text:
MN 38: How do aging-&-death cease when the eye sees a form?
MN 38 has the following two different or opposite verses on the arising of suffering & the ceasing of suffering:

On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the
  body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as
  it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom
  wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged
  as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether
  pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in
  that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so,
  delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his
  clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition,
  birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole
  mass of suffering.
On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with
  mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he
  understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance
  by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
  feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering.

Although these two verses are different, what is common to both verses is the event of: "on seeing a form with the eye".
How do aging-&-death cease when the eye sees a form?

Most probably imagine "ceases" to mean something like "ends". The fact is, "ceases" is a translation of "nirodha" which means "make it so it won't arise", "remove a necessary cause of arising" (what I call "prevent" or "dis-enable" in short). So the meaning of the passage is, when the eye sees a form, ear hears a sound etc. - if there is no like/dislike or craving/aversion modality established, then the cause that would normally push the wheel of D.O. to keep on spinning is not created. Because the cause is not created, the chain of events starting from the cause is not started. If this is only done occasionally with one form, then the other occasions would still give rise to the chain of events -- would push the wheel on spinning. But if this is done consistently for all forms, sounds, dharmas etc. - then the chain of D.O. is nirodha (prevented).
It is prevented because, as is explained in standard D.O. descriptions, enabled by Ignorance arise Tendencies. These tendencies are exactly the tendencies to like/dislike and to act based on this liking/disliking. Such tendencies feed and grow the entity-centric thinking and acting. This entity-centric thinking and acting gradually hardens into I-making, which culminates in death.
When stimuli like forms, sounds, dharmas etc. are taken "as-is", without forming personal attitude to them, the entity-centric thinking and acting is not perpetuated. Because it is not perpetuated, the I-making is not perpetuated. When I-making is not perpetuated - death does not apply.

How does I-making culminate in death? For example, my neighbbour has a new boy, which I have heard over the last months develop more & more "I-making". But the boy is still alive, now around 3 years old. He is not dead yet. Thanks

As you know, first of all, the concept of "death" depends on the concept of "living being" as a required referent. If a living being is delineated, the notion of death of that being makes sense. If a living being is not delineated, the notion of death has nothing to apply to. Second, the idea that "it is I, it is me who will die, am dying" - requires a hard dependency of "I" on the living being, that is, it requires assuming that "I" am this organism or in this organism or because of this organism. When these assumptions are deconstructed, this link is severed...

Third, the idea that I am or in or because of the organism, depends on this notion of "I". If the notion of "I" were not delineated, the "am", "in" and "because of" would have no subject. In that case, suffering or death of this particular living being would have not much more significance than suffering and death of other living organisms. So an idea that in this world there is something extra-special called "I" (perhaps defined as the private subjective experience or perhaps as a particular illusion of absolute free-will or agency) is another precursor to "I will die".

So "I am this living being who will die" - depends on the above three assumptions of "living being", "identity", and "I". All three are specific cases of our deeply ingrained habit of delineating discrete entities and reifying them as something that continues from moment to moment, undergoing some change but remaining essentially the same thing - bounded, cohesive, and separate from its context and environment.

However, according to the Buddha, all seemingly stable entities are in fact sankharas, transitory aggregates - and they all disband when their underlying causes and conditions morph on, out of alignment. All entities are conditioned (by definition of having a certain identity) and all conditioned phenomena are transient. And so, by delineating an entity called "I" we're setting it up for the eventual loss of identity aka death.

The temporal identity of "I" is created by connecting the craving experience, with the goal-setting experience, with experiences of pursuit, attainment, and enjoying (or their negative equivalents - aversion, avoidance etc.). This is known as "becoming" - continuity of experience from craving to enjoying.
What's in common between these experiences? An attitude of liking/disliking towards a certain object. The attitude of liking/disliking is what connects these experiences together. And so the attitude of liking/disliking is a seed that eventually develops into "I".

The eye isn't a major player in these two verses. The major player is the shifting of ones attention to the imperceptibly fleeting aggregated structure of self that arises based on data from the eye. Ultimately, seeing is the same for everybody and at anytime during the lifespan. The Buddha was pointing out here in the first verse that what occurs after the seeing is the selfish and divisive mental construction that defines your seeing as being 'mine' and that by - in the second verse - ferreting out this 'me' business we will come to see the ultimate nature of 'me', 'mine' and 'self' as being void. The eye is just passing the information of what is seemingly 'out there' to the brain.
Conventionally, and from my current observations aging and death of the physical form doesn't cease but the Buddha was probably referring to Nirvana so in this sense aging and death ceases by practice.
If you're interested more in the eye then biology might have more relevant information.

I marked this answer down. I found it very rude in saying the Buddha should refer to biology. The Buddha obviously regarded "the eye" as something important in this teaching. In fact, since the answer says " from my current observations aging and death of the physical form doesn't cease", it seems it is the answerer who regards "biology" as "more relevant information".

@Dhammadhatu - Are you sure you read this carefully? It seems a good answer to me and not slightly rude.to anyone.  .

Its not a good answer to me. But you are free to hold it is good.

On seeing a form with the eye, he lusts after it if it is pleasing; he dislikes it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body unestablished, with a limited mind, and he does not understand as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Engaged as he is in favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels—whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—he delights in that feeling, welcomes it, and remains holding to it. As he does so, delight arises in him. Now delight in feelings is clinging. With his clinging as condition, being comes to be; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.

This sutta is basically telling that when there is clinging there is future birth. This is what Ven Sariputta said about clinging in the Sammaditthi sutta.

And what is clinging, what is the origin of clinging, what is the cessation of clinging, what is the way leading to the cessation of clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rituals and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self. With the arising of craving there is the arising of clinging. With the cessation of craving there is the cessation of clinging. The way leading to the cessation of clinging is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.

So the four kinds of clinging are clinging to sensual pleasures, views, rituals and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self. Clinging to becoming/existence or a being in the next life.

"And what is being, what is the origin of being, what is the cessation of being, what is the way leading to the cessation of being? There are these three kinds of being: sense-sphere being, fine-material being and immaterial being. With the arising of clinging there is the arising of being. With the cessation of clinging there is the cessation of being. The way leading to the cessation of being is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view... right concentration.

Sense-sphere being are humans and devas. Fine-material beings are brahmas and the immaterial beings are beings who were born there because of the fifth jhana and higher.
So how do aging and death cease when an eye sees a form?

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.

This basically means that when you don’t lust after it if it is pleasing; don’t dislike it if it is unpleasing and abides with mindfulness of the body and  with an immeasurable mind, and understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without remainder and don’t crave or delight there is cession of clinging. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever feeling you feels, whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, you won’t delight in that feeling, welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he don’ so, delight in feelings ceases in you. With the cessation of delight and craving comes cessation of clinging comes cessation of a being after death. This means you won’t be reborn as humans, devas, Brahma or in the immaterial world. I think becoming/existence would be a better translation than “being”. With the cessation of becoming comes cessation of birth. With the cessation of birth comes cessation aging and death. I used some words from the sutta.
This is how an arahant does not experience aging and death in future lives. An arahant does not experience aging and death in this life because he don’t regard anything in this world as “mine”, “me”, “I”, or self. So even though his body age he doesn’t experience aging because he doesn’t assume himself to be the body. He doesn’t have the view “my self” or I am the one who experience or know

I marked this answer down because it says: " Clinging to becoming/existence or a being in the next life." . The sutta say becoming is caused by clinging rather than something clung to. SN 23.2 says "a being" is from "clinging" rather than "clinging" is from " a being". In short, clinging is the condition for becoming rather than becoming is the condition for clinging.

Also, this answer includes a mistranslation. "kama bhava" means "sensual becoming/being" rather than "Sense-sphere being". Kama means "sensual" rather than "sense sphere". Yes, the New Yorker named Bhikkhu Bodhi got this wrong.

This answer, overall, is very convoluted and difficult for me to follow & understand. To me, it sounds full of contradictions. However, if found the last three sentences easy to understand. If the answer only included the last three sentences, i would choose it as a good answer: "An arahant does not experience aging and death in this life because he don’t regard anything in this world as “mine”, “me”, “I”, or self. So even though his body age he doesn’t experience aging because he doesn’t assume himself to be the body. He doesn’t have the view “my self” or I am the one who experience or know"

Dhammadhatu as if you know Pāli better than Bhikkhu Bodhi

In this case, yes. Why don't you start a new topic on the matter.

Translation quibbles aside it seems a clear answer. The question asks 'How do ageing and death cease when the eye sees a form?'. They do not. This is a misreading of the text, Nowhere does it suggest this.  .

PeterJ what do you mean?


text:
How or why do arahants not experience aging & death?
There are various verses in the Pali suttas that give the impression arahants not experience aging & death, as follows:

Then, monks, being subject myself to aging... death... seeking the aging-less, deathless... unexcelled rest from the yoke, Unbinding, I
reached the aging-less... deathless... unexcelled rest from the yoke:
Unbinding. MN 26

A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would
be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not
dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long?
It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled
where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of
construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' MN 140

21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
already. Dhammapada

How or why do arahants not experience aging & death?

Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek
  a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find anything of
  which they could say: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone is supported
  by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is untraceable here and
  now.

MN22

I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha, the best of teachers, who taught
  that whatever is dependently arisen is unceasing, unborn,
  unannihilated, not permanent, not coming, not going, without
  distinction, without identity, and free from conceptual construction.

Nagarjuna
An experience of a thing like aging or death depends on grasping, on conceptualisation. Aging and death occur with respect to an impermanent entity, a self. An arahat is not impermanent - to put the negational catuskoti into a single statement - so aging and death do not apply.
With respect to nibbana, or the manifestation of nibbana (as a tathagata, in the broad meaning, is), any conceptualisation, including aging and death, falls perpendicular.

A sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' MN 140

Here, I think the Buddha is telling that an arahant wouldn’t be born in future lives. Therefore, there will be no aging. When there is no birth and aging there will be no death.
Arahants don’t experience aging and death in this because they know that only their body is aging. Their body still age but they don’t assume the body to be “me” or “them” because they have cut off all fetters.

The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die. They are not shaken, and do not yearn. For they have nothing which would cause them to be reborn. Not being reborn, how could they grow old? Not growing old, how could they die? Not dying, how could they be shaken? Not shaking, for what could they yearn? ‘They have four foundations, standing on which the streams of conceit don’t flow. And when the streams of conceit don’t flow, they’re called a sage at peace.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it. Mendicant, you should remember this brief analysis of the six elements.”
  https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/sujato

Here, it said a sage is not reborn

Why does the sutta say "a sage is not born", instead of "a sage shall not be reborn again"?

Brain Diaz Flores I edited my answer read it again

Sujato's translation is wrong. Jāyati does not mean "reborn". Instead of debating in the comments section, why don't you start a new topic about the meaning of "jāyati". Thanks

Dhammadhatu I think the Buddha use the word born instead of reborn but it seems to have the same meaning

That's the problem when refusing to accept regrouping of 5 skandhas after breaking up of this body.  Many suttas will not make sense , either you will have to dismiss large part of it or do an acrobatic twist of the scriptures to fit your views.  Such as the obvious maximum reappearing of stream enteres 7 lives the most, you twisted into 7 fetters .  When challenge with once returners or non-returner, .how is that compared to fetters, you couldn't twist it further.  You don't believe in reappearing after death but you shouldn't twist Buddha's words to match your views
.  According to that idea, everyone reaches nirvana at the end no matter what.
Well , to answer ur question , Arahats dont age anymore because there will be no regrouping for them when this group is broken.   As far as current body, they do age.  Remember a sutta when ven Ananda comment on Buddha's wrinkles and slight hunch of the back.  .

Well said! Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

I marked this post down. Wow! To think you believe you know better than the suttas. The sutta says the sage is not born.

Dhammadhatu I think you are the one who think you know better than the suttas

Arahants experience ageing and death but do not suffer from it, after attaining Nibbana.
From DN 16:

"Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my
  eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is
  held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is
  kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata,
  disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings,
  attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, that his
  body is more comfortable.

Experience of sensations continue to occur for arahants till their parinibbana, as stated in Iti 44:

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining."
Commentary (Thanissaro):
  With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and
  with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire.
  In the first case, the flames are out, but the embers are still
  glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers
  have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the five aggregates. While the
  arahant is still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates,
  but they do not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion.
  When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of
  aggregates here or anywhere else.

But what does it mean when we say that Arahants become deathless? This is because of Nibbana, suffering ends, birth ends and so death also ends.
From Dhammapada 400:

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

But how does the Arahant become free from suffering and death? As we know from the third noble truth, suffering is ceased when craving is ceased. The requisite condition for ageing and death is birth.
From SN 44.9:

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

So arahant is free from death because he will not be reborn in future lives?

@TheDBSGuy Yes. The requisite condition for death is birth.

They experience physical aging and physical deth. But not mentally.
After they remove self, there's no aging, that's because age is a physical comparative thing.
Even for normal people, mind doesn't age. It's physical body and brain that ages. But cause normal people so bound to physical sense, body, they feel aging in mind.(memory loss (cause brain), disabilities (body).)
So, for arahants, they don't age mentally.
For death, arahants also die. But it's not normal deth. That's because they don't get reborn and no suffering when dieing. They die concisely. So one can say, they don't die. It'more like they are closing their chapter willingly.
Thanks . ☸.
Questions are welcome.

If we carefully study the suttas, when the enlightened pass away (eg. MN 140) or refer to passing away (eg. AN 6.16), the term used is "kālaṅkata", meaning "done time" or "finished time".

