superstition.

Thank you for clarifying the matter. So from your last comment I see your answer to question 1a is "grasping stops". And by looking at your original answer, your answer to question 2a is "grasping stops". Further explanation: 2a. grasping stops in the here & now, before dead physical body is put in the coffin. If what I wrote corresponds to your answer, you can, if you think it would be helpful for other readers, add it in your answer, because right now your answer can be interpreted also in some other way.

These views will never reach enlightenment; it is impossible. Just wasting time.

I see something is not right here. If these views that I mentioned in my previous comment above, regarding questions 1a and 2a, are not helpful for reaching enlightenment and are just a waste of time, then why did you say to me in your answers and comments below your answer that you have such views??

Your questions are about things that cannot be proven. Best to stop. Bye.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
How to stop comparing oneself with others?
I'm wondering how Buddhism deals with the comparison of oneself with others, and I'm specifically thinking in terms of accomplishments. For example, I have usually had some success in art fields in my life. I now am in a setting where many people have similar, or greater talent. I can't help but compare myself to them, and this causes suffering.
Similarly, I tend to compare myself to others generally, in many ways. I am aware it is bad to do so, but I cannot help myself in engaging in that process.
Is there any way to make the comparisons cease? What does Buddhism teach about this?
If comparing is conceit, many of the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? seem to advocate merely watching mindfully the arising and passing away of the aggregates to extinguish conceit. Would this be the recognized ways of diminishing the presence of conceit?
If any practice could be recommended it would be much appreciated.
Thank you for any reply.

Sounds like you just described 7th fetter, mana or conceit ; i am better,  equal , or worse than other.. this is a problem for those with high pay grade (anagami).  I read that to use the same method as lower fetters which are panna (wisdom-ceto vimutti or panna vimutti).

See also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? where the answers and comments talk about "conceit". Ven. Yuttadhammo had a (IMO funny) video, where he said when he first started as a monk he expected to "a great monk, better than those other monks". After a first year he decided he hadn't been that great, but that now he was great. Some years later he says he now thinks of himself as "just a monk".

In the answers of the post ChrisW has listed, they seem (in the two main replies) to advocate merely watching mindfully the arising and passing away of the aggregates to extinguish conceit. Would this be the recognized ways of diminishing the presence of conceit?

@ Eggman.  i think so.  Wisdom in Buddhism is broken down into 2 types (ceto vimutti and panna vimutti) Basically Ceto vimutti is not clinging to 5 skanda, you have the ability to let it go whatever thrown at you, nothing sticks.  That compares to Panna vimutti, you see it thru and thru that everything is impermanent and subject to destruction.  And with that knowledge, not clinging to it is automatic.  it is dhamma or nature of it.  I put this in comment because it is heavily my opinion.

Actually start, not stop to compare yourself with others! , but only with the wise, if looking for a longer lasting good.
It's against the mainstream believe totally not wrong to compare "oneself" to others, Eggman, according to the teachings of the Buddha and the path going beyond comparing individuals.
If looking and reading the Suttas one will not find many places where not good or bad samples are used for orientation purposes. Path to liberation is all about learning how and what to judge.
Others then in usually wordily regards the objectivity does not focus on material thing to be compared, but virtues, and while ordinary man judges in the frame of gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. (the 8 worldily Dhammas on which the world turns around), a Dhammika (one following the path, "Buddhist") look for orientation amoung the seven treasures. Which seven?

The treasure of conviction, the treasure of virtue, the treasure of conscience, the treasure of concern, the treasure of listening, the treasure of generosity, the treasure of discernment...

That means that one goes after, associate with virtuose people and compares ones own deeds, and this is importand, with people seemingly having such virtues. But like when one seeks for orientation for material skills, one tries not to do it in a battle way, but by reducing to regard individuals. One compares action and tendencies.
When ever there is much notion of "I" and "you", it gives much rise to envy, issa.
That is the result of conceit, and conceit (mānā) ends only for an Arahat totally. A big amout of this notion of comparing in the three conceit-full ways "better I am", "lower I am" but also "equal I am", falls with the reach of the Stream and the lose of personal-views (sat/k kaya ditthi).
Todays popullar notion "equal are we" is in fact most dangerous, because it forms even bigger groups (kayas) as if as individual for identification.
For the daily live with material items to trade, one of course needs to compare certain gains of others, but if wise one puts also the factor "in what way was this gained", in therms of virtues, into it, gives that more and more value for orientation. "How does he find so much peace while merely poor", for example.
How ever, envy, jealousy, does not end at the point when going even a total spirital way and the best description of what is really and most worthy to compare with, is given in the Cula Saropama Sutta: The Shorter Heartwood-simile Discours
So again, it's not bad at all, but foolish if one puts it more or lesser into such as a lasting person and it's qualities, when knowing that the 8 Wordily-Dhammas are not for sure and change sometimes very quick. So it's good the seek after the possession of the seven treasures, with what one does not only have a good and legitime source for ones healthy selfestimate but also would not be easy excelt by material things. At least, who ever had not found the real heart-wood, will not be perfect and secure, aside of all needs for comparisons, beyond.
One compares oneself not to put others down, but to possible learn from them, become equal, seeing that this also does not lead to lasting ease and searches again for better, till on possible sees and recognice Noble ones, listen to their Dhamma and by understanding loses the gross problems of comparisons of the world, able to even be an island for oneself.
Aside the "Self" and the Devas and gods, admirable friends are always good for comparing oneself, and should be ones govering principles all the time.
And to add a short note on "watching the aggregats", if not having accomplished the treasures, is not really possible to do such, so it is good to compare oneself in regard of generousity, moral and their virtues first, become as good as possible equal with that of the Noble Ones. There then is the place to enter the stream.
May this brief talk about a big issue, as well as the advices to a "youngster" in this manner be of understanding it and with it a help for those able to take.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains.]

if wise one puts also the factor "in what way was this gained" I like the way that's phrased in the Bhikkhuni Sutta (AN 4.159) -- I think it's clear.

Yes, what ever food is used to go beyond desrie for food, either in form or mind, kama-raga, bhava-raga. "In what way it is used/gained" is still a pulling conceit, if putting a peron into it. Judging without putting individualls into it is the difference between the judgement of an awakened mind and that of a wordily. From outward it might look as gross conceit, when hearing or reading such speaking, @ChrisW

So its not importand that many or normal judge one: In the Eyes of the Wise-The Buddha’s Teachings on Honor & Shame

I meant the paragraph about how conceit is relied on: by hearing of someone of high attainment, and hearing how (the method by which) he attained that, and thinking "I hope that I, too... [by following the same method, may attain that result]".

That "by following the same deeds" does not involve conceit, other than if one would say "I hope to find... like you" (the pains of the "Bodhisattas", if Chris understands). Sadhu for the good sample of "just judging deeds" for a good way to a more or lesser valuable aim, maybe even a lasting "product". Nyom @ChrisW

It would be good to render an answer taking the Bhikkunisutta as support for the steps, Nyom @ChrisW

Thank you for the suggestion. I hope I'll do that (post an answer) in a bit, maybe tomorrow.

Further to Samana Johann's answer, I wanted to add...
Buddhism does have things to say about comparing oneself with others.
I think that it (i.e. the Buddhism which I understand from the Pali canon) recommends that you should compare, that you should be discriminating (about whether people are good or bad), that you should try to associate with good people; emulate and learn from, follow, good people; avoid bad people, and so on.
In advice to lay-people, for example, there's this answer about choosing a marriage partner. And there's the Sigalovada Sutta which has a long section about good and bad friends.
And, in advice for spiritual development, there's the concept of the admirable friend, for example:

As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & colleagues, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

In the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? people said that "comparing" is a symptom of "conceit" ... and that conceit is one of the very last fetters (I won't try to explain that now).
But I think it's worth noting that "conceit" seems to be explicitly identified as essential, in one of the suttas, the Bhikkhuni Sutta:

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears,

'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.'

The thought occurs to him,

'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?'

Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit.

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

If I can interpret it, a thought like "Why not me?" and "I can compare myself to him" or "I am or should or could like him, and do or behave as he does" is what makes it conceit.
What makes it useful is, as mentioned in Samana Johann's answer ...

wise one puts also the factor "in what way was this gained"

... in other words you ask yourself, how is it that this person who I admire has attained that admirable state? So in the sutta I quoted, for example, the thought-train includes understanding how the other person did it ("through the ending of the fermentations") and thus sees what needs to be done in order to be successful.

Also you wrote,

I now am in a setting where many people have similar, or greater talent. I can't help but compare myself to them, and this causes suffering.

I guess you're talking about jealousy or envy or something like that.
There is another doctrine in Buddhism, i.e. the Brahma-viharas:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, ...

In this case I'm thinking especially of mudita i.e. taking joy in someone else's being happy or skillful or successful; for example:

When unselfish joy grows, many noxious weeds in the human heart will die a natural death (or will, at least, shrink): jealousy and envy, ill will in various degrees and manifestations, cold-heartedness, miserliness (also in one's concern for others), and so forth.

I expect that mudita can be developed or brought into being by conscious meditation, i.e. people practice "metta-bhavana" meditation and you might presumably practice "mudita-bhavana" too.

This doesn't answer the question at all, of how to stop comparing yourself. Instead it talks about how to make use of it, and how to live with it.

Sadhu (expression of comfirming, approve) & mudita (sympatic joy with the gain of others, with the gain of benefits, by there goodness in deeds)!

First of all, comparing oneself to others provides no insight into ones own karma. Secondly, the impulse to compare oneself to others is actually an issue related to self-esteem (valuing oneself or love for oneself), which, in turn, related to how much love one experienced during childhood. Hence, a person feels inferior to others because he feels unlovable. A person feels superior to others in order to feel more lovable than others. A person feels equal to others in order to feel at least equally lovable. Ultimately, the only way to overcome this dilemma is to become a deeply loving person and knowing the value of your love. This is how infants feel until they are put down or abused.

Ronald Cowen: many of your answers fall in line with my experience, on this post or others. I sometimes experience states of extreme emotion (being moved) and compassionate feelings, but for the vast majority of my life, they are absolutely absent. The affective feeling-toned dimension of my life is almost completely null. Do you have any suggestions about this?


text:
How many levels of enlightenment are there?
I have experienced enlightenment multiple times.
I have found many religions have a similar way of describing it, though they can differ about how many experiences occur and if they are sudden or spread apart over long periods of time.
I have also heard it referred to as
 Kundalini Awakening where it is a process that can take years to go through the 7 stages.
According to this article there are Four stages of enlightenment

My question is this, How many levels or layers of enlightenment are there? Does it happen all at once?

Why isn't the wikipeda answer enough? Isn't it clearly listed down there?

Adam,
enlightenment "certain realease or insight" should not be confused with "rightly awakening".
As for rightly awakening there are generally four stages (which is not a religious definition but actuually) and it's gradual.
In regard of release, see vimutti

From what is one released?: AN 10.81
Released through awareness: AN 6.13
Four kinds of awareness-release: SN 41.7
Released through discernment: AN 9.44
Released "both ways": AN 9.45
The Buddha's question-and-answer session concerning release: Snp ch. 5

Aside of this there are 4 fruis, one could say for stages of awakening: phala, defining with their path magga the eight Noble persons ariya-puggala
Generally it's spoken about 4 stages of awakening:

Noble Ones

the Stream-winner (Sotāpanna)
the Once-Returner (Sakadāgāmi)
the Non-Returner (Anāgāmī)
the Holy One (Arahat)

(I) Through the path of Stream-winning (sotāpatti-magga) one 'becomes' free (whereas in realizing the fruition, one 'is' free) from the first 3 fetters (samyojana) which bind beings to existence in the sensuous sphere, to wit:

-- (1) personality-belief (sakkāya-ditthi; s. ditthi),
-- (2) skeptical doubt (vicikicchā),
-- (3) attachment to mere rules and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa; s. upādāna).

(II) Through the path of Once-return (sakadāgāmi-magga) one becomes nearly free from the 4th and 5th fetters, to wit:

-- (4) sensuous craving (kāma-cchanda = kāma-rāga; s. rāga),
-- (5) ill-will (vyāpāda = dosa, s. mūla).

(III) Through the path of Non-return (anāgāmi-magga) one becomes fully free from the above-mentioned 5 lower fetters.
(IV) Through the path of Holiness (arahatta-magga) one further becomes free from the 5 higher fetters, to wit:

-- (6) craving for fine material existence (rūpa-rāga),
-- (7) craving for immaterial existence. (arūpa-rāga),
-- (8) conceit (māna),
-- (9) restlessness (uddhacca),
-- (10) ignorance (avijjā).

For even more about the stages of release and knowledge see:
Wisdom and the Seventy-Three Kinds of Mundane and Supramundane Knowledge, kindly given by Ven. Bhikkhu Ñāṇadassana.
Best support here for: Into the Stream - A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
Much success! If not possible, the Buddha would not have teached, but a matter of effort and right deeds.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

How many levels of enlightenment are there?
I think it depends on the school, which defines and describes enlightenment.

You mentioned that Theravada defines four stages.
Wikipedia says that Mahayana defines Five Paths and Ten Bhumis.
"Kundalini awakening " is (I think) generally seen as Hinduism rather than Buddhism.

In the Suttas what is meant by "ujun kayan panidhaya parimukhan satin upatthapetva" is the "Kundalini Awakening" state when one enters into a Jhana state.

@SapthaVisuddhi What do you mean by entering into Jhana state? Can you please tell?

4 Stages to reach Arahat is like the major milestones in traditional way using self power.  Even great Zen masters can't reach Arahat.  That's why most enlightened Zen masters in China turn to practice Pureland at the end of their life because they realize they cannot possibly escape Samsara in this life time.
If you're a person of great capacity, any path out of 84000 will liberate you.  Buddha states that in the Age of the Right Dharma, one can obtain liberation through keeping the precepts.   Age of Semblance Dharma: liberation through Zen meditation.   Degenerate Age: liberation through Pureland practice.


text:
What is the difference between Jhana and Samadhi?
In Sutta pitaka we find two Suttas namely Jhana sutta and Samadhi sutta.
 What is the difference?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.041.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html

Samadhi is a general term for concentration. Jhanas are stages you achieve in Samatha meditation when your concentration reaches a certain level.
To give an analogy, Samadhi is like the temperature of ice. When the temperature reaches a certain level, it becomes water. That's like reaching the first Jhana. If you keep heating, it will become steam. That is like reaching the second Jhana and so on.

What are you saying is Samadhi is like the temperature and the Jhan is like the measuring unit of the temperature? How can you explain this by reading Samadhi sutta? According to Samadhi sutta, Jhana is only one aspect of the four described there.

It appears Jhana is  a lower level of Samadhi.https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/what-is-the-difference-between-jhana-and-samadhi/6627

No, the Jhana is like the state of H2O. In this case water, steam. Try to find the Sinhala version of the Sutta here: pitaka.lk It's usually clearer than the English

In tipitaka, buddha and sāvaka often use them as a synonym for each other.
Because when mind has just one focusing (jhayatiti jhāna) is when mind has concentration (samadahatiti samādhi).


text:
Is it true that there are 5 principal types of meditations?
According to some there are 5 principal types of meditations:

Metta-Bhavana
Karuna-Bhavana
Mudita Bhavana
Asubha Bhavana
Upekka Bhavana

I couldn't find any link which could support the above mentioned meditation theory.
So my questions are:
Is it true that there are 5 principal types of Meditations?
Can anyone provide me the original links where Buddha lays down the above mentioned 5 types of meditation?

See also Was Vipassana discovered by the Buddha (Siddhartha)?, whose answers reference what the Buddha said.

Yes and no: i.e., "Yes, there are 5"; and, "No, there are more than 5".
4 of the ones you listed are to bring into being what are known as the 4 "Brahma-viharas" (of which, metta-bhavana may be the most famous).
I'm not sure that types of meditation are detailed in the suttas (some are). Various types may be detailed in more detail in the 5th century Path of Purification (Visuddhimagga). If I were looking for references to them in the suttas I think I'd start search by searching in accesstoinsight.org (searching for "Brahma-viharas" and/or "metta" and so on).
The fifth one, Asubha, is meant as an antidote to lust: and so, for example, it's contemplation of the foulness of the body (e.g. the Asubha Sutta, and one of the meditation types mentioned in the Satipatthana Sutta).
Other principal types include meditation intended for insight, concentration, mindfulness, tranquility, detachment. They're named things like "Vipassana", and "Anapanasati" (Anapanasati Sutta)
Samana Johann linked to a reference which lists "40 types" (in reply to another question of yours).
The ones I've listed are from Theravada (Mahayana may have others).

There are only 2 types of meditations.

Samatha(Concentration)
Vipassana(Insight)

All those 5 meditations you have mentioned and many more come under Samatha meditation. More on Samatha vs Vipassana...

As stated by Sankha, there are only two types of meditation - concentration (samatha) and insight (vipassana). Even these two need not be mutually exclusive.
For concentration meditation, you can have various objects to concentrate on, like the breath (anapanasati), or loving kindness (metta) or unattractiveness (asubha) or any of the ten kasinas. The objective is to cultivate the jhana states.
For insight meditation, breath (anapanasati) is generally used, but the focus here is to observe the nature of reality based on the four foundations of mindfulness. So, even here, it can be on the body, feelings, thoughts or the different mental objects or dhammas, but without an intentional choice of an object of concentration.
Both are not mutually exclusively. For e.g. if you have a camera, you can zoom in and change other settings on your subject of focus, in order to get the best, sharpest and clearest photo of the chosen subject. That's like samatha.
But if you move your camera around to find good subjects to photograph, then that's like vipassana. The four foundations of mindfulness show you what subjects are good to observe, just like in photography you have landscape, animals, portraits etc. Eventually you need to use both techniques to get the best photo of the best subject.
It makes sense to me that learning how to focus your camera first (samatha), is preferred, before learning what kind of subjects to photograph (vipassana). If you try to take photos of your subjects before you learn how to focus your camera, your photos will turn out blurry or too dark or too bright etc (obstruction by the five hindrances). But in the first phase of learning how to focus your camera, you might focus on unimportant subjects like your toes (kasinas).
Another analogy is physics and mathematics. You want to study physics (vipassana) to learn about the nature of reality. You may be very eager to do so. But it would be unpleasant and difficult to learn physics in detail, before mastering math (samatha) first. You need to study math and master it to a certain degree, then you can use it to study physics smoothly and pleasantly.
In the first phase of studying math, you might use it to calculate unimportant things (kasinas) like using algebraic terms like x and y without having any specific meaning, for the sake of performing integration or differentiation on them. When you use it to study physics, then you can differentiate velocity v over time t, to get acceleration a.

I have found the reference to the 4 of the 5 kinds of contemplation mentioned in the question. They are taken from Visuddhimagga sanna(or sanne??).
To quote -

Metta in the Buddha's teaching finds its place as the first of four
  kinds of contemplation designed to develop a sound pacific
  relationship to other living beings. The four are: metta, which will
  be rendered henceforward by "loving-kindness," karuna, which is
  "compassion" or "pity," mudita which is "gladness at others' success,"
  and upekkha, which is "onlooking equanimity." These four are called
  Divine Abidings (brahma-vihara), perhaps because whoever can maintain
  any one of them in being for even a moment has lived for that moment
  as do the Highest Gods (the Brahma Deva).

To quote further from the document:

But first, before coming to these discourses, some details from the
  meditation manual, the Visuddhimagga or "Path of Purification," will
  not be out of place.
Metta (loving-kindness) is defined as follows: "Loving-kindness has
  the mode of friendliness for its characteristic. Its natural function
  is to promote friendliness. It is manifested as the disappearance of
  ill-will. Its footing is seeing with kindness. When it succeeds it
  eliminates ill-will. When it fails it degenerates into selfish
  affectionate desire."
The Visuddhimagga recommends going to some quiet place, where one can
  sit down in a comfortable position. Then, before starting the actual
  meditation, it is helpful to consider the dangers in hate and the
  benefits offered by forbearance: for it is a purpose of this
  meditation to displace hate by forbearance, and besides, one cannot
  avoid dangers one has not come to see or cultivate benefits one does
  not yet know.

Buddha says the following about the four sublime states:

I. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his
  heart filled with loving-kindness, likewise the second, the third, and
  the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading
  the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with
  loving-kindness, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity
  and free from distress.
II. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his
  heart filled with compassion, likewise the second, the third and the
  fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the
  entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with
  compassion, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and
  free from distress.
III. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his
  heart filled with sympathetic joy, likewise the second, the third and
  the fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading
  the entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with
  sympathetic joy, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity
  and free from distress.
IV. Here, monks, a disciple dwells pervading one direction with his
  heart filled with equanimity, likewise the second, the third and the
  fourth direction; so above, below and around; he dwells pervading the
  entire world everywhere and equally with his heart filled with
  equanimity, abundant, grown great, measureless, free from enmity and
  free from distress.

The fifth one (Ashubh Bhawana contemplation) can be found here.