text:
Enlightenment finding me
How can a small woman in a small country who does
not  understand many of these questions, let alone
the answers, ever hope to become enlightened.

She may find out that conceit (better, worse, equal am I) causes suffering, yet there is the conceit "as he by human effort, she, by human effort, wa able, why shouldn't I" that leads toward end of conceit. The Arrows of Thinking
Papañca & the path to end conflict, By effort, right one, not by waiting that one will be helped while inactive. May she always dwell among wise and never associate with fools.

I am fortunate to have had another veil lifted by your comment.

Mudita, but may householder be careful, it also has context Bhikkhuni Sutta, often related.

In case those comments needed explaining -- "conceit" is canonically associated with comparing and self-image, so for example "small woman in small country" might imply a comparison to "big man in big country" or anything else along those lines -- see e.g. this answer -- and "conceit" is one of the "fetters". But the Bhikkhuni Sutta teaches that conceit can also be helpful on the path, e.g. "if I practice like they do then I too might attain", if you find good role models.

We're all small people on a small planet. And these days we nearly all have access to the teachings of the various traditions, although maybe not always to personal teachers. I would suggest we're all pretty much in the same boat, or all trying to get in it. As for conceit and arrogance, as Chris says these things are never unambiguously good or bad. It's a question of how we use them. A strength and a weakness are often the same thing seen from two angles. . . .  . . . .

Thank you all for taking time to answer me. I have read the texts that accompanied your own answers and I will try to decipher them line by line. I particularly will work on right thought. The paragraph about isolating the feeling that precedes my decision to practise wrong thought was very helpful.

It's hard to know how to answer this question, how to make an answer match your question -- what do you consider is "enlightenment"? What Buddhist doctrine or vocabulary, if any, do you already understand or practice?

Chris, I know nothing, even less. But everything I’ve read that has been posted here has been really helpful. It’s a beginning. Thank you

Maybe she doesn't need to understand all of that, if she can clearly see that all our problems come from the concepts held by our own mind?

Thank you... once again the veil has fallen.

Theoretical understanding of the Dhamma may be complicated but the practice is not.
Firstly one should develop one's own merit. This can be done by developing the following:

generosity, charity or benevolence
being virtuous and ethical
developing oneself mentally thought meditation

This is mentioned in the Suttas as:

Tīṇ’imāni bhikkhave puñña,kiriya,vatthūni. | “Bhikshus, there are these three grounds
  for merit-making.
Katamāni tīṇi? | What are the three?
(1) Dāna,mayaṁ puñña,kiriya,vatthu, | (1) the ground for merit-making through giving.
(2) Sīla,mayaṁ puñña,kiriya,vatthu, | (2) the ground for merit-making through moral virtue.
(3) Bhāvanā,mayaṁ puñña,kiriya,vatthu. | (3) the ground for merit-making through cultivation.

Puñña,kiriya,vatthu Sutta 2
One should start with giving and helping others. Then or simultaneously one should increase one's morality. Finally one should start trying to develop one's mind through meditation.
The Buddhist training has 3 elements which are:

developing virtue and ethics - this is common with the 2nd item above
developing mastery over the mind through concentration - this is common with the 3rd item above
developing higher wisdom and understanding - this is common with the 3rd item above

An expanded version of this is known as the Noble Eightfold Path with each item further divided.

To develop virtue one can do it as follows:

you can set some rules to your conduct. E.g. the basic rules Buddhists follow:

"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from onslaught on breathing beings." (Pali: Pāṇātipātā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from taking what is not given." (Pali: Adinnādānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from misconduct concerning sense-pleasures." (Pali: Kāmesumicchācāra veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from false speech." (Pali: Musāvādā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)
"I undertake the training-precept to abstain from alcoholic drink or drugs that are an opportunity for heedlessness." (Pali: Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.)

Five precepts

One should think of the intended consequences of one's actions. There can be unintended consequences also but this one should not worry too much about.

One should to what is of benefit to others, oneself or both
One should abstain from what is unbeneficial to others, oneself or both
One should abstain from what is unbeneficial one party though beneficial to others

One can develop ethics by looking at the sensations when one is doing something. This will be an indication of whether one is reacting in a bad or good way. Sensation based stimuli makes one act or motivates one to act in good or bad way. By knowing the feelings one can constraint oneself before one acts on the stimuli.

E.g. One may get a bad feeling about someone and ones defence mechanism of fear may prompt one to do something bad

“What now, bhikshus, haven’t you known me to have taught the Dharma in this way:

THE 2 KINDS OF PLEASANT FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of pleasant feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of pleasant
  feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.

THE 2 KINDS OF PAINFUL FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of painful feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of painful feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.

THE 2 KINDS OF NEUTRAL FEELINGS.

Here, when one feels a certain kind of neutral feeling, unwholesome states grow in him and wholesome states lessen;
but when one feels another kind of neutral feeling, unwholesome states lessen in him and wholesome states grow.’?”

... [more detail description of the above follows in the Sutta]

Kīṭā,giri Sutta
The sensations discussed lastly with regard to developing virtue and ethics can be further used in the context of meditation as well. Sensations or sensory stimuli prompt unwholesome states this prompt one's action. In the case of virtue, understating the sensations was not to follow thought with harmful bodily and verbal actions. In meditation, this is extended a step further to eradicate harmful mental states.

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta
Sensory stimuli causes sensations:

i. On seeing a form with the eye,

one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.

ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,

one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.

iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,

one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.

iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,

one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.

v. On feeling a touch with the body,

one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.

vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
When this happens one should know that they are impermanent and not clung onto:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
By not clinging into sensations one does not create negative mental states which generally prompts physical and vocal action.
In short, both morality and mental cultivation can be done by:

knowing where ones attention is: mind/though, eye/sight, ear/sound, nose/smell, tongue/taste, body/feeling
know the feeling/sensation that this creates
know that these feelings/sensations are impermanent [and dependently arisen]
know that the feeling and sensory faculties and objects are not worth clinging to [or identifying as permanent, pleasant, self or relating to oneself, or beautiful]

This description may sometimes also sound complicated but the practice is not. It is best that one takes a course. Following are some pointers:

https://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html
http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

Thank you sir. Very good for me to see.

Start small.
If you haven't already, begin practicing meditation, even it is just counting your breath for 5 minutes a day. As you live your daily life, make an effort to be patient and kind. If you want to do some reading, start with books that are specifically intended for beginners. (My personal recommendation is The Three Pillars of Zen.)
Once you've done that, I would suggest doing some research. Just because you live in a "small country" doesn't mean there aren't other practitioners nearby. If you can find a community within reach, visit them, even if it is only once. Practicing and talking with others in person can make a big difference in providing direction and motivation.
An analogy that I like to use is physical fitness. Few have the resources to be as fit as professional athletes, but most of us can take steps to improve our fitness. The same holds true with enlightenment. Start with achievable objectives and don't worry about the end goal until you have some experience.
The fitness analogy is good to keep in mind when you are visiting this site or reading other materials. Professional athletes have advanced training regimes, tailored specifically for their particular sport. When talking among themselves, athletes are likely to use special terminology and otherwise leverage their shared knowledge to speak efficiently; a layman is unlikely to be able to gain much from listening in on such conversations. Likewise, advanced Buddhist practitioners are apt to use terminology that is unfamiliar to beginners and leverage concepts that are often unique to their chosen tradition.
In short, try not to be overwhelmed. Focus on what you can do and build from there.

I know nothing, even less. But everything I’ve read that has been posted here has been really helpful. It’s a beginning.
I'll try posting a wordy answer, though your question is so short as to be poetic, and seems to invite a poetic reply.
Buddhist doctrine is written in various historical texts (and practiced by contemporary people, students, teachers, monks, lay-people).
It's thought that the Pali suttas are among the oldest of the surviving Buddhist texts (Gautama Buddha lived about 2500 years ago) -- as well as the Vinaya for monks and nuns.
There are different forms or traditions (or "schools") of Buddhism in different countries -- of which some study the Pali suttas, and some study other texts (which are perhaps historically later). Many (probably a majority) of people on this site are asking questions about specific suttas -- about points of doctrine in the suttas, or about the meaning of a Pali word).
If you don't know the suttas that explains why "who does not understand many of these questions". If you want to know the suttas, it's a large topic:

Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible?
SuttaCentral -- Getting Started
English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

In this answer, I tried to summarise that Buddhist doctrine (as I've understood it) in a single answer.
Not all forms of Buddhism involve a study of the suttas. Please correct me if I wrong, I gather that people in later schools tried to summarise the doctrine (which is also called "the dhamma" or "the dharma"), into books called abhidhammas and then people might study those summaries (if indeed they "study" at all, many people might instead learn from listening to contemporary sermons aka "dhamma talks").
I think that (i.e. not particularly studying the suttas) includes schools/traditions which might be slightly more famous in the West or English-speaking world -- e.g. "Zen" and "Tibetan Buddhism".
There's also the practice of meditation (apart from studying texts at all) -- possibly several practices of meditation (though this answer for example says that they have a common principle). Still again perhaps there are as many descriptions as there are schools or teachers, don't be too surprised about that.
Given that Threefold Training is a summary of Buddhism, then as well as doctrine ("wisdom") and meditation ("mind") I should also mention "virtue" -- i.e. behaving well, being kind, being sensible, harmless, even generous -- whether you're a lay-person or whether you're a monk or nun.
The word "enlightened" is kind of Western. Translating from one language, culture or person to another isn't always easy but instead of "enlightened" I think the suttas use words like "awake", "liberation", and "cessation" (of suffering and of the causes of suffering).
Andrei's answer to this question reminds me of the opening lines of the Dhammapada (which "is a collection of sayings of the Buddha in verse form and one of the most widely read and best known Buddhist scriptures").
Its first two verses ...

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

... I don't know which edition of it has a good commentary. It makes some sense as an introduction to Buddhism, though more sense as a summary (if you already knew a bit and recognise themes in it).
It contains many (semi-famous) one-line-summaries of Buddhism, for example verse 183:

To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

The idea of "cleansing one's mind" might be slightly contradicted or modified in the doctrines of later schools (e.g. the second poem in this Poem contest). Some people perhaps only have exposure to that kind of doctrine (e.g. that "the mind is empty of essence") -- other people only the "older" doctrine -- and some students say that their studying the older doctrine too helps to make more sense of the later.
Another way to see it is that later doctrines are often trying to describe an already-enlightened state (so they may seem 'sudden'), whereas the older suttas mostly describe a path toward enlightenment liberation (so they may seem 'gradual'). So the older suttas talk about cleansing the mind, getting rid of bad habits and clinging and so on.
So from the Dhammapada again,

Think not lightly of evil, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the fool, gathering it little by little, fills himself with evil.

Think not lightly of good, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.

Conversely there's this topic -- Why is the Buddha described as trackless? -- which illustrates:

It's difficult to describe/define the enlightenment of the Buddha
Translating from Pali is difficult too, and people discuss that

Given that that is liberation, I find it reminiscent of that second poem ("no stand"), mentioned previously:

Bodhi originally has no tree.
The bright mirror also has no stand.
Fundamentally there is not a single thing.
Where could dust arise?

There's also doctrine around people trying to combine enlightenment with daily/mundane life, and schools disagree on that topic. Some schools teach that a fully-enlightened person can only live as a monk or nun -- as a beggar, not as a layperson or "house-holder".
Other schools aren't so categorical (or maybe categorical in a different way), so you get aphorisms like:

What is the meaning of the Zen quote: "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water"?

"Before I studied Zen," goes a famous Zen saying, "I saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers. When I had studied Zen for thirty years I no longer saw mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers. But now that I have finally mastered Zen, I once again see mountains as mountains and rivers as rivers."

The "Ten Ox Herding Pictures of Zen" which ends with returning to the market-place

I think that schools posit different stages of enlightenment, the suttas for example mention Four stages of enlightenment.
I asked a question once, which you might find appropriate -- How to explain what Buddhism is?

You can start with tranquility and concentration development; just pick one or two practices like kasina or basic Anapanasati; follow the general theme of instruction where the various teachers overlap. Read a couple manuals.
You will have to experiment but it would be hard to go so wrong that it is unbeneficial.
Learn the basic satipatthana practice as well.
As for theory, it will be a different progression than if focusing on the wisdom faculty and supporting it with much learning but you will get there on your own by going through the jhanas or by seeking out a person accomplished in insight or better both tranquility & insight.
Most likely this will be the hard part because jhana monks are few but are seemingly possible to find without great difficulty whereas one with insight is going to be hard to find, i guess.
By doing it in this way, you can hold foremost wrong views like 'maybe x is true maybe it is not true' until you figure out the answer and not be hindered by these doubts in your practice which is simple.
Other than that devotional practices, discipline, supportive meditations and giving gifts; the development of these is straight forward and will also yield results.
You could study using what is clear and relevant to you, ponder what is unclear and use critical thinking a lot when browsing internet buddhisms.
Internet boards are a good way to study the texts by topic of interest but i wouldn't advice assuming that people know what they are talking about by default.

Thank you. This has been helpful

she can memorize https://suttacentral.net/mn76/en/horner abandons any bad  way of living  and cultivate the good ways of living

Good Ānanda, what does this Teacher teach, what does he profess
  whereby an intelligent man could certainly live a Brahma-faring and,
  living it, could gain success in the right path, in Dhamma, in what is
  skilled?” “As to this, Sandaka, [1] a Tathagata arises in the world, a
  perfected one, a fully Self-awakened one endowed with right knowledge
  and conduct, well-farer, knower of the worlds, the matchless
  charioteer of men to be tamed, the Awakened One, the Lord. He makes
  known this world with the devas, with Māra, with Brahmā, creation with
  its recluses and brahmans, its devas and men, having realised them by
  his own super-knowledge. He teaches Dhamma which is lovely at the
  beginning, lovely in the middle, lovely at the ending, with the spirit
  and the letter; he proclaims the Brahma-faring wholly fulfilled, quite
  purified. A householder or a householder's son or one born in another
  family hears that Dhamma. [2] Having heard that Dhamma, he gains faith
  in the Tathāgata. [3] Endowed with this faith that he has acquired, he
  reflects in this way: ‘The household life is confined and dusty; going
  forth is of the open; it is not easy for one who lives in a house to
  fare the Brahma-faring wholly fulfilled, wholly pure, polished like a
  conch-shell. Suppose now that I, having cut off hair and beard, having
  put on saffron robes, should go forth from home into homelessness?’
  After a time, getting rid of his wealth, be it small or great, getting
  rid of his circle of relations, be it small or great, having cut off
  his hair and beard, having put on saffron robes, he goes forth from
  home into homelessness. [4] He, being thus one who has gone forth and
  who is endowed with the training and the way of living of monks,
  abandoning onslaught on creatures, is one who abstains from onslaught
  on creatures; the stick laid aside, the knife laid aside, he lives
  kindly, scrupulous, friendly and compassionate towards all breathing
  things and creatures. [5] Abandoning the taking of what is not given,
  he is one who abstains from taking what is not given; being one who
  takes (only) what is given, who waits for what is given, not by
  stealing he lives with a self become pure. [6] Abandoning unchastity,
  he is one who is chaste, keeping remote (from unchastity), abstaining
  from dealings with women. [7] Abandoning lying speech, he is one who
  abstains from lying speech, a truth-speaker, a bondsman to truth,
  trustworthy, dependable, no deceiver of the world. [8] Abandoning
  slanderous speech, he is one who abstains from slanderous speech;
  having heard something here he is not one for repeating it elsewhere
  for (causing) variance among these (people), or having heard something
  elsewhere he is not one to repeat it there for (causing) variance
  among these (people). In this way he is a reconciler of those who are
  at variance, and one who combines those who are friends. Concord is
  his pleasure, concord his delight, concord his joy, concord is the
  motive of his speech. [9] Abandoning harsh speech, he is one who
  abstains from harsh speech. Whatever speech is gentle, pleasing to the
  ear, affectionate, going to the heart, urbane, pleasant to the
  manyfolk, agreeable to the manyfolk, he comes to be one who utters
  speech like this. [10] Abandoning frivolous chatter, he is one who
  abstains from frivolous chatter. He is a speaker at a right time, a
  speaker of fact, a speaker on the goal, a speaker on Dhamma, a speaker
  on discipline, he speaks words that are worth treasuring, with similes
  at a right time that are discriminating, connected with the goal. [11]
  He comes to be one who abstains from what involves destruction to
  seed-growth, to vegetable growth. [12] He comes to be one who eats one
  meal a day, refraining at night, abstaining from eating at a wrong
  time. [13] He comes to be one who abstains from watching shows of
  dancing, singing, music. [14] He comes to be one who abstains from
  using garlands, scents, unguents, adornments, finery. [15] He comes to
  be one who abstains from using high beds, large beds. [16] He comes to
  be one who abstains from accepting gold and silver. He comes to be one
  who abstains from accepting raw grain. He comes to be one who abstains
  from accepting raw meat. He comes to be one who abstains from
  accepting women and girls. He comes to be one who abstains from
  accepting women slaves and men slaves. He comes to be one who abstains
  from accepting goats and sheep. He comes to be one who abstains from
  accepting fowl and swine. He comes to be one who abstains from
  accepting elephants, cows, horses, mares. He comes to be one who
  abstains from accepting fields and sites. He comes to be one who
  abstains from accepting messages or going on such. [17] He comes to be
  one who abstains from buying and selling. He comes to be one who
  abstains from accepting from cheating with weights. He comes to be one
  who abstains from accepting from cheating with bronzes. He comes to be
  one who abstains from cheating with measures. He comes to be one who
  abstains from the crooked ways of bribery, fraud and deceit. [18] He
  comes to be one who abstains from maiming, murdering, manacling,
  highway robbery. [19] He comes to be contented with the robes for
  protecting his body, with the almsfood for sustaining his stomach.
  Wherever he goes he takes these things with him as he goes. As a bird
  on the wing wherever it flies takes its’ wings with it as it flies, so
  a monk, contented with the robes for protecting his body, with the
  almsfood for sustaining his stomach, wherever he goes takes these
  things with him as he goes. [20] He, possessed of the ariyan body of
  moral habit, subjectively experiences unsullied well-being. [21-1]
  Having seen a material shape with the eye, he is not entranced by the
  general appearance, he is not entranced by the detail. If he dwells
  with this organ of sight uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection,
  evil unskilled states of mind, might predominate. So he fares along
  controlling it; he guards the organ of sight, he comes to control over
  the organ of sight. [21-2] Having heard a sound with the ear, he is
  not entranced by the general appearance, he is not entranced by the
  detail. If he dwells with this organ of hearing uncontrolled,
  covetousness and dejection, evil unskilled states of mind, might
  predominate. So he fares along controlling it; he guards the organ of
  hearing, he comes to control over the organ of hearing. [21-3] Having
  smelt a smell with the nose, he is not entranced by the general
  appearance, he is not entranced by the detail. If he dwells with this
  organ of smell uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil
  unskilled states of mind, might predominate. So he fares along
  controlling it; he guards the organ of smell, he comes to control over
  the organ of smell. [21-4] Having savoured a taste with the tongue, he
  is not entranced by the general appearance, he is not entranced by the
  detail. If he dwells with this organ of taste uncontrolled,
  covetousness and dejection, evil unskilled states of mind, might
  predominate. So he fares along controlling it; he guards the organ of
  taste, he comes to control over the organ of taste. [21-5] Having felt
  a touch with the body, he is not entranced by the general appearance,
  he is not entranced by the detail. If he dwells with this organ of
  touch uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil unskilled states
  of mind, might predominate. So he fares along controlling it; he
  guards the organ of touch, he comes to control over the organ of
  touch. [21-6] Having cognised a mental object with the mind, he is not
  entranced by the general appearance, he is not entranced by the
  detail. If he lives with this organ of mind uncontrolled, covetousness
  and dejection, evil unskilled states of mind might predominate. So he
  fares along controlling it; he guards the organ of mind, he comes to
  control over the organ of mind. If he is possessed of this ariyan
  control of the (sense-) organs, he subjectively experiences unsullied
  well-being.
[22] Whether he is setting out or returning, he is one who comports
  himself properly; whether he is looking down or looking round, he is
  one who comports himself properly; whether he is bending back or
  stretching out (his arm), he is one who comports himself properly;
  whether he is carrying his outer cloak, his bowl, his robe, he is one
  who comports himself properly; whether he is munching, drinking,
  eating, savouring, he is one who comports himself properly; whether he
  is obeying the calls of nature, he is one who comports himself
  properly; whether he is walking, standing, asleep, awake, talking,
  silent, he is one who comports himself properly. Possessed of this
  ariyan body of moral habit and possessed of this ariyan control of the
  (sense-) organs and possessed of this ariyan mindfulness and clear
  consciousness, [23] he chooses a remote lodging in a forest, at the
  root of a tree, on a mountain slope, in a wilderness, in a hill-cave,
  in a cemetery, in a forest haunt, in the open or on a heap of straw.
[24] He, returning from alms-gathering after his meal, sits down
  cross-legged holding the back erect, having made mindfulness rise up
  in front of him. [25-1] He, having got rid of covetousness for the
  world, lives with a mind devoid of coveting, he purifies the mind of
  coveting. [25-2] By getting rid of the taint of ill-will, he lives
  benevolent in mind; and compassionate for the welfare of all creatures
  and beings, he purifies the mind of the taint of ill-will. [25-3] By
  getting rid of sloth and torpor, he lives devoid of sloth and torpor;
  perceiving the light, mindful and clearly conscious, he purifies the
  mind of sloth and torpor. [25-4] By getting rid of restlessness and
  worry, he lives calmly, the mind subjectively tranquillised, he
  purifies the mind of restlessness and worry. [25-5] By getting rid of
  doubt, he lives doubt-crossed; unperplexed as to the states that are
  skilled, he purifies his mind of doubt.
[26-1] He, by getting rid Of these five hindrances, defilements of a
  mind and weakening to intuitive wisdom, aloof from pleasurs of the
  senses, aloof from unskilled states of mind, enters and abides in the
  first meditation, which is accompanied by initial thought and
  discursive thought, is born of aloofness and is rapturous and joyful.
  If a disciple attains such lofty eminence under this Teacher, an
  intelligent person could certainly live that Brahma-faring and, living
  it, could gain success in the right path, in Dhamma, in what is
  skilled.
[26-2] And again, Sandaka, a monk, by allaying initial and discursive
  thought, his mind subjectively tranquillised and fixed on one point,
  enters on and abides in the second meditation which is devoid of
  initial and discursive thought, is born of concentration and is
  rapturous and joyful. If a disciple attains such lofty eminence under
  this Teacher, an intelligent person could certainly live that
  Brahma-faring and, living it, could gain success in the right path, in
  Dhamma, in what is skilled.
[26-3] And again, Sandaka, a monk, by the fading out of rapture,
  dwells with equanimity, attentive and clearly conscious, and
  experiences in his person that joy of which the ariyans say: ‘Joyful
  lives he who has equanimity and is mindful,’ and he enters on and
  abides in the third meditation. If a disciple attains such lofty
  eminence under this Teacher, an intelligent person could certainly
  live that Brahma-faring and, living it, could gain success in the
  right path, in Dhamma, in what is skilled.
[26-4] And again, Sandaka, a monk by getting rid of joy, by getting
  rid of anguish, by the going down of his former pleasures and sorrows,
  enters on and abides in the fourth meditation which has neither
  anguish nor joy, and which is entirely purified by equanimity and
  mindfulness. If a disciple attains such lofty eminence under this
  Teacher, an intelligent person could certainly live that Brahma-faring
  and, living it, could gain success in the right path, in Dhamma, in
  what is skilled.
[27-1] Thus with the mind composed, quite purified, quite clarified,
  without blemish, without defilement, grown soft and workable, stable,
  immovable, he directs his mind to the knowledge and recollection of
  former habitations. He recollects a variety of former habitations,
  thus: One birth, two births, three births, four births, five births,
  ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births,
  a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, and
  many an eon of integration and many an eon of disintegration and many
  an eon of integration-disintegration: ‘Such a one was I by name,
  having such and such a clan, such and such a colour, so I was
  nourished, such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine,
  so did the span of life end. Passing from this, I came to be in
  another state where I was such a one by name, having such and such a
  clan, such and such a colour, so I was nourished, such and such
  pleasant and painful experiences were mine, so did the span of life
  end. Passing from this, I arose here.’ Thus he recollects divers
  former habitations in all their modes and detail.
[27-2] With the mind composed thus, quite purified, quite clarified,
  without blemish, without defilement, grown soft and workable, stable,
  immovable, he directs his mind to the knowledge of the passing hence
  and the arising of beings. With the purified deva-vision surpassing
  that of men, he sees beings as they pass hence or come to be; he
  comprehends that beings are mean, excellent, comely, ugly, well-going,
  ill-going, according to the consequences of deeds, and thinks: ‘Indeed
  these worthy beings who were possessed of wrong conduct in body,
  speech and thought, scoffers at the ariyans, holding a wrong view,
  incurring deeds consequent on a wrong view, these, at the breaking up
  of the body after dying, have arisen in a sorrowful state, a bad
  bourn, the abyss, Niraya Hell. But these worthy beings who were
  possessed of good conduct in body, speech and thought, who did not
  scoff at the ariyans, holding a right view, incurring deeds consequent
  on a right view, these at the breaking up of the body after dying,
  have arisen in a good bourn, a heaven world.’ Thus with the purified
  deva-vision surpassing that of men does he see beings as they pass
  hence, as they arise; he comprehends that beings are mean, excellent,
  comely, ugly, well-going, ill-going according to the consequences of
  deeds.
[27-3] With the mind composed thus, quite purified, quite clarified,
  without blemish, without defilement, grown soft and workable, stable,
  immovable, he directs his mind to the knowledge of the destruction of
  the cankers. He comprehends as it really is: ‘This is anguish’, ‘this
  is the arising of anguish’, ‘this is the stopping of anguish’, ‘this
  is the course leading to the stopping of anguish’. He comprehends as
  it really is: ‘These are the cankers’, ‘this is the arising of the
  cankers’, ‘this is the stopping of the cankers’, ‘this is the course
  leading to the stopping of the cankers’. Knowing thus, seeing thus,
  his mind is freed from the canker of sense-pleasures and his mind is
  freed from the canker of becoming and his mind is freed from the
  canker of ignorance.
[28] In freedom the knowledge comes to be: ‘I am freed’; and he
  comprehends: ‘Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the
  Brahma-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no more of being
  such or so.’ If a disciple attains such lofty eminence under this
  Teacher, an intelligent person could certainly live that Brahma-faring
  and, living it, could gain success in the right path, in Dhamma, in
  what is skilled.
“But, good Ānanda, could that monk who is a perfected one, the cankers
  destroyed, who has lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down
  the burden, attained his own goal, the fetters of becoming utterly
  destroyed, freed by perfect profound knowledge, could he enjoy
  pleasures of the senses?”
“Whatever monk, Sandaka, is a perfected one the cankers destroyed, who
  has lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained his own goal, the fetters of becoming utterly destroyed,
  freed by perfect profound knowledge, he cannot become one to
  transgress five points: [1] a monk whose cankers are destroyed cannot
  become one intentionally to deprive a living creature of life; [2] a
  monk whose cankers are destroyed cannot become one to take what has
  not been given, as it were by theft; [3] a monk whose cankers are
  destroyed cannot become one to indulge in sexual intercourse; [4] a
  monk whose cankers are destroyed cannot become one to speak a
  deliberate lie; [5] a monk whose cankers are destroyed cannot become
  one to enjoy pleasures of the senses in regard to what was stored as
  he did formerly when in the household state. Sandaka, whatever is a
  perfected one the cankers destroyed, who has lived the life, done what
  was to be done, laid down the burden, attained his own goal, the
  fetters of becoming utterly destroyed, freed by perfect profound
  knowledge, he cannot become one to transgress these five points.”
“But, good Ānanda, if a monk is one perfected the cankers destroyed,
  who has lived the life, done what was to be done, laid down the
  burden, attained his own goal, the fetters of becoming utterly
  destroyed, freed by perfect profound knowledge, then, whether he is
  walking or standing still or asleep or awake is the
  knowledge-and-vision constantly and perpetually present that his
  cankers are destroyed?” “Well then, Sandaka, I will make you a simile,
  for by a simile some intelligent persons here understand the meaning
  of what has been said.
Sandaka, it is like a man whose hands and feet have been cut off;
  whether he is walking or standing still or asleep or awake, constantly
  and perpetually are his hands and feet as though cut off; and moreover
  while he is reflecting on it, he knows: ‘My hands and feet have been
  cut off.’ Even so, Sandaka, whatever monk is a perfected one, the
  cankers destroyed, who has lived the life, done what was to be done,
  laid down the burden, attained his own goal, the fetters of becoming
  utterly destroyed, freed by perfect profound knowledge, for him
  whether he is walking or standing still or asleep or awake, the
  cankers are as though destroyed; and moreover while he is reflecting
  on it, he knows: ‘My cankers are destroyed.’”
“How many great leaders, good Ānanda, are there in this Dhamma and
  discipline?” “Not merely a hundred, nor two, three, four or five
  hundred, but far more are those who are great leaders in this Dhamma
  and discipline.”
“Wonderful, good Ānanda, marvellous, good Ānanda; there can be no
  extolling of their own dhamma, nor disparaging of the dhamma of
  others; but both the teaching of Dhamma in its (whole) extent and so
  many great leaders can be seen. On the other hand, these Naked
  Ascetics are children of a childless mother, they both extol
  themselves and disparage others, and they show only three great
  leaders, namely Nanda Vaccha, Kisa Saṅkicca and Makkhali Gosāla”

Thank you. This is very helpful to me

"Hoping to become enlightened" implies that enlightenment is something to gain, something to possess, something to grasp for. We grasp at things that we do not have, we grasp at things that are external. How can we grasp at something that does not have an objective existence, but is more akin to an inner state of being?
As the classic cliché goes... If you want to take a drink of water from a river or lake (and do not have a cup handy), and you go and grab at it like it were a rock or a rope, the water would all just squeeze right through your fingers. So the solution is to gently cup your hands, allowing the water to pool into them so that you may drink.

Thank you. I can see myself more clearly through your words

How did a monk who was not able to learn a single stanza of Dhamma for 4 months become enlightened? Read the story of venerable Culapanthaka . If you want to be enlightened, studying the Dhamma helps a lot, but meditation is more important. Especially Vipassana meditation.

I read this story. Thank you for taking time to help me.

@SueHamilton inferiority complex is a form of ego. Drop all views involving a 'self'!

Firstly, there are the six senses and their sensations - eyes and forms, ears and sounds, nose and aroma, body and tactile sensations, tongue and taste, mind and thoughts.
Secondly, there are mental concepts (a type of thought). Who YOU are, the self, is like a primary mental concept. The mind objectifies and classifies things that are sensed, relative to the self. These are also mental concepts. For example: This is MY car. That is MY father's house. I am a man. That dog is an animal (which is different compared to ME, a human).
Thirdly, cravings come out of mental concepts and sensations. For e.g. you liked the sensation of tasty food and disliked the sensation of hunger. So, this makes you experience cravings towards tasty food.
Fourthly, all suffering comes out of cravings. For e.g. if someone denies you tasty food, you become angry. If the person whom you like, spends time with others, you become jealous.
Fifthly, the path to enlightenment is simply going in reverse order in this list, and once you've reached the beginning, realizing that ultimately sensations are simply sensations. Mental concepts such as your self and relationship between sensations and your self are somewhat illusory and gives rise to cravings, and cravings give rise to suffering.
Perhaps we can say that: "All sufferings are mental"

Very clear instruction . Thank you

She is already home ,she doesn't need to ask how ,she doesn't need to do nor understand anything ,she is a small woman in a small country ,and that by itself has a beauty of its own,the smallest rose flower is already enlightened ,it doesn't need to do anything to be a rose flower it doesn't have ideas on how to be an enlightened rose flower,life is happening all by itself and needs no one to fix it, just let it happen ,let the woman be what she is,and if you don't want to let it happen then thats also happening,life also wants it to happen.Trust it.
All methods of meditation are just to help you realize that fact ,once you do realize it ,then no method is needed, it will simply kill all your questions ,life happens so beautifully,so luminously every moment by itself, without someone efforting .
Enlightenment is already here ,seeing it is not knowledge its experiential realization.

If you don't understand it- put it down. You can very easily hear or read words that explain buddha but they won't makes since. It's because words are just words. Words don't carry meaning by themselves. Questions come with answers and answers will not reveal a complete truth alone. If you sit upright by yourself and listen while breath counting to 10 and restarting for 20 minutes, some answers may find you. But you aren't looking for them in a meditative state. what you hear you should also put down. Early in, it's an echo of your own mind. Eventually things calm down a bit. A storm passes and there clarity.  All day long in immaturity we tend to fight or run from abuse for the sake of moving past telling ourselves what to hear. It's when we slow down we make time to reflect and listen and not trying to explain to ourselves like children we stop being children. If you digest your suffering and let go of your wants you free your dharma and the cycle of suffering because you aren't collecting it by ignoring what you have in front of you. You probably heard: find "nothing" if you give up everything what would you have? Start by putting down all the things in your mind you don't need. Then put down all the things that are in your mind you have. Who we tell ourselves we are and who we really are aren't the same. Here's some proof: Your a woman and describe yourself as small. This can't really be you because, are you not also someone's daughter? Having said that you already know your not just someone's daughter right? These are words that fall short of meaning. I know you personally. Your working hard I believe you can do it.  Put down what you know and have( in your mind) least until your mind breaks artificial illusion. Then you'll know what you don't on some level. Enlightenment is a funny thing. Here's a koan for you: Have you ever met someone who is Bigger then you all the time?

Thank you so much for this jewel

' please find a good group  to practice with. Do a day long retreat or a keep the precepts day. Listen to Dharma lectures. Go to a peaceful, quiet place and relax, When you are very peaceful, set an intention to be  kind or friendly to someone. Remember your ancestors, and strive to be like one of your relatives that you thought was really cool or happy or, wise or intelligent or loving or gentle or alll of the above, and so on. Let go of everything and think about one Dharma teaching. Do you agree? What do you think?
Read the 8 fold path and then ask a teacher about ,how can I start doing that? Good night.

Yes, I agree. My mother was a most loving example. Thank you for reminding me.


text:
What is the difference and relation between chanda and cetana?
In this website, it's stated that:

chanda:
  intention, desire, will.
   1. As an ethically neutral psychological term, in the sense of 'intention', it is one of those general mental factors (cetasika, q.v. Tab. II) taught in the Abhidhamma, the moral quality of which is determined by the character of the volition (cetanā) associated therewith.

However, I've seen in a lot of discussions and sutta translations that the word cetana is usually translated as intention, which also happens to be the word chosen as the rendering for chanda.
At first glance, I kind of understand this situation, mainly because how intertwined and related these two phenomena (chanda and cetana) seem to be. Sadly, I'm almost a complete ignorant in regard to pali issues (and dhamma matters in general, by the way), and so, I cannot comprehend the nuances that may differenciate these two processes.
What is the difference between chanda and cetana?
How do these two relate to each other?
If they are related, which one comes first, and which after?
Is one a condition for the other?
Thanks a lot, in advance, for your time and patience.
Kind regards!

Related answers here: Difference between desire (chanda) and craving (tanha)?

OP: What is the difference between chanda and cetana?

Chanda is the desire to act. E.g. if you stand from a seat you have to have the "intention" to do it, but can choose not to if you want

A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma
Cetana is volition. This is what makes you commit a certain course of action to realise a goal or a wish. E.g. I a feeling hungry hence I will to get up and go to the fridge to get some food.

A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma

OP: How do these two relate to each other?

Cetana is what pulls you in a certain direction in taking action. Chanda is the desire to do the act. E.g. (1) I am feeling hungry, but I am lazy to get up from bed. Here I have the intention but not the will to act. (2) I have money to buy a beggar or donate it to a beggar, but I choose to donate it. Here there is an intention to eat and donate but volition to donate.
Chanda is karmically neutral. Cetana is what decides the karma.

OP: If they are related, which one comes first, and which after?

They are present in the same mind moment if Chanda occurs. Cetana is a universal mental factor and is there in every mind moment. Chanda is an occasional factor hence there only in certain mind moments.

OP: Is one a condition for the other?

Cetana is the driving force which conditions chanda also.

Thanks for your answer! I have one more question, if you don't mind me asking: Would it be incorrect to say that "I" have the cetana of standing up from a seat, because my back is sore for being in the same position for a long time? In the examples you gave, I still see both terms as interchangeable. Kind regards!

You can say this is cetana. It is easier if you have more than 1 choice of action with the intention to do both but you follow through with one, in which case it is what you have cetana is what you followed thought.

Thanks again! So, chanda comes first, and only then can cetana arise? Kind regards!

Both arise together within one mind. Cetana is a universal mental factor hence is always there. Chanda is optional and is not always there. Cetana pushes you to commit an act. Chanda is just a desire to act.

Cetera conditions Chanda.

But if chanda is the desire to act, and cetana is what pushes to commit an act, should a desire come first, before taking any decision to take an specific course of action? Isn't desire the "root of all things"? Sorry for being so insistent. Thank you for your kind answers. Kind regards!

Chanda is the desire component. The English word desire is also used for lobs. In unwholesome courses of action, this will occur. See: The 52 Mental Factors (cetasika)

Enthusiasm seems to be another word as some translators use for Chanda. Iddhi,pāda Vibhanga Sutta

The next event when one has Chetana is that one plan the course of action. Cetanā Sutta 1-3

@BrianDíazFlores Isn't desire the "root of all things"? You might be thinking of lobha which is one of the "unwholesome roots".

@ChrisW Hi! I took that phrase from AN 8.83, where ot seems the word chanda is used to refer to the phenomena which is the "root of all things". Kins regards!

When a puthujjana man sees a beautiful girl/lady, a passion or love brews in his heart. This motivating 'passion' or 'love' can be compared to 'chanda'.
Similarly, when the inner urge to end suffering manifests or the liberation & joy of The Path is experienced, a similar 'passion' or 'love' manifests. These are 'chanda'.
'Intention' includes making a decision to do something. 'Intention' is more within the sphere of 'thought' where as 'chanda' is more within the sphere of 'emotion'.
I imagine 'chanda' occurs before 'intention'. For example, you feel unhappy about life and something within you moves you to search for a solution. The 'emotion' or 'will to live/will to be happy' within you that moves you is 'chanda'. From this chanda you act to search for a solution. This decision to act is 'intention'.
SN 51.20 is about the Four Iddhipada. Here, 'chandha' occurs 1st and 'intention' ('citta') occurs later.

These four bases of power, when developed & pursued, are of great
  fruit & great benefit. And how are the four bases of power developed &
  pursued so as to be of great fruit & great benefit?

There is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with
  concentration founded on desire (chando; zeal; enthusiasm)...
He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on
  persistence (vīriya; energy)...
He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on
  intent (citta; mind; mental development) ...
He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on
  discrimination (vīmaṃsā; inquiry; investigation)...

SN 51.20

Remember my answer about the attention/association process?
There I explained how our attention works under the hood as a cyclic association process with feedback. Remember, how the new associations either support or crowd out the current topic?
Cetana is exactly that in-the-moment "incline" in the cyclic association process, in some direction, that shifts it from one topic to another. It is the ability of the new topic to iteratively crowd out the old topic. In other words it is the relatively more attraction the new topic has over the old topic.
For example, if I open my pantry looking for plastic trash bags, and notice a bar of chocolate, then my thinking gets momentarily dominated by the memory of the sensation of chocolate dissolving in my mouth, and despite having an entirely different goal, I suddenly start getting pulled in the direction of taking a bite of the chocolate. That's Cetana. Subjectively I may think, "oh, why don't I take a little bite of that chocolate?" So in one sense you could say "I saw the chocolate and decided to have a piece". In the other sense, we can say it's the chocolate that has attracted you. It is not one or the other, these are just two different perspectives on the same thing.
This switch from trash bag to chocolate does not happen  instantaneously.  Instead, there's a shift from one to the other, over some short but not insignificant stretch of time. Perhaps a few seconds. You see the chocolate and feel the pull, and while your eyes are still searching for that trash bag, your hands are taking the chocolate bar and your mouth is biting it.
That shift or inclination in your attention is Cetana.
While Chanda is something entirely different. Chanda is when the child saw a puppet in the toy store, and having come home keeps asking mom to buy the puppet. And the mom says, "but what are you gonna do with it, after a day you will just throw it in the box". And the child says, "no I will do all kinds of things with it." -- "But what things?!" asks mom. -- "I don't know" - says the child, "but I want it".
This vague idea that "when I have it, it will be good" is Chanda.
So Cetana is just an ever present normal regular part of how our mind works moment by moment. Our attention always shifts, there's always an incline. While Chanda is a distinct type of ideation, it is thinking about something and endowing it with good qualities, in your imagination.
Perhaps we could translate Cetana as "impulse" and Chanda as "wishful thinking".

@AndreiVolkov Thanks again! I re-read the other answer you wrote a while ago, and it made even more sense now with this current question in mind. I really appreciate your help. I have one question, though: is chanda always a kind of "wishful thinking"? Because, based on the other excellent answers, it seems the Buddha used chanda to indicate a neutral (ethically/kammically speaking) kind of desire, with tanha being like a kind of kammically charged chanda. Although, I may be misunderstanding something.

@AndreiVolkov I have another question: in the example about the chocolate bar, would it be wrong to say that there was an implicit and subconscious chanda before the arising of the intention to take the bar? Isn't every action driven by some implicit desire to take some specific course of action to achieve some specific goal? Kind regards!

when I say "wishful thinking" I do not mean it in a negative way. It's just thinking about something while in your thoughts endowing it with good, desirable qualities. It may be wishful thinking about helping humanity, or wishful thinking about getting enlightened - so in this case it is "good" wishful thinking, but it is wishful thinking nevertheless, because we're imagining something and thinking "wouldn't it be nice if I could XYZ".

No, chanda by definition only refers to active manifested thinking. Implicit chanda is simply a samskara, "potential tendency".

Thanks! About the first question: how do we call the mental process which allows an arahant to keep planing and doing things? If an arahant thinks "I'll meditate under that tree, because its shadow offers a fresh spot for sitting for a long time", isn't a kind of chanda what's creating that explicit thought?

Arahant's action is determined by "samma-sankappo" (Samyak-sankalpa), which can be described as "Doing X and not doing Y would be going in the right direction not merely for myself but for everyone; it would bring many good consequences and few bad consequences, therefore I am resolved on doing X and not doing Y despite the obstacles."

Before someone is an arahant they may have Chanda like "Wouldn't it be great to become an arahant!" which is pretty good but still a kind of wishful thinking, and so is very different from arahant's strict "Do what's beneficial, not what seems attractive."

So, what do you think about what SSSD said about chanda being karmically neutral?

In Theravada they say that thinking about something is karmically neutral and only when you act is when it becomes karma. In Mahayana, we say that thinking is a precursor to action, so for us, indulging in wishful thinking about e.g. sexual contact with a certain person already shifts our karmic potential in some direction. I think the word chanda by itself is a neutral (unqualified) term, but each particular instance of chanda is rarely neutral.

In this translation "kamma" is translated "deeds" (or "action") -- so acting is literally kamma. And, it says, "It is intention that I call deeds | For after making a choice one acts", where intention translates cetana. chanda is mentioned in that suta too, but only once. Maybe the common ground is to do with choice, whether that's choosing to think about something (or at least, not the rejecting the thought), or choosing to act.

Or maybe we could translate it, "it is inclination that I call karma. Having inclined, one performs a deed"?

Or perhaps, "It is inclination-appropriated-as-I, (cetanaham) is what's called karma."? That would make sense.

About the difference in or the relation between the two definitions, though -- e.g. is it momentary/impulsive inclination (cetana) which causes long-lived/ideation/keeps-asking-mum desire (chanda) -- or, vice versa, is it habitual/background desire which causes specific/present inclination? Is chanda like "general motiive" whereas cetana is motive plus "specific opportunity" -- and there's no cetana without chanda?

I think they are largely independent from one another. Cetana happens for any number of reasons, e.g. out of surprise or out of habit etc. I don't see Chanda as background motive, I see it as a type of imagination.

@AndreiVolkov Thanks for all this clarification. I twould've thought that chanda refered to desire in general, and that a desire was considered tanha when its presupositions were ignorant and when its root were unwholesome. In this sense, I thought that even arahants had the capacity for desiring, but such desire would no longer be an ignorant, unwholesome one. Kind regards!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Which path might be appropriate for me?
I've been learning about Dharma traditions for a while now.
In short: I am attracted by the figure of Siddhartha Gautama and by the fact that Buddhism is not based on faith in the scriptures (nastika). I am completely convinced by his speech on dukkha.
Besides that, I'm not convinced at all by the anatman. I believe in the atman, I am convinced by the vision of the advaita védanta, and I love the simplicity of Patanjali's Ashtanga Yoga and its 8 clear and defined steps to the Absolute (Samadhi).
All this being said, which path to take? Which one would be the closest to my position?
I was told the Madhyamaka of Nagarjuna?

Buddhism does not say you must become a Buddhist. Stick with the Hinduism you love.

Dana (Generosity), Sila (Virtue) and Bhavana (reflecting the teachings on Dukkha) while doing eager on the basics. All else comes on it's given causes.

Buddha is pretty cool. Jesus is too. Shiva is pretty cool. There are cool guys everywhere. The real question is what kind of teacher are you willing to understand? Shiva is like falling down a bottomless pit. Which is safe as long as it's bottomless. Jesus knew others like he knew himself and that creates a wonderful basis of good. Buddha didn't like things complicated. a direct approach. He would tell you it's not their responsibility nor his to carry you to the place you want to go. That's on you. They tell us where we could go if we choose to. Now these cool guys look like they might not agree but That's not true. They could see themselves and others well enough to understand they're doing the same work. People have a hard time hearing it. So just take some time a listen. I'm a Buddhist. If I thought there was a superior way to live my life I'd do that. Even if it was prostitution. Gautama did too. So find your love language you wish to speak and use that to learn and share in it.

OP: All this being said, which path to take?

In Buddhism, there is Threefold Training which is the Noble Eightfold Path. Buddhism and Hinduism teach about Samadhi. In Hinduism, this is considered the final goal. The methods of achieving and nature of Samadhi is also somewhat as they are adopted from contemporary techniques, which are found in the Samatha techniques pertaining to the 40 Kammaṭṭhāna. In Buddhism, there is an extra step or goal which is wisdom (Paññā) which is unique to Buddhism and developed through Vipassanā. This is the final part of the Buddhist 3 fold training.

OP: Which one would be the closest to my position?

In Buddhism, a being is:

dependently arisen
impermanent
there is no internal or external controller or essence

Therefore, there is nothing worthy of being called self or Atman. Many Buddhist schools share this view.
Initially, if you do not believe this, through meditation, which develops wisdom (Paññā) called Vipassanā, you can verify this gradually. I believe it is best to set aside the philosophical ideas about self and try to see the true realities empirically. For this, it is best one take a meditation course. Following are some pointers:

https://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html
http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

Nagarjuna was a puthujjana philosopher who tries hard to pass his speculation for the dhamma, so you will never get enlightened  by basing your life on what he says, not even doing meritorious deeds, since the people who follow Mahayana even fail to stop doing bad deeds, because they fail to clean their mind.
For the  vedanta, it is completely normal for puthujjanas to reject the claims of the buddha about what is anatta, and it is completely normal that the idea of  atta, oneness and all that appeal to puthujjanas.
Since wisdom is what clearly separates the dhamma from  the various wrong views created by puthujjanas, you can still focus on sila and samadhi, from whatever wrong doctrine appeals to you currently. The only thing is that whatever samadhi you will get will not be tainted by right view, so you will still crave for bhava , if not still have Kama tanha, because the wisdom part of the dhamma is the nekkhamma and more generally the avijja viraga, ie '' the practice for the disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, relinquishment, forsaking of the present form'' and more generally whatever is conditioned.
This is what puthujjanas hate the most about the dhamma and it is precisely this which separates the dhamma from whatever wrong views puthujjanas create. For instance, the people who love vedanta completely fails to see that vinnana is conditioned so they fail to stop bhava tanha or whatever normal devas crave.

I do not know how to deal with your first paragraph without starting a pointless row, so I've mentioned it to the mods. As a statement of mere opinion It is wholly unacceptable.

@PeterJ I think this whole type of topic is one which Andrei wanted to avoid -- https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/394/254

@PeterJ I think you can just down vote it. This particular user is well known for one-sided judgmental comments, but I don't want to outright delete the answer. "Since wisdom is what clearly separates the dhamma from the various wrong views created by puthujjanas" it should be easy enough for the readers to recognize who is who.

Okay. I'll calm down. I suppose it takes all sorts.

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


text:
Selling an animal to butcher will break first precept?
Farmers who breed animals and sale to butcher or for food concern is considered as intentional killing and break first precept?

There are three door of kamma, Nyom Swapnil. Doing by one self, order, give signs to do, and mental approve.

Thank you Bhante. But I'm confused if either this does or does not break the precept. Need some explanation regarding my question.

If there is "just" mental approve (no signs for, no deeds to), no. It's "just" the kamma of killing. Yet he could be "co-killer" which breaks the precept as well, when approached by words "I need cow to kill it, sell it as meat" and approves (later killed) or he may say "Here, a cow, so you may kill it, make meat from it." (and later is killed), Nyom Swapnil.

Especial as lay person, focus on kamma, not on precepts since in regard of community laws lay people have their own laws.

It hardly happens that a animal farmer does not break the precepts. Yet there are cases where a farmer simply sells his cow, not even asking what the buyer does with it.

Co-transgressor in regard of "laws", in regard of Vinaya, are even more "complicated" as the straight line of order, object... needs to be firm and not broken. In huge trade chains it can be difficult to trace, yet gets even more complicated to stay remorseless.

This is why the Buddha did not say "no animal holding/meet selling" and trade categorical, but "stay away" as you wouldn't easy stay out and stay remorseless, in ways of livelihood.

Samana Johann. Please answer in answers. Keep the site clean.

With regard to precepts, one should not kill or encourage others to kill. If one is supplying animals to a slaughterhouse one is encouraging others to kill the animal though one is not participating in the act. So this breaks the present.
The conditions for killing are:

i) The being must be alive.
ii) There must be knowledge that it is a living being.
iii) There must be intention to cause its death.
iv) Action must be taken to cause its death
v) Death must result from such action.
If all these conditions are fulfilled, then the precept has been
broken.

FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA)
When one is trading in livestock, the animals are alive and one knows the animals are indeed alive. One knows the fate of animals sold to the saluted house. Knowing that if one giving an animal for slaughter, by the act of giving one is condemning the animal to its ultimate fate. By doing so one seals the fate of the animal. In the slaughterhouse, the animals are ultimately killed.
Also, Right Livelihood component of the Noble 8 Fold Path says one should avoid 5 trades:

A lay follower should not engage in 5 types of trades. Which five?
(1) Trading in weapons sattha vaṇijjā,
(2) Trading in humans satta vaṇijjā,
(3) Trading in meat maṁsa vaṇijjā,
(4) Trading in intoxicants majja vaṇijjā, and
(5) Trading in poisons visa vaṇijjā.

I guess trading in livestock may be classified under trading in meat as ultimately this is what happens when you sell animals to a slaughterhouse.
One can accept “available meat” (pavatta,maṁsa) which is per killed not specifically with oneself in mind

... satta vaṇijjā if not for been killed or  maṁsa vaṇijjā is in meat business.

"Trading in humans satta vaṇijjā", this rendering is obviously because to many follower had been involved in animal trade in Asia as common.

I've another question regarding consuming meet. I do because of health concern and since I'm buying meat which I'm not involved in killing an animal is that too break precept and my bad karma? But I thank that animal because, It could survive me.

One can accept “available meat” (pavatta,maṁsa) which is per killed not specifically with oneself in mind.

Great answer. Yet the Dalai Lama argues that Tibetans had to eat meat in order to survive on the plateau. A complicated issue. .

To survive is not a valid excuse for doing wrong, yet there is no fault in simply eating meat, not getting involved in intentions for killing householder @PeterJ . As Upasaka Sirinath mentiined: as long as not seen, heard or assume that there was killing for one, there is no fault in simply using what has been arose.

Upasak @Swapnil , if not feeling well with something, just don't do it. That's most helpful till other ways are found.

Thank you Bhante. Thanks for your great teaching.

Farming is good. Profiting from suffering is bad. Precepts aren't spelled out as black and white hellfire and brimstone. They're a range of spectrums that creates dharma. Killing and abuse is unavoidable. Think of the bacteria in your body you take medicine for or the occasions when a bug gets undertoe. These aren't valued the same way murder is or telling someone to murder for you. I don't recommend the production of beef for meat because of how much it creates waste for the earth. Even if you have happy cows you love very much. If you learn of your in and out flow of evils It's a good sign your making a great progress. I'd consider contemplating what you're doing and why before doing anything extreme. Consider the Koan of the farmer's cattle.


text:
What will the Satipatthana Sutta teach me?
I am completely new to all this (buddhism, meditation etc...) but I really want to begin somewhere
I found this guy called Stephen Procter who has this free guided meditation program (52 guided meditations, 1 each week) that he says will guide you to the completion of the Satipatthana Sutta.
What actually is that sutta about? what will it teach me. Is it for real deal enlightenment (or just new age hippy dippy stuff)? What sort of meditations would this be about (I suuuck at visualization, which is why I am not trying out tantric practices even tho I like the sound of them)
And why is there all these other methods then? all these other suttas, and then stuff like Vajrayana buddhism. I don't get it, I just want something clear cut that can at the very least give me a very solid foundation.
Can I do this Sattipathana program if im physically unhealthy? (all the Hinduism yogas seem to require superman level health before you can even think about doing anything with the mind)

The Satipatthana Sutta is a famous Buddhist scripture attributed to the Buddha (although it is unlikely it was actually spoken by the Buddha but instead is a compiling of various teachings of the Buddha). The Satipatthana Sutta is used for instruction in very basic meditation training (rather than used for very advanced training).
The Satipatthana Sutta is often interpreted and thus taught differently by different teachers.
The word 'satipatthana' means 'establishing mindfulness'. Establishing 'mindfulness' means to 'bring to mind' the Buddhist teachings in relation to experience. In terms of formal 'satipatthana' practise, it means to not have greed, grief or attachment towards experience. The Satipatthana Sutta says as its core practise:

he lives clearly comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief.
he lives detached and clings to nothing in the world.

Satipatthana practice includes the natural experiencing of four objects:
(i) the breathing & body;
(ii) pleasant, painful & neutral feelings;
(iii) the mind, its moods or, otherwise, its clarity; and
(iv) various realities ('dhamma'), such as impermanence, the nature of suffering & peace, etc.
These four objects of meditation experience are used to train mindfulness; so to remember to not cling or have greed or grief towards these four objects.
Importantly, continuously experiencing the breathing & body with a non-attached and non-judging mind causes the breathing to calm & the body to relax. In short, it feels peaceful & calm.
Ideally, Satipatthana requires having normal breathing and being able to sit still with back upright (either cross-legged on the floor or in a chair without leaning against the back of the chair) for about 30 to 60 minutes. Having normal breathing means not having a blocked nose or any other chronic breathing abnormality. Having normal breathing & sitting upright allows the breathing to relax & calm while keeping the mind alert and non-drowsy.
I am listening to Stephen Procter, here. If Stephen is offering a free guided meditation program then you have nothing to lose to do it. His teachings sound reasonable to me.

+1 Esp for Stephen Proctor. Another participant mentioned him, my first encounter. I find him outstanding but for what he teaches and what he doesn't do - no political correctness agenda. Best regards,

I have no experience with what Stephen Procter teachers. But best is not get attached to a particular set of teachings taught by different teachers and directly go to the source material which is:

Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta
Sati’patthāna Sutta
Ānâpāna,sati Sutta

OP: What actually is that sutta about?

This is about the 4 Foundations of Mindfulness:

mindfulness of the body (kaya);
mindfulness of feelings or sensations (vedanā);
mindfulness of mind or consciousness (citta); and
mindfulness of dhammās.

The key is that one is not attached or averse to feelings generated from each sathipattanas knowing they are arising and passing [Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta], as well as, not generating thoughts on account of each sathipattanas [Dantabhūmi Sutta]. One can even use the sathipattanas to achieve Jhanic concentration [Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta].
This is part of the Noble 8 Fold Path.

OP: And why is there all these other methods then?

There are only 2 methods:

One covered Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta and Sati’patthāna Sutta
And one covered in Ānâpāna,sati Sutta

Which are repeated in other Suttas. E.g. Kaya,gatā,sati Sutta has a subset of the instruction in Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta and Sati’patthāna Sutta. Mahā Rāhul’ovāda Sutta has all 16 steps in Ānâpāna,sati Sutta and 4 elements meditation in Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta and Sati’patthāna Sutta.

Can I do this Sattipathana program if I'm physically unhealthy?

Physical health is no barrier as you are not doing physically strenuous activities like Yoga Anasas and Pranayama.

I upvoted your question because of the Stephen Proctor reference. He is excellent. But, if I may, I think your question is a bit misguided.
You seem focused on two extremes - true enlightenment or hippy-dippy stuff. In between (ironically the Middle Way) are genuine practices that are to degrees nurturing depending on the individual.
As anyone answering, the Sattipathana Sutta is fundamental and you can use it as a practice guide for the rest of your life if you like without our natural human proclivity for more.
I find Stephen Proctor ideal for me, and his material is generously available and well-suited for Westerners.
As far as physical, and perhaps other capacities, that is something that I personally find putoffish in certain contexts.
The "next level" is dangled before you with the unavoidable inference that what you are doing is not enough and somehow lacking.
Bottom line, you can spend your life watching your breath - really watching, and cultivating that acuity - to take you all the way home. And using the breath is a key component of Stephen Proctor's teaching.


text:
Where can I find a Buddist Monastery that practice hard training?
I wish to master my mind, one reason is I'm so mentally weak. Like anything you want to master you have to work at it. Drill it into you. But practicing on my own hasn't work. I need a far away place that will force me to master meditation. If I get off track they will make sure I get back on track. Where is a monastery like this where I a foreigner can join for a year?

Some possible useful accounts: Q&A Proper way to ask a teacher to become their student

Following are some pointers:

https://www.dhamma.org/en/index
http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/global/index.html
http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/
https://www.paaukforestmonastery.org/
https://forestsangha.org/

With regard to the 1st 2 links, there are 10-day courses. In the case of the 1st link, you can progress to longer courses up to 60 days. 3rd link lists many other monasteries and centres which some may allow you to stay up to a year. 4th links gives meditation centres in the Pa Auk tradition which is the best if you are looking to master Jhana. 5th link gives monasteries in the Thai Forrest tradition.

Thank you my friend truly. Also thanks for giving me options

Any meditation monastery has sufficient disciple for training. There is no need to think as extreme as you are. Wat Pah Nanachat in Thailand or any branch monastery.

I would encourage you to take a look at mahamevnawa. They have many branches world wide. Below is link to help locate a branch.

Worldwide Mahamevnawa Branches

If you in the east coast of USA, I may suggest Mahamevnawa Buddhist Meditation Center of New Jersey

A lame horse if whipped will not run faster. Based on your approach it may take you a long time to form discipline. In fact what does it have to do with a monastery? If you're having trouble concentrating that could be adult adhd I recommend: 3 months of a basic counseling and/ or medication might help you prepare for religious approach. It's cheaper that a flight and you'll introspective work towards the same goal. In fact you can do both together. You reached a point where your aware of a limitation. This is valuable so don't think nothing isn't progress. As eager student will you not listen to this reasonable advice?

Its not so much I can't focus. I wish to mastet jhana meditation and even held access concentration. Its I cant be reasonable to put the work in it take to master this meditation. I will always find a reason to not do it or quit. But I see your point. I just need a place I have to worry about nothing else other then meditation

Find somewhere uncomfortable and mostly private. A bedroom is no good and a garden isn't either. You'll be caught in the view.

I tried that.. So much I JUST came back from a trip from hawaii with the aim of mediation and didn't even mediate for 3p mintues I was there for a week.. I can't forcr myself I will find away out

Hawaii is somewhere nice. Some students can't meditate. One of my stubborn ones is like this. Walking medication works better. The idea is work while working, sleep while sleeping and bathe while bathing. You sound like you could also use a koan. Would you like one?

In fact what does it have to do with a monastery? Don't humans learn by copying (emulating) each other? Isn't easier to do what others are doing, when and because they're doing it?

Chrisw you have a valuable point. There's issues with mimicking. One is that someone can appear to have the point and might bring forth some good doing so but unless that individual knows it well enough there isn't going to be the bridge of understanding. It's like pointing at the moon and understanding the fingers. If they aren't catching the point for the point- There's the gap. A way of looking at meditation and enlighten is to shed your artificial reality. How do you learn what you don't? This is good for knowledge. It isn't the same candle as wisdom. teachers teach. A master doesn't.

But before the goal (i.e. "understanding"), let's just look at behaviour (dependent condition). The OP wants to regulate his behaviour/practice. I think that non-independent humans are (from an earliest age) highly motivated by society. Perception of society's approval etc is a very strong incentive, I imagine -- "Either you meditate when others do, or you'll have to leave the monastery!" Given that social/peer pressure is so strong, in-bred, I think people use/harness that human tendency, and willingly, in all fields of endeavour: athletes with athletes, students with students. Isn't that so?

In Zen there are mechanisms to support and deny this. The relationship of master and student is an individual one. Having a sense of belonging does not one make for a good student. In general teaching this is a fairly usual bridge. It does create limitations of a student. Temples are designed for many different individuals. The idea is one does not disturb others. My roshi said it like this: "one eye, one dimension. Two eyes two dimensions, four eyes four dimensions and so on." The eyes provide some insight. Who gets the gold? Does this person run with others?


text:
Any praise of shred-paramis by the Sublime Budddha?
What does one know or think: Is there any praise of shred-parami (perfections in appearing modest) by the Sublime Buddha, such as in out-fit, outwardly appearing, using of such stuff, and if why? If not why?
To give an idea in a samples of certain "modesty":

Better to catch fishes with the hand instead of catching with high tech, yet still after meat.
Better to wear recycling garments then new, yet still after look.
Better to drive an old car then a new one, yet still after comfort.
Better not to cut hair and let it grow, yet still after appearing certain.
Spreading "I am content with an old camry" to sign out modesty and swifting to rave as soon conditions make it possible.

[note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks but for gaining release from the wheel of hypocrisy and corruption]

Is the perfection in appearing modest nekkhamma(renunciation)?

Sometimes, sometimes the opposite, good @Lowbrow.

I don't know what "shred" means? And  what "appearing certain" means? And "rave" (I don't know about makes of car, but did you mean "RAV4" compared to "Camry")?

The wolf's-Uposatha.

How long do $500 shoes last? Do they make you look smart or stupid for buying them? Clothing is a communication. People dress to their personal desires and look for those in the people they put around them. So if you dress a certain way you project. People who want a friend or sucker or someone to complement them in some way. That's the issue of clothing. You are your environment and the people you surround yourself with. I dress like a regular person on the poor side. I have honestly and Carring and supporting friendships that have an intimate understanding of each other. Before I was a Buddhist I was flamboyant and attracted drama and suffering. Cause and affect are the same you see. Clothes make the man but the man picks the cloths. Find the middle way.

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

Honored Buddhaparisada, Interested,
In relation of modesty, high ascetic practice, th Sublime Buddha counted four modest af ascetic in regard of the four conditions (food, clother, dwelling, medicine), found in the Suttas as well as in the Abhidhamma-Pitaka:
There are four kind of ascetism:
"The fools" who harms himself thinking it's needed to or does not know how to stay comfortable.
"The accumulator", who uses this mode for his honour to gain worldy means.
"The faithful", who follows the praised asceticism by the Buddha in truth that it is useful for the training.
"The complete", who actually does not have desires and lives material modesty without harming himself or others naturally.
Really a good collection to often reflect on, when taking on modesty, to check whether stupidy, defilements, good faith or wisdom is the drive for it behind. Requires good prove and self-honesty of course.
The first two modes accumulate paramis (perfection) toward low realm and hell, while the second two accumulate perfection and foundation for the path and go beyond, if things are right comprehend.
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and what binds here in this wheel but for escape from it)

Yes, the Buddha praised modesty (in terms of not accumulating things) in the AN 8.53 in the bolded lines below. I think it refers to accumulating things and not accumulating evil kamma.

You might know that certain things
Ye kho tvaṃ, gotami, dhamme jāneyyāsi:
lead to dispassion, not passion;
‘ime dhammā virāgāya saṃvattanti, no sarāgāya;
to being unfettered, not to being fettered;
visaṃyogāya saṃvattanti, no saṃyogāya;
to dispersal, not accumulation;
apacayāya saṃvattanti, no ācayāya;
to fewer desires, not more;
appicchatāya saṃvattanti, no mahicchatāya;
to contentment, not lack of contentment;
santuṭṭhiyā saṃvattanti, no asantuṭṭhiyā;
to seclusion, not crowding;
pavivekāya saṃvattanti, no saṅgaṇikāya;
to energy, not laziness;
vīriyārambhāya saṃvattanti, no kosajjāya;
to being easy to look after, not being hard to look after.
subharatāya saṃvattanti, no dubbharatāyā’ti,
You should definitely bear in mind that these things are
ekaṃsena, gotami, dhāreyyāsi:
the teaching, the training, and the Teacher’s instructions.”
‘eso dhammo, eso vinayo, etaṃ satthusāsanan’”ti.

The question wasn't about modesty general, but certain kind of outwardly appearing like modest, good householder.

perfections in appearing modest ... such as in outfit, outwardly appearing
I don't know about the Abhidhamma but the Buddha didn't seem to praise what's modest only in appearance, for example in the Dhammapada,

141. Neither going about naked, nor matted locks, nor filth, nor fasting, nor lying on the ground, nor smearing oneself with ashes and dust, nor sitting on the heels (in penance) can purify a mortal who has not overcome doubt.
142. Even though he be well-attired, yet if he is poised, calm, controlled and established in the holy life, having set aside violence towards all beings — he, truly, is a holy man, a renunciate, a monk.
394. What is the use of your matted hair, O witless man? What of your garment of antelope's hide? Within you is the tangle (of passion); only outwardly do you cleanse yourself.

If not why?
I think you said why in the question -- i.e. "yet still after" -- I think that sounds like craving.


text:
SN 12.52 Upadana Sutta
Can one elaborate please more on this quote:

"In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops.
"Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases."

Upādāna Sutta SN 12.52 (S ii 84)
How is this exactly done?

"Makes no sense, makes no sense, does not last, is no refuge, not worthy to fall for, not worthy to harm... to get in debt"

What one gives frequent attention that becomes the inclination of mind.
If one is constantly focusing on the pleasant aspects, ignoring the unpleasant aspects, one comes to relish the good and resolves on acquisition of phenomena which are to an extent associated with what one ignores which is the stress associated with those phenomena. Given that the bad associated with phenomena is still there whether one focuses on it or not, one like this is one who relishes the bad and is giving attention to what is inappropriate and is resolving on stress due to inappropriate giving of attention which becomes an inclination of mind due to frequent giving of attention.
Craving is natural outcome here because one who resolves on stress won't be happy and satisfied when facing it and will be longing for an escape due to discontentment. Averse to stress, desiring happiness, craving sprouts.

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does clinging come?' one should say, 'Clinging comes from craving as its requisite condition.'
"If one is asked, 'Is there a demonstrable requisite condition for craving?' one should answer, 'There is.'
"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does craving come?' one should say, 'Craving comes from feeling as its requisite condition.'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html

Thus clinging is the attachment to, the holding on to and relishing, the tendency to relish due to inappropriate giving of attention and perception of attractiveness.

Well that the big question. The general answer is the eight fold path. A more precise answer would be yoniso manasikara https://suttacentral.net/sn46.24/en/sujato
and here there is the condition for this https://suttacentral.net/an10.62/en/bodhi
yoniso manasikara is really just a fancy word for what you quote, ie this

Even so in him who contemplates the misery that there is in all that
  makes for grasping, craving ceases.
When craving ceases, grasping ceases.
When grasping ceases becoming ceases.
When becoming ceases birth ceases.
When birth ceases decay-and-death ceases.

For more an ''drawbacks'', you can read all those suttas
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#adinava

ādīnava: disadvantageous characteristic of phenomena, danger,
  drawback, disadvantage, bad result or consequence. The antonym is
  ānisaṃsa. The ādīnava of a particular dhamma is often described as its
  characteristics of anicca, dukkha, and the fact that it has
  'vipariṇāma·dhamma'. This is seen mainly in the case of each of the
  five khandhas (e.g. SN 12.26) and the twelve āyatanas (e.g. SN 35.13
  and SN 35.14).
♦ Frequently mentioned in conjunction with assāda and nissaraṇa, often
  preceded by samudaya and atthaṅgama, as characteristics to be
  understood in detail for all saṅkhāras.
♦ This set of 3 or 5 investigations appears very often in the Saṃyutta
  Nikāya, and is applied to a large variety of dhammas, among which
  notably to kāma (in detail at MN 13), but also to duccarita (e.g. AN
  5.241), the five khandhas (e.g. SN 22.74), particularly vedanā (e.g. MN 13), rūpa (e.g. MN 13), the 4 paccayas (e.g. SN 16.1), bhava (e.g.
  AN 4.10), the six phass·āyatanas (e.g. AN 4.10) etc.
♦ A very useful statement is made at SN 12.52: 'Upādāniyesu dhammesu
  ādīnav·ānupassino viharato taṇhā nirujjhati'.
♦ ādīnava·saññā is defined at AN 10.60 with reference to kāya.
♦ On the ādīnava of kāma, MN 54 provides a powerful series of similes
  to describe them, which is referred to in a number of suttas.

In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops.

Like this: mmmm, she is so sexy, the way she looked at me, wow, it's like she's begging for... Something around her eyes... And she's so small... I imagine how she would... If only I could... I feel the pull when she's near. She's so sweet, I almost want to bite her. Etc.

"Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases."

Like this: I've been through this before. She knows she's sexy and is using it. She's definitely very manipulative. If I lose control she'll take advantage of me. I will get in trouble. I'll lose everything I have: job, family, my stable life. And for what, for that same age old slimy game of moving in and out? She's probably not even smart. What would we even talk about? Besides, I hate losing control. I don't like when my head is spinning and I can't focus because of a woman. I like my normal sober mind. I don't want to be lost again, like that last time. Etc.
Simple, right?

People always cling to the pros hate to the cons.
If people always focus on the cons, anicca dukkha anatta, of five aggregates, they all are going to enlighten surly.

Focusing on drawbacks (of sensual pleasures) is in MN 13, MN 54, MN 19, etc.

Simply it says, if you see phenomena as advantageous or attractive then carving will follow. If you see the disadvantage of it craving it will cease.

Desire, clinging, cravings, this can be said another way often overlooked: Addiction. Addiction is a desire or habit that's bad for you or others. Lots of what we see are misunderstood as other things. Like anger. Anger isn't just anger. It's desire and a misunderstanding of attachment. Anger poisions the body and mind. Jealousy is a similar missing understanding. As the result of the five come they eventually become bitter because we're attached. Or better addicted. Not unlike a drug. When we don't have it we become sick so we chase after pain relief. All or nothing thinking, Black and white, bartering and deal making an pure dental is synonymous with drug abuse, love addiction and mental health crisis. Breaking these artificial and unhealthy bonds are the point. Emancipation is in it's self a high and mentioned through sutra too. Extremes are not advised. make little changes and building up the 8fold are to get you where your going.You'll always be victim to cause and effect......

This is the proverbial monkey trap. If you remember the story, a hunter puts an apple in a jar with a narrow opening, then ties the jar to a tree. When a monkey wanders by and sees the fruit, it will reach its arm in to grab it. But the neck of the jar is too narrow for the monkey to pull out its fist with the apple. So, as long as the monkey is focused on the sweet allure of the apple, it will not let it go; it is effectively trapped by its own grasping fist. on the other hand, if the monkey can see that the jar is a trap, the allure of the apple fades; the monkey can release the apple and draw its arm out, and thus set itself free.
In our case, karma is the trap, and its our grasping that locks us into patterns of cause and effect.


text:
What did the Buddha mean by the four types of reasoning in his advice to the Kalamas?
In AN 3:65, while advising the Kalamas on how to choose among a variety of contradictory belief systems, the Buddha mentions ten inadequate criteria for truth:

Come, Kalamas. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by
  hearsay, by a collection of texts, by logic, by inferential
  reasoning, by reasoned cogitation, by the acceptance of a view after
  pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you
  think, 'The ascetic is our teacher.'

I am interested in the four criteria that seem to relate to verbal reasoning (an alternative translation in parentheses):

Logic (surmise)
Inferential reasoning (axiom)
Reasoned cogitation (specious reasoning)
Acceptance of a view after pondering it (bias towards a notion that has been pondered)

Bikkhu Bodhi has a footnote that, much to my consternation, says of these criteria,

[They are] four types of reasoning recognized by thinkers in the Buddha's age; their differences need not detain us here.

I understand the main point being made (that we should go by direct experience), but I am curious about the precise meaning of these four criteria. I am looking for an answer that explains the differences between these four types of reasoning by providing an example of each one from everyday life. Bonus for any relevant historical context.

Lost in Quotation and A Look at the Kalama Sutta are usefull guides, good householder.

There are 3 types of teachers:

The traditionalists (anussavikā) - who base their teaching on tradition - e.g. my ancestors believed in this so I am also believing it. Generally superstitious ideas stem from this logic.
The rationalists and speculators [metaphysicians] (takki vimamsi) - who base their teaching in faith-based thinking and reasoning - e.g. because God created animals for us to eat, it is OK to kill them for food.
The experientialists - having directly known the Dharma for themselves (sāmam yeva dhammam abhinnāya) - e.g. when I concentrate by gazing on a coloured disk I get a blissful feeling hence I have merged with God/Brahma.

The 4 items mentioned below fall under the 2nd category, "by the way of reasoning".

Logic (surmise) - if you do not hold something it falls to the ground, therefore there must be a tortoise who lifts the earth so it does not fall
Inferential reasoning (axiom) - God has a plan, me losing my job may be part of this plan
Reasoned cogitation (specious reasoning) - when I say this mantra it always rained, therefore saying this mantra makes rain
Acceptance of a view after pondering it (bias towards a notion that has been pondered) - one needs an outlet for stress, when one enjoys oneself by partying and drinking the stress goes away, the best thing to do when one is stressed is to party and get drunk

The other answer also has a good summary of what these items mean.

From Help! The Kalama Sutta, Help! by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu:

Ma takkahetu: Don’t believe something solely on the grounds of logical reasoning (takka). Logic is merely one branch of knowledge
  that people use to try to figure out the truth. Takka or Logic is not
  infallible. If its data or inferences are incorrect, it can go wrong.
Ma nayahetu: Don’t believe or accept something merely because it appears correct on the grounds of Naya or what is now called
  "philosophy." In Thailand, we translate the Western term philosophy as
  prajna. Our Indian friends cannot accept this because "naya" is just a
  point of view or opinion; it isn’t the supreme understanding properly
  referred to as panya or prajna. Naya or nayaya is merely a method of
  deductive reasoning based on hypotheses or assumptions. Such reasoning
  can err when the method or hypothesis is inappropriate.
Ma akaraparivitakkena: Don’t believe or accept something simply because of superficial thinking, that is, because it appeals to what
  we nowadays call "common sense," which is merely snap judgments based
  on one’s tendencies of thought. We like to use this approach so much
  that it becomes habitual. Some careless and boastful philosophers rely
  on such common sense a great deal and consider themselves clever.
Ma ditthinijjhanakkhantiya: Don’t believe accept something to be true merely because it agrees or fits with one’s preconceived opinions
  and theories. Personal views can be wrong and our methods of
  experiment and verification may be inadequate, neither of which lead
  us to the truth. This approach may seem similar to the scientific
  method, but can never actually be scientific, as its proofs and
  experiments are inadequate.