“Sir, the gentleman named Pukkusāti, who was advised in brief by the Buddha, has passed away.
“yo so, bhante, pukkusāti nāma kulaputto bhagavatā saṅkhittena ovādena ovadito so kālaṅkato.
MN 140

“Householder, don’t pass away with concerns.
“Mā kho tvaṁ, gahapati, sāpekkho kālamakāsi.
Such concern is suffering,
Dukkhā, gahapati, sāpekkhassa kālakiriyā;
and it’s criticized by the Buddha.
garahitā ca bhagavatā sāpekkhassa kālakiriyā
AN 6.16

Where as the term "death" or "marana" refers to the view of the "death of a being" (SN 12.2). "A being" in the Pali Suttas is merely an ignorant view (SN 23.2; SN 5.10).
In summary, the enlightened are free from identity-view therefore the word "death" ("marana") is never applied to them in the suttas.
About this matter of jati & marana, Ajahn Buddhadasa explained:

The kind of birth that constitutes a problem for us is mental birth.
Anyone who falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the Buddha teaching. The word "birth" refers to the arising of the mistaken idea "I," "myself". It does not refer to physical birth, as generally supposed. The mistaken assumption that this word "birth" refers to physical birth is a major obstacle to comprehending the Buddha's teaching.
Another Kind Of Birth/The Danger of I

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What to do when it itching (according to suttas and your own experience)?
I know the question may seems a little trivial and superfluous, but rather than being interested in the itching itself, I'd like to know what to do when any kind of unpleasent feeling rises.
I think itching is different from other unpleasent feelings, mainly because one can easily get rid of that feeling -at least temporarily- by scratching the zone (I mean, to scratch is an option when you have the means).
What would an arahant do when itch arises?
What do the suttas tell us to do in situations similar to this one?
What do you do when itch arises (apart from recognizing the itch as not-self and impermanent, and the scratching as unsatisfying in the long term and impermanent as a solution)?
Or am I overthinking the situation, and should I be aware of the feeling, seeing the three characteristic in it, and just scratch?
I ask this because I remember reading some blog entry about a meditation retreat. The blogger wrote that when meditating, itching was a common feeling, but the hosts told her to let go of the craving for scratching and to not get personally identified with the itch. I understand these instructions and they seem totally reasonable. But she didn't tell about instructions in between meditation sessions other than following the five precepts. Basically, she didn't tell if she was supposed to not scratch even after sitting meditation.
I hope you can see the point in my question, because it seems a little dumb in the surface.
Thanks for your time!
Have a nice day!

What would an arahant do when itch arises?
I’m not an arahant but I think an arahant would be just mindful of it without scratching it.
What do the suttas tell us to do in situations similar to this one?
I don’t think there is any suttas that talk about itch but in SN 35.127, the Buddha said we should guard the six sense doors.

"It has been said, sire, by the Exalted One...: 'Come, monks, guard the doors of your sense-faculties. Seeing an object with the eye, do not seize hold of either its general appearance or its details. Because anyone dwelling with the eye-faculty uncontrolled could be overwhelmed by cupidity and dejection, evil and unwholesome states of mind, therefore practice to control the eye-faculty, guard it and gain control over it. [Similarly with ear, nose, tongue, body (touch), mind.] That is how these young monks... can practice the holy life... to the end of their days.'"

So I think you should just be mindful of it and not think about scratching it.
What do you do when itch arises (apart from recognizing the itch as not-self and impermanent, and the scratching as unsatisfying in the long term and impermanent as a solution)?
I just try to be mindful of the itch. I know that the itch is impermanent so I just try to be mindful of it without scratching. I scratch it if I’m not in a sitting meditation session but you should not scratch it during your sitting meditation session.
Or am I overthinking the situation, and should I be aware of the feeling, seeing the three characteristic in it, and just scratch?
Just try to be mindful of it until it cease. You don’t need to note “impermanent” or “not self” because when the itch cease then you will know that it is impermanence.

apart from recognizing the itch as not-self and impermanent, and the scratching as unsatisfying in the long term and impermanent as a solution? Or am I overthinking the situation, and should I be aware of the feeling, seeing the three characteristic in it, and just scratch

This isn't overthinking, in fact it is correct discernment. Notice, observe and watch with a very gentle overlay of the three characteristics.
My approach is the same but most of the time the itch disappears. Sometimes though after a few minutes I'll need to scratch a persistent itch so that I can move forward with the session. I do this with complete mindfulness noticing firstly my intention to lift the arm, noticing the contraction of the muscles in the arm prior to the action, noticing how the arm moves through spatial reality, all the while noticing minds urgency to want to scratch the itch. While scratching the itch notice the contact between your finger and that part of the body, notice how the itch changes and notice how vedena changes. Mind, mind, mind... always check in with what dialogue the mind is trying to strike up between the experiences of the various components within the action of scratching. They are all impersonal, but that takes a lot of knowings to see.

During meditation, of course you should avoid scratching your itch.
But outside of meditation, I suggest to follow the middle way.
When you're hungry, you eat. But eat moderately. Both starvation and gluttony are excessive and not conducive to the path.
Similarly, scratch your itch. But do so moderately. Just enough.

I say, when itching, just scratch.

Huihai Dazhu Huihai (d.788) was asked by a Vinaya master, "When one seeks to follow the Way, is there a particular manner in which he should behave?"
"There is," Dazhu said.
"Please tell me about it," the Vinaya master requested.
"When one is hungry, one eats; when one is tired, one sleeps."
"But everyone does that," the Vinaya master complained. "Your behavior isn't different from that of commoners."
"They're not the same at all," Dazhu said.
"In what way are they different?"
"When most people eat, they don't just eat; their mind are preoccupied with a thousand different fantasies. When they sleep, they don't just sleep; their minds are filled with any number of idle thoughts."

This story seems to put almost all of its emphasis on the mindfulness aspect of the Dhamma, but leaves aside the aspect of the uprooting of cravings and sensual indulgence. That was the reason behind my question.

Good answer! @BrianDíazFlores, it is more than just mindfulness. Look at the original question.

If I interpret Huihai Dazhu correctly, the difference in how one should behave when following the way is in 'mind activity' or lack of 'mind activity' or type of 'mind activity' or not paying any attention whatsoever to 'mind activity'...

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


text:
Is "To Forgive is the only way to forget" an authentic quote of the Buddha?
" To Forgive is the only way to forget "
Is this one of the sayings of Lord Buddha. This quote is beautiful, but I couldn't find the source.

I doubt it -- I expected it ought to be listed in https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/ if I could say that without being harsh.
There is something pretty like it, IMO, though not as quotable, in the Dhammapada -- e.g. this translation:

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.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels.

After a while you begin to guess whether a quote is "fake" -- partly from knowing the prose style of the suttas a bit, and partly from knowing what themes the Buddha does and doesn't talk about.
The Buddha doesn't talk about "forgiveness" exactly -- more about other themes including:

Don't take injury "personally"
Don't "accept" (e.g. participate in receiving or giving) insults
Don't get angry (nor hostile) in the first place
Feel kindness, be kind, towards other people -- kindness, but also equanimity, and seeing good in them, and not wanting to hurt them


text:
What are the historical accounts on Buddhist scriptures that certify the authenticity of the teachings and traditions?
If Buddhists themselves cannot agree on which scriptural writings or traditions for practice are actually true statements from the Buddha, how can Buddhism as a system claim any truth?
The above question raised due to there are many articles discussing, or discrediting the authenticity of some Sutras/Suttas and doctrines. Since the Buddha never written down his teachings himself, how does the Buddhist scriptures transmit from the Buddha to us according to historical documentation, text, or evidence?
By saying "Buddhism as a system" I meant what is the original content of Buddhism through investigating the original scriptures' transmission history. In this way we can discern what teaching is included in the original content; and what is excluded even missing from the original content, i.e., outside the system.

By avoiding exclusive truth claims

I think this question doesn't make sense -- firstly, because people may or not make "claims", whereas "systems" don't; and secondly, if it's so that Buddhists "cannot agree" then perhaps "Buddhism as a system" is not what you call "a system" -- or it's not one system, and you might ask instead what different Buddhists (different schools) decide for themselves about which scripture.

Possibly related: What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?

if physicists themselves cannot agree on which scientific writings or traditions for experiment are actually true statements, how can physics as a system claim any truth? Because, like Buddhists, they verify through personal experience and discussion.

The scriptures teach the 'Dhamma" is visible in the here & now, is immediately effective, leads to peace and is verified by the wise for themselves. Therefore those teachings that lead to directly knowable real peace are the teachings of a Buddha. Its very easy of you have taken the actual Refuge in the Dhamma. If you ask most Buddhists, including on this chatsite: "What is the Refuge in the Dhamma?", they won't be able to tell you. For example, on this chatsite there are people encouraging other people to be "agnostic". This shows how most Buddhists have not taken the basic Refuge. .

What an excellent question. I share your view that the dissent within Buddhism does it a lot of damage and also religion as a whole. But this is a can of worms. Nagarjuna attempted to  address this problem but his work is rejected by many Buddhists. We can claim truth for the 'Buddhist system' but we have to deny the views of many Buddhists to do it. I'm not sure why Buddhists do not worry more about this.problem.

So Ānanda, be your own island, your own refuge, with no other refuge. Let the teaching be your island and your refuge, with no other refuge. --SN47.9

Within in particular organized Buddhist sect they have agreed upon what is canon and what is not. All religions have sects which disagree with each other about what is canonical and what is not. A better question might be how best for you to evaluate these claims or how claims are evaluated within one recognizable tradition.

I share the view of @PeterJ that many genuine Buddhists who treated the teachings not merely an intellectual exercise, nor a subject to write scholastic thesis, but for a real belief also for practice, do worry about this problem. It is a good question asked, I edited it in response to ChrisW's comment to lift the [on hold] tag

@Mishu米殊 - I'd also like to see it taken off 'hold'. It's a question any sceptic is bound to ask.

@Mishu米殊Thank you for for trying to edit it. Should this question be reopened?

@PeterJ You could discuss that on Meta

How would an answer to this question look like? By historical accounts, are you then talking about the historical Buddhist Councils?


text:
Is suffering dependent on aging & death? If so, how is suffering experienced before & after death?
A translation of SN 12.2 says:

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering.

The impression of the above text is - for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play - aging & death must occur.
I have two questions:

If death must occur for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play; what is the cause for people having sorrow, grief & despair before death, i.e., in the present moment?
If death must occur for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play; is sorrow, grief & despair only experienced after death?

Isn't the question focusing on the metaphysical aspect and ignoring the soteriological value of the text? The questions only make sense if you think that birth and death have independent and temporal existence. If you interpret the text as a mental process, the questions become less significant.

The extract does not say suffering is dependent on ageing and death. It says that it begins at birth. If you think of suffering as 'unsatisfactoriness' then it becomes more obvious that it is present from birth.

Sorry but your comment is incomprehensible; particularity unsatisfactoriness. MN 141 defines what sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair are. The quote says aging, death, sorrow arise together. Best you write an answer rather than make comments. The comments section is not for answers. Thanks

If death must occur for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair
  to come into play; what is the cause for people having sorrow, grief &
  despair before death, i.e., in the present moment?
If death must occur for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair
  to come into play; is sorrow, grief & despair only experienced after
  death?

Aging & death must come together to show "if you born without
    unstable, it's ok. But actually, your life is unstable because it's
    going to be aging & death, it's not ok. Because while you are living, birth+aging+death, you are going to have sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play aging & death."
Pali context only shows birth causes "aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play". Nothing in pāli context shows aging & death cause "sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play".

jātipaccayā     jarāmaraṇaṃ  sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā sambhavanti.

So, your both questions are misunderstood pali context. There is nothing in pali context shows  "death must occur for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play". Pāli only shows birth causes "aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play".
In the other hand by pāli context, the sequence of paṭiccasamuppāda is "birth >> aging&death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play". It is not "birth >> aging >> death >> sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play".

@TheDBSGuy In pāli context, the sequence of paṭiccasamuppāda is "birth >> aging&death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play". It is not "birth >> aging >> death >> sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play".

Correct. Birth is a requisite condition for ageing, death, sorrow, despair, grief. Death is not a requisite condition for these.

Bonn I think your answer is correct

This is another problem when refusing to accept regrouping of 5 skandhas after breaking up of this body. You don't believe in reappearing after death so you have trouble understanding things like this.

If death must occur for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play; what is the cause for people having sorrow,
  grief & despair before death, i.e., in the present moment?

When someone from your family die you will grieve, feel sad and cry won’t you?
When you are at the moment of death you will feel sad won’t you? Other people will feel sad for you won’t they? You might have regret about a lot of things and people who care about you will have pain and sorrow.

If death must occur for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair to come into play; is sorrow, grief & despair only experienced
  after death?

Sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair can come into play for other people who love you after you die. You can have pain, sorrow or lamentation when you are dying. If you were not dying then you wouldn’t feel sad because of it and other people who care about you wouldn’t feel sad if you were not dying. They might have pain about other things like losing their job but that’s another thing.
I think becoming, birth, aging and death, sorrow, lamentation are future lives. Consciousness, name and form, six sense media, contact, feeling, craving and clinging are this present life. Ignorance and fabrication are previous life.
Dependent origin cannot be understood by thinking intellectually. I think an arahant would be able to understand and contemplate it.

I marked this answer down because it was very confusing for me to read and seemed full of contradictions & speculative ideas. The answer is comprised of six paragraphs. I could make sense of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 but I could not understand how paragraphs 1, 5 and 6 were related to the other paragraphs. I agree sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair can come into play (if there is IGNORANCE) when people we love die or if we think about our "own" death'. The idea that the emotions sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress and despair are "future lives" sounds very bizarre.

If you don’t understand my answer then I will write a summary. If there is no birth in this world would there be aging and death? If there is no birth, aging and death then would there be suffering? If you were never born then you wouldn’t be able to age and die. If there is no birth, aging and death in this world then there wouldn’t be pain, sorrow and lamentation

The question is about how sorrow happens after death. Also, if birth is the reason for sorrow, why does the teaching include craving before birth? Also, if birth was the condition for sorrow, Nibbana could not be found in the here & now.

Craving is included before birth is because when we crave in this life there is a cause for birth in the next life. When we crave for things we might have the view “I am the self” or “I am the one who is enjoying sensual pleasure” or he might crave for future existence so he might do good deeds.You can’t intellectually think about Nibbana. If you are a arahant then you will not die or grow old because you won’t assume the body to be “mine” or “you”. You won’t assume consciousness to be “mine” or “you”.

So you are saving "craving" is not related to sorrow; such as wanting something & not getting it? Have you read DN 16, which says only the monks & devas who were not free from craving had sorrow over the passing of the Buddha? The monks free from craving did not lament over the Buddha's passing.

Of course the person who crave will suffer if he doesn’t get what he want but he is planting the seeds for much more suffering because he will be reborn again and again. Those monks who are not free of craving will suffer in this life and future lives. The Buddha enter into nibanna so he is not born again. He wasn’t ignorant so there is no fabrication. When there is no fabrication there is no consciousness in his next life. When there is no consciousness there is no name-form and six sense media. When there is no six sense media then there is no contact. Without contact no feeling arise

Without feeling there is no craving. Without craving there is no clinging. Without clinging there is no becoming in future lives. Without becoming in mother womb or any other realms there is no birth. When there is no birth there is no aging and death. This is why the Buddha is free of aging and death. He did it by abandoning the causes of birth and becoming

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

In my Mahayana interpretation, from birth comes "this entire pile of dukkha" such as: aging, sickness, death, separation from dear, meeting with undesired, sorrow, lamentation and so on and so forth. The list in the sutta is clearly supposed to be enumerating standard examples of dukkha from 1st noble truth. In Mahayana we often read such passages not literally but as casual colloquial idiomatic approximations.
When a text is interpreted in Mahayana style, we tend to pay attention to the implied meaning and the overall message more than to the details. So in this case we would understand this passage as saying "with birth as condition there come all kinds of dukkha" and treat the examples as pointers intended to outline the category, rather than as important on their own.

I think these riddles might be solves by examining teachings about sorrow.
SN 22.1 says sorrow only occurs when there is conceiving ideas of "self", as follows:

He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or
  'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his
  consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
He is not seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his
  consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

The Piyavagga says where there is no love, there is no sorrow:

210. Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.
211. Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or
  unloved.
212. From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. For one who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then
  fear?

Similarly, many suttas say sorrow occurs due to loss of loved relatives, as follows:

Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no
  desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying
  out, "Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone,
  my only little child?" Then he went to the Blessed One, who said:
  "That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear,
  come springing from one who is dear." MN 87
Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother... the death of a
  father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death
  of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to
  relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to
  disease. SN 15.3

In MN 26, relatives are called "acquisitions" (upadhi), i.e., things attached to with infatuation, as follows:

And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
  pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
  subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
  is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
  them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
  MN 26

SN 12.66 says "acquisitions" give birth to "death", as follows:

The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this suffering has acquisition as its source,
  acquisition as its origin; it is born and produced from acquisition.
  When there is acquisition, aging-and-death comes to be; when there is
  no acquisition, aging-and-death does not come to be.

Therefore, it seems sorrow arises from the death of what is loved; and what is called "birth" is based on "acquisitions" of things regarded as "self".

And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
  pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
  subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
  is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
  them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.
  MN 26

In summary, "birth" appears to be the production of ideas of "persons" or "beings" from mere aggregates and when the aggregates change & alter (per SN 22.1), sorrow occurs.


text:
Have Matreiya ever meet the present buddha?
I know that the Buddha went to tusita heaven or tavatimsa heaven to teach the dharma or Abidhamma to his mother. Matreiya is in tusita heaven so did he ever come down to tavatimsa heaven to hear the dharma from the Buddha?

Gauthama Buddha first met Mithrie Bodisatta on His return to Sankassapura(Sankissa Basantapura in India) after preaching Abhidhamma at Tavatimsa heaven. At that time, Maithrie Bodhisattva was born as the son of Siriwaddana Situ of Sankassapura.  After listening to a Dhamma discussion attended by Ven. Sariputta, he had expressed the willingness to join the monastic order. Maithrie Bodhisattva obtained the higher ordination from the Buddha himself and was named “Bhikkhu Arya Miethirya.” There after he practised the teachings well and became famous as an excellent Dhamma expounder.
Once Ven. Maha Prajapathi Gotami Theri offered two robes to Ven. Arya Maithriya. Ven. Arya Maithriya offered them back to the Buddha. At that time the Buddha looked into the future and predicted that there will be a kingdom known as "Kethumathi" and a universal monarch called Sankha whose advisor Subrahamme and his wife Brahamawathi will be parents of future Buddha Maitriya and that he will attain enlightenment under the Naa(Mesua Ferrea) Tree. This was the last affirmation received by the Maithriya Bodhisatta. The prediction of emergence of the future Buddha was announced on an Il Full Poya Poya Day.
There is also a story on Maithriya Bodhisatta meeting Gautama Bodhisatta in the distance past which I'm not including in the answer.

Do you have references?

@ruben2020 it's in the Buddhavamsa

Didn’t the Buddha say that matreiya was in tusita heaven?

No the buddha didn't, but when he died he was born in Tusita. It is the custom of every Bodhisatta to be born in Tusita before the life they attain Buddhahood. His Paramis are completed now. He is just waiting till the time is right.


text:
Sn 2.1: What is meant by an "eighth grasping (ādiyanti)"?
Sn 2.1 has been translated as follows:

Ye ariyasaccāni vibhāvayanti,  Gambhīrapaññena sudesitāni;  Kiñcāpi te
  honti bhusaṃ pamattā,  Na te bhavaṃ aṭṭhamam ādiyanti;
  Idampi saṅghe ratanaṃ paṇītaṃ,  Etena saccena suvatthi hotu
Who clearly comprehend these Noble Truths well-taught by him of wisdom
  fathomless, however heedless be they afterwards upon an eighth (aṭṭhamam)
existence (bhavaṃ) they’ll not seize (ādiyanti). Yea, in the Saṅgha is this glorious gem: By virtue of this truth, may blessing be! (Mills)
Those who have seen clearly the noble truths well-taught by the one of
  deep discernment — regardless of what [later] might make them heedless
  — will come to no eighth state of becoming.   This, too, is an
  exquisite treasure in the Sangha.     By this truth may there be
  well-being. (Thanissaro)
Those who realized the Noble Truths well taught by him who is profound
  in wisdom (the Buddha), even though they may be exceedingly heedless,
  they will not take an eighth existence (in the realm of sense
  spheres). This precious jewel is the Sangha. By this (asseveration of
  the) truth may there be happiness. (Piyadassi)

What is meant here by an "eighth grasping, seizing or taking up (ādiyati) of becoming/existence (bhava)"?

I'm told that "the commentaries of multiple Indian Buddhist traditions (not just the Theravada)" define this kind of thing as referring to sotapanna having "seven more lives".
See e.g. How do you know what ‘sattakkhattuparama’ means?.
You ask, "What is meant?"
It's as "lives" (and so on) that a lot of people understand it and/or teach it -- and that is, arguably, what the text "says" -- even if you might say it doesn't "mean" what it seems to.
Perhaps you have a different interpretation of what "birth" and so on means -- and even, an interpretation which you can or want to justify, and which some other people (seem to) agree with.
I think I've read your suggesting, in the past, that the "seven" refers to "seven more fetters" -- and that "birth" and "becoming" and so on refer to the arising of self-views (e,g, identity views).
There's a Meta-topic, Questions asking for an answer to a controversy, where suggestions include,

Instead of changing question to be about controversy it is also possible to just outline controversy in the answer.

Anyway I think that this is (or e.g. that by posting about it as you do, you make it) controversial --and this answer is, what, meant to "outline" that controversy.
You'e written abut this topic at lot -- endlessly, it seems!

Perhaps read this translation.
"The person who has reached this stage in the practice will be reborn at most seven more times."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.than.html#fnt-2

This refers to a person who has attained stream entry. He will not have more than seven more lifetimes.
From Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of Sutta Nipata 2.1:

Those who have seen clearly the noble truths well-taught by the one of
  deep discernment — regardless of what [later] might make them heedless
  — will come to no eighth state of becoming.
Footnote for "no eight state of becoming" (Thanissaro):
  The person who has reached this stage in the practice will be reborn
  at most seven more times.

This is in line with other suttas such as SN 13.8:

"In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is
  consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to
  stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended &
  extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having
  at most seven remaining lifetimes is next to nothing: it's not a
  hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with
  the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of
  breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is
  of obtaining the Dhamma eye."

And also AN 9.12:

Furthermore, there’s a person who has fulfilled ethics, but has
  limited immersion and wisdom. With the ending of three fetters, they
  have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven
  times among gods and humans and then make an end of suffering.

And also AN 3.88:

If they don’t penetrate so far, with the ending of three fetters, they
  have at most seven rebirths. They will transmigrate at most seven
  times among gods and humans and then make an end of suffering.

I marked this post down because when i looked at the Pali I could not find the term "lifetimes". ChrisW went searching at Sutta Central for answer, here https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/how-do-you-know-what-sattakkhattuparama-means/11131

@Dhammadhatu I asked that on SC a month ago, if that matters. I think I've read what people on this site have written on the topic -- including your definition (interpretation, translation) of sattakkhattuṃparamatā.

Sn 2.1 says in the next verse:

At the moment of attaining sight, one abandons three things:     identity-views, uncertainty,    & any attachment to precepts &
  practices.

Its seems obvious the stream-enterer must inevitably face seven more fetters to reach Arahantship (and not eight). Also, the relevant Pali word is "bhava", which does not mean "lifetime". "Bhava" is one of three "asava" (effuents, defilements) and obviously every "fetter" involves "bhava".
Therefore, it appears obvious the issue was never "solved" on Sutta Central.


text:
What should I choose, Life or Nirvana?
A little personal story ahead also sorry for the long post...
Story:
Three years back my life was a disaster, I was as far away from Dhamma as possible,   I was into the dark side of modern life. Drowned into money, greed, sex, addictions which inevitably rolled me into stress and depression, but I still had my job. At the time, I was reading one of the books by Thich Nhat Hanh and one evening as I left my office, I sat on a fountain-side watching all the people coming out of the high-rise buildings rushing to catch the tide back home. I had kind of epiphanies moment where I asked what am I doing with this? where is my life going? I felt that I definitely did not want to spend my life climbing the corporate ladder...it was like a terribly dreadful feeling I can't put into words...
So very next day I quit my high paying job, in a few days moved out of the big city and into my parent's house. From there I started seriously reading Buddhism. In a years time, I was way over my addictions at least the alcohol was out. From there I did a couple of 10 day- vipassana retreats and also did a month-long retreat at a Zen monastery. At the end of last year, I was over my anti-depressants tablets and stopped going to a psychiatrist.
This whole year I spent meditating in Zazen and Vipassana, I have finally to my satisfaction finished reading books. Now I have come to the point that I have known that the Theravada tradition is best suited to me and I am reading Ajahn Brahm's book on Jnanas the third time.
Question:
My life has been changed for better, I don't have a job for three years but I don't have any financial worries or family concerns. I have narrowed down to bare minimum needs and I can possibly live like this till I die.
But now it seems I want to live in a better way, in the right way according to Dhamma. Instead of getting back to rat race I can live some other kind of way to make money, go find a girl (again), basically get into Samsara. Life seems to have gotten a new meaning if I choose to give it. It will be a repeat of the cycle, just better this time.
OR
I have made some good progress in meditation. If I continue with current focus for this coming year(2019) I am hoping to progress till a nimitta. Also, I have met a normal guy online who has attained Enlightenment, (from his words and actions he looks genuine) so following his example, Nirvana seems like an achievable goal within a human lifetime.
The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging. Now life seems like worth living again, although I am very much well versed with suffering.
So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice between Samsara(going back to make money and lay life) and Nirvana(single minded focus on meditation)?

if you have to ask this question, the answer is already told, because you have already chosen.

It all depends on what you want. Not everyone is meant to be a monk and you don't need to give up everything to follow the Dhamma. There is a middle way. Single-minded focus does not necessarily mean Nirvana. I don't think it's effective to think of Nirvana as a goal or a place you can reach. But, the question you should answer is what do you desire and only you can answer that.

A wise man once told me to never go backwards.  Thus, you should never go back to your old life.  However, if your are looking to go forward with your old life, that's a very different discussion.  Both phrasing appear in your question.

The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging.
This is a problem because you think that being reborn is good but actually it is suffering. If you want to be reborn in a heavenly realm you should know that these realms are also impermanent and it is much harder to practice the dharma there. And you also have no idea how much you might have suffered in samsara.
In SN 15.3, the Buddha said this.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

If you want to achieve nibanna then practice the noble eight fold path.

"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. [4] Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

You must also practice the four frames of reference. I’m not going to say how to practice it here but these four frames of reference are not four different exercises. Right mindfulness comes before right concentration so I think you should practice it if you want to achieve nibanna.

You can ask me if you are confused about something

If you choose life you choose death. Think of it in this way and as you grow older the choice will become more and more a 'no-brainer'. Besides, life is miserable without some degree of realisation. But I'd agree that when life is going well rebirth doesn't seem like such a bad idea, and you could always take a vow to return for the sake of others if you like it here. .

"So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice between Samsara and Nirvana?"   <--
Don't mean to discourage you but from reading your words and your question, you are very well in no foreseeable position to worry about "Nirvana or Samsara". Long way to go mate.
All you need to worry about is to continue practicing. Have you been following the 5 precepts? If so, continue. If ready, try the Theravada 8 precepts. Keep Practicing and follows the 8-fold paths.
After a while, if you practice well, you will be able to achieve enlightenment step by step. By that time, you will find out what is meaningful for your life and you will be able to answer your question.

Hi, you mis-understood me a little bit. I am not saying a choice like should I get Nirvana or not when I am in position to do that. I am saying should I go back to world, start making money, get a girl...but this time keeping the precepts or should I continue with single minded focus on meditation keeping away the world and aim for Nirvana. As an anology, think of a monk asking you should I disrobe and go back to job or should I remain a monk and work towards my Nirvana.

You might find this sutta helpful https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.075.than.html

Also this one https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.076.than.html

The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging.

This seems like craving for material desires. The 'discouragement' is your wanting, desiring and craving. This is what is known as a fetter which is intrinsically connected to dukkha (suffering); a ball and chain negating any advancement. This is a pivotal point in relation to progression. Here there is ambivalence: the pull further back to the realms of the six-sense doors and thus various degrees of unsatisfactoriness or the drawing to a greater realization.  Use the knowledge you have attained thus far to exit this troublesome mindset.

So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice between Samsara and Nirvana?

Keep it simple. Some questions to contemplate by yourself are: Since you've been practicing has your suffering decreased? If so, how does this inform your current predicament?

Thanks. I am in kind of self imposed seclusion right now, so I wont say material desires but I agree with you over sense based desires. But what about small-small moments life is made of, like a cup of tea, watching a sunset, taking a dip in water, looking at stars...all life will be gone into void...how do you reconcile with end of life?

That seems like an interesting question and is deserving of being asked as a main question on the site perhaps restructured slightly. In terms of material desires and sense based desires, they are interrelated, spherical or symbiotic, for example, if there is ear-consciousness leading to pleasure then there must be something material to complete that circuit. The latter component being rupa. You can still do your regular small things (tea, looking at stars). Everything will continue as normal, just your perception will change. It will become clearer, more precise.

Sorry, I did not upload the question as suggested. To me it felt like it will be an intellectual or philosophical rendering.

No matter what puthujjanas claim, kama is bad, there is no '''striving to avoid craving is a craving itself'', there is no ''I can delight in the senses without craving'' like philosophers craving to sensuality love to say. Puthujjanas always try to salvage the institutions and rules that they build and cherish, trying to say that they create their rules for the good of the people, but puthujjanas have no knowledge of what is right and wrong, and as long as you remain with those people, especially those puthujjanas who always down play the danger in sensuality, you will not progress. you are too weak to become a good person surrounded by bad people.
Same thing with the puthujjanas who always express the dhamma and knowledge into emotions, like love with the puthujjanas who invented vajrayana, or like depression with the puthujjanas who invented dry insight and their moronic ''dark night'' as ''knowledge into dukkha''.
Also, no matter what puthujjanas say about ''missing out on sensual pleasures'', the more you are good at getting the citta into right samadhi, the more you will be good at getting all the delights of the jhanas.
Most Puthujjanas cannot resist hyping sensual pleasures and pass themselves as expert of sensual pleasures while mocking the non sensual pleasures. Those puthujjanas addicted to sensuality fantasize that having non-sensual pleasures means becoming dead or living like a robot or rock or being egotist. And like any other toxic puthujjanas they base their life on their fantasies and emotions, while claiming they are ''rational'', ''pragmatic'', ''good people'' and that they know what they are talking about.
A puthujjana will never be wrong to get the citta in to samadhi and the only way to do this is to divide thoughts, words and actions into ones which are geared towards passion for the ''5 strings of sensuality''+ meanness towards others and ones which are about renunciation, viraga, nirodha and good will. Once the puthujjana keep track of thoughts and sanna, there remains to put right effort into cultivating the '' ones which are about renunciation, viraga, nirodha and good will'' and you will be fine and get the citta into right samadhi.
In the suttas, THe thing that is unclear is how to get the vipassanas: whether getting out of the famous jhana with ''neither perception nor yet non-perception'' means you reach nibanna or rather you need a reflection on this state [or even on previous jhanas], but as long as you focus on viraga, on not grasping, on nirodha, on akincana and son on, you cannot be wrong.

You should not take this reply or my experience as a definitive answer, but look if you may find something useful in it.
I was also in your position a while ago.
I was (and sometimes I still am) going back and forth between clarity of the mind and nostalgia for the old days, even knowing how much unsatisfaction was present in my life at those days. I was afraid of letting go. I was afraid of not being able to enjoy life again as I used to do.
A few months ago I saw a video from Ven. Yuttadhammo's channel on YouTube. It was a little Q&A session, and the topic of that specific question was about letting go.
https://youtu.be/hkT4chlOTjU
After seeing it, something "clicked" in my head.
You don't HAVE to let go of anything. As "Krizalid" said, keep going with your practice, and maybe, dissenchantment will come by itself. The fear and the doubts about letting go come from still being attached to the objects of attachment; they still look satisfying and something worth investing your time and energies on.
The "little" change I did with my mindset was to let go and detach from the fear of letting go and detach. I opened myself to the possibility of disenchantment. Maybe I'm not ready yet to give the big step. Maybe I've not seen the way things are clear enough. Maybe I'm still deluded by my sense and my convenient lack of short and long term memory (when the thing to remember is the frustration and constant anxiety I usually had to dealt with).
Despite all of what I've said, one thing is for sure:
What "I" am today is the best version of "myself", and I owe my inner peace to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha (and certainly to this "e-Sangha" as well).
I keep reminding myself that the effort spent was totally worth it.
Have a nice day!

Thank you. Attaining 'disenchantment' from life, that is something very useful.

There is a difference between desiring and having

Instead of getting back to rat race I can live some other kind of way to make money, go find a girl (again), basically get into Samsara.

The problem with the rat race is how it tends to drive people to be motivated by acquiring more money, a higher position, more material possessions (to justify the desire for more money) and this is a downward spiral due to the desire, not the possession. You can have a good job, a high pay and possessions (in my opinion) without falling foul of the obsession that corrupts most people.
You can have money and put it into charity work, helping local small businesses, helping people out of poverty...the uses are up to you, there is no shame in earning a high salary.
So don't feel like you have to avoid those things (as long as you can control yourself) - live the way you think is worthwhile and Nirvana or Samsara will sort themselves out.

It will be a repeat of the cycle, just better this time.
Doctrinally I think that Mahayana might have some things to say -- including about Samsara and Nirvana, renunciation and so on -- I don't see any Mahayana-tradition answers here, so, maybe there's another kind of answer/view (elsewhere) to your question.
But, I am not equipped (with its doctrine) to answer from that perspective.
The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging.
I guess my understanding from the suttas was something like,

Birth is painful and so on -- even now, with your life (much more) in order, you're uncertain, maybe subject to craving
Nothing you might want to do, nothing worthwhile, benefits from having a self or being a self. For example if knowledge or skill is required (wuld be beneficial) somewhere, then (just) convey knowledge or skill to that place, to that situation -- it's not better to also bring a bunch of "self" along with that. I think that "self-view" is maybe unskilful and better abandoned -- do without it, you know.
I think that abandoned "self-view" maybe changes the perspective of "I will [not] be reborn" etc. -- i.e. your view of whether that's good or bad or even meaningful: "to the extent that you don't exist now, what does rebirth mean?"
Beyond self-view (as a fetter), I think the suttas1 mention other 'fetters' -- notably e.g. craving for "existence" and for "sensuality" -- I suppose you might want want to identify these, in a "know your enemy" (Mara!) kind of way.

I think that Buddhism accepts that a lot of people are going to live in Samsara -- it's not exactly wicked to (e.g. if you keep the precepts) though perhaps not ariya, but, I think that Buddhism warns it's subject to dukkha -- IOW death as well as birth, etc.
1 Please forgive the link to Wikipedia instead
So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice
My immediate reaction, my habit, on seeing a question like that, is to say that "that's a false dichotomy" -- for example:

The difference between the two is mind-made, a figment of your imagination (or an artefact of having "seized a view")
You don't have a choice -- you couldn't escape Samsara even if you wanted to (by which I mean only that maybe you hadn't while you write this question)
So given that you're in Samsara at the moment, maybe a better question is how well (how Nobly) you can live

The moral precepts keep people from self-harm and maintain normal health. It seems you have already clearly learned this fact from experience.
As for meditation, when jhana is reached (although also beforehand), this provides a pleasure that far surpasses sensual pleasures, including the pleasure of loving affection. Generally, a person that reaches real jhana does not return to sensuality or worldly relationships; unless they do so purely from compassion for another person.
As for reincarnation, this is obviously  a misinterpretation & corruption (by the ambitious clergy) of what the Buddha taught (such as the clergy's composition of the Jataka Tales, which eventually resulted in the extinction of Buddhism in India). Without promises of good reincarnation, how was the Buddhist clergy supposed to make money?
What 'Samsara' truly means to repeatedly attaching to things as 'self', as explained in SN 22.99:

There comes a time when the great earth is consumed with flame, is destroyed & does not exist. But for beings — as long as they are
  hindered by ignorance, fettered by craving, running around & wandering
  on — I don't say that there is an end of suffering & stress.
Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
  ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
  regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
He assumes feeling to be the self...
He assumes perception to be the self...
He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
  that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
  from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
  from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
  from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
  set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

You have already been reborn in hell, with the suffering you have experienced in this life. Your life is impermanent. The suttas say all conditioned things are impermanent & subject to vanish; that all that is subject to arising is subject to cessation. Whether you aspire for jhana & Nibbana or simply live a moral life, this will not change the impermanence of your life. Whatever Dhamma path you choose will make little difference because living a life following Dhamma generally (more or less) avoids rebirth in the lower realms of 'animal birth' ('psychopathy'), hungry ghost ('addiction') and 'hell' (suffering, depression, anguish, torment).
This above said, the suttas teach the household life is 'stuffy & burdened'. Generally, 'a girl' wants to get pregnant and have a family; which requires personal & financial commitment and also choosing the right girl. To be a householder requires much commitment & serving the aspirations of the girl. Then when you have children, there is the potential to worry & fret over the children and over the family in general. The suttas say about this worry & fret in the here & now:

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while running &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
  greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son...
  the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with
  regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have
  shed over loss with regard to disease while running & wandering this
  long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than
  the water in the four great oceans.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are running & wandering on. Long have you thus
  experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
  cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
  enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
SN 15.3


text:
Where do I find a Buddhist retreat in Asia?
I have had experience in meditation, I want to have experience of living and learning with Buddhist monks.  Where in Asia can I experience this for 8 to 10 weeks to start?

Which tradition are you interested in? Tibetan? Theravada? Zen? Chinese Mahayana? Etc.

http://www.meditation.lk

Speaking from personal experience with stays at Zen monasteries in Japan:
It depends on what you mean by retreat. Many Zen monasteries in Japan offer "retreats" in their web pages, but this is not necessarily what is meant in Japanese Zen by a sesshin (接心). If you want to experience the daily life of Buddhist monks in Asia, I'd advise not joining a sesshin for your first time in Japan, as this is an extremely intense period for the monks, and if you do not fully master the local language and the temple customs you will struggle. First time around, I would advise you stay at one or more temples during a regular period.
If you want to sleep, meditate, eat, and work with the monks you can contact the head temple or administrative office of a Buddhist lineage in Japan and ask for possible periods and places to stay (also, indicate if you need some help with the language and customs, as this will be taken into account proposing possible stays to you).
Here are some links you may find useful:
Shoganji Monastery - Rinzai lineage
Soto Zen monasteries for foreigners in Japan - Soto Lineage
ShinShoJi Temple - Rinzai Lineage
Shunkoin Temple - Mindfullness
Japan Vipassana Association
There's also shukubo in Japan, a kind of pilgrim lodging associated with nearby temples.

Many Westerners come to here to meditate, some become monks, some as laypeople.
International Buddhasāsana Meditation Centre
https://www.paaukforestmonastery.org/
You might also be interested in this monastery which the abbot has traveled to the deep forests and mountains in Karen State and meditated for many years. It is also common that several monks go to the forest and return only when they achieve a certain level of enlightenment.
https://goo.gl/maps/BgDTUBbbDvQ2
Note: Free of charge. Stay as long as you want. These are in Myanmar, so I am afraid you might end up like Jack Dorsey.

If you're searching for Theravada Buddhist retreat in Sri Lanka you can visit,

Na Uyana Aranya Senasanaya
Mithirigala Nissarana Vanaya
Rathmalkanda Meditation Centre
Kanduboda Siyane International Insight Meditation Centre

Well there are plenty of monasteries, so try to find videos by bikkhus online and then go to their website to find the contact info and ask them about retreats
ex in thailand:
the famous http://www.forestdhammatalks.org/en/contact.php
the famous https://www.phrasuchart.com/contact/
the famous http://www.wbd.org.au/visiting/overnight-and-longer/