text:
How does one Practice Sila?
There are many techniques to practice meditation but how exactly do you practice Sila?
Are there any methods or techniques mentioned in the Suttas or by Buddhist Teachers to practice Sila. Exactly what are you doing when you say you are "practicing sila"?

a definition i ran across...sila means 'control of mind'

Sila means ethics, or morality. There are many Suttas that describe how Sila is practiced. The most basic way for a layperson to practice Sila is to keep the five precepts.

Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.
Adinnadana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from taking that which is not given.
Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from sexual misconduct.
Musavada veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from incorrect speech.
Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
  I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html)
After that there are the eight precepts, the ten precepts, and the monastic precepts.
One thing to bear in mind however is that these precepts shouldn't be looked on as just being rules given to us to follow. We should look on them not as restrictions put on us by our religion, but as greatly beneficial spiritual practices we take on because they benefit both ourselves and others.
Also it is important to remember that the five precepts are only a basic summary of morality. Just because something isn't technically covered by the precepts doesn't mean that it is totally ok to do. One should always consider the effects of ones actions on one's self and on others.
One of the most practical Suttas giving a description of how to discern right from wrong is the very famous Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone. It explains how one should contemplate and reflect on one's actions and character in order to develop Sila.
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html)

Is it true to say that these precepts are an exhaustive, comprehensive list: that if an action doesn't violate one of the precepts, then it's not unethical? What about Right Speech, Action, and Livelihood? What about generosity or charity? Should (for example) the advice for householders given in the Sigalovada Sutta be considered "Sila"?

The five precepts are not exhaustive. There are things that don't fit into the precepts in a technical sense, but are obviously against the spirit of the precepts. For example, if you take the first precept literally, it only covers killing but not beating someone up. But that doesn't mean that it is ok to beat people up. That's what I mean by the precepts being a basic summary of morality rather than the whole thing.

In some Suttas the precepts are explained in terms of positive principles, so in the Samanaphala Sutta the Buddha talks about how one should keep the first precept having laid down the rod and having compassion for all living beings, so the precepts are more than just staying within the boundaries of a rule. They also encompass positive action, and this includes acts of generosity towards others.


text:
What are sariras (scientifically seen)?
What are sariras (Tibetan: ringsels)?
I have seen those small crystal 'pearls' (exposed in bottles) at several (even small) monasteries in SE Asia. These relics remain (are found in the ashes) after the cremation of the body of (high appreciated) Buddhist monks.
Is there a scientific explanation for those sariras?

Wikipedia is referencing this article:

Scanning electron microscope observations of heat-treated human bone.
This report describes the heat-induced alterations in human bone tissue observed using scanning electron microscopy and microradiography. Femoral bone samples were taken from persons varying in age from 1 year to 97 years at the time of their death. The bone was heated at selected temperatures in the range 200-1600 degrees C for periods of 2, 12, 18 and 24 h. Macroscopically, changes in colour occurred, together with some shrinkage, fracturing and distortion. However, dramatic changes occurred at the ultrastructural level. These changes included the progressive combustion of the organic portion of the bone tissue up to 400 degrees C and recrystallisation of the bone mineral beginning at 600 degrees C. Recrystallisation produced a range of crystal morphologies: spherical, hexagonal, platelets, rosettes and irregular. Crystal growth occurred at temperatures > 600 degrees C. Sintering led to fusion of crystals at 1000 degrees C. This process continued up to temperatures > 1400 degrees C. At 1600 degrees C the bone mineral melted. On heating, the morphology of crystals formed, and the ultrastructural changes which occurred, were found to be related to the age of the deceased, the temperature to which the bone had been heated and the duration of heating. These results are of importance to forensic scientists, arson investigators and paleoarcheologists in their investigation of cremated human bones, particularly when only fragments of bone are available, in order to determine something of the life history of the deceased and the circumstances surrounding the death.

600 degrees C is the temperature at which material begins to glow red (i.e. an achievable temperature when a body is cremated), and 1000 degrees is when it's orange.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Information Technology Careers and Right Livelihood Dharma
As a Buddhist looking for perfecting his Right Livelihood: finding a Livelihood which is so perfect and Right that it not only avoids bad-karma-making (killing, stealing, intoxication, etc.) but even furthers the level of Dharma in the world (healing, love, connectedness, self-understanding)... seeing people involved in these kinds of work truly brings me joy.
What kind of information technology careers do you think most easily contribute to the Dharma and how?
If you are involved in IT and are Buddhist, how do you connect the two (other than through donating to Buddhist causes)?

Here is a Reddit post where I asked the same question and people with personal anecdotes.

I have always considered Tech Support to be a karma positive part of IT.

Data centers can be big polluters. The electricity needed to cool them is tremendous. Then again Google claims to be carbon neutral for many years now. I guess it depends on the data center

I have a slightly less orthodox view on right livelihood than others might. I think for practical purposes right livelihood is

Your means of living doesn't harm others and accords with Buddhist ethics
Your means of living leaves you with enough time and energy to practice the dharma

So I was originally a teacher which is good on point 1 but exhausted me so no Buddhist practice was possible. So it was only when I moved into IT that a practice became possible so really a programmer was more right livelihood than teaching for me with is rather counterintuitive.
That said as things go on then point 2  becomes important. My last job had a big defence contract which although I never worked on it never sat right with me. So I've moved into healthcare computing which I feel is more in keeping with both aspects of right livelihood.
Generally IT is a neutral thing. It's a tool and it is the use that that tool is put to that gives it its ethical dimension. Healthcare, education and charity IT probably good. Gambling, poronography and activities that increase peoples suffering probably not such good uses of IT.

Yep! I agree. In the end, it is that 2nd part that is very important. On retrospect, my question is actually silly... IT is the best field! There are many jobs that cause harm to others and also leave you with little time or energy to Practice during the day and when the workday is done.

I would add gaming in general. I'm a game developer myself so I know that even the most complex games are just skinner boxes in a fancy disguise. Of course games are just a medium like books or movies but there is a very little number of ones that will not increase your suffering. Online genres are even causing serious addiction and deaths sometimes.

From the Mahayana Avatamsaka Sutra, which encourages people-- lay and monastic-- to work towards the enlightenment of all beings, says:

"Bodhisattvas, thus engaged in the development of sentient beings ...
  practice whatever in the world would benefit sentient beings, such as
  writing, teaching, mathematics, sciences of various realms or
  elements; medical sciences; prevention of consumption, epilepsy and
  possession (schizophrenia), warding off poison, zombies (hey even the
  CDC is watching out for this one!) and witchcraft; song and dance,
  drama, music, story telling and entertainment; the construction of
  villages, cities, ..., canals, reservoirs, ponds abounding in lotuses,
  groves producing flowers, fruits and medicines; the discovery of gold,
  jewels and other precious substances; methods of pointing out the
  signs of the sun, moon, planets stars, constellations, movements of
  the earth, omens, dreams, ...; points of the cultivation of
  discipline, meditation, mystic knowledge, the immeasurable and
  formeless states-- and whatever else is not harmful or injurious, that
  which is conducive to the benefit and well-being of all creatures,
  that the enlightening beings undertake, guided by compassion, to
  establish them in the way of the buddha."

So at least in context of the Bodhisattva project, mathematics, (and programming is just applied logic and mathematics), is exactly the sort of thing we should be doing.
This is from Chapter 26, the Ten Stages, aka, Daśabhūmika.

IT is a tool. It's all about how you use it. If you're helping others and doing good, then you're in the right job. If you're in a job where it's used badly and harming others then that's a big no, for me.
I work in IT for a mapping company. We provide mapping for emergency services among others (no military mapping). So as far as I'm concerned it's a good job to have as a Buddhist.
As I always put it to myself "If you're not helping; what are you doing?!"

Right occupation is a limited term, it is meant to steer one clear of the most toxic professions, where just by association, one can accumulate negative karma.
Most occupations including the sciences are neutral in this regard.

A monk would sooner walk among mother tigers than tread the path of
  fame and fortune. ~Ryokan (Zen Master)

Most high profile occupations today are about more than putting food on the table. Fame and fortune are definitely ingredients of ambition.
In places like Silicon Valley the ambitious and busy pursuit of wealth, power and fame are considered unquestionable virtues. Of course many try to balance it out with a focus on charity, or by building meditation rooms in the workplace. Often they approach these activities too with the busy mind, of trying to get somewhere, be something, and that defeats the purpose. If one is truly dedicated to Dharma this isn't enough.
Unless we are very clear about why we don't want only these values of material success, of more becoming for ourselves, these goals will soon become dear to us by being around materialists. At that point it can edge out thoughts of just being, co-existence, compassion and letting go.
Thus choosing right co-workers and objectives is a more important aid to the holy life than just choosing an occupation.
Often this decision will come at the cost of some material success and busyness, since wealth tends to accumulate faster when ethics are thin and people are busy doing things.

"Man's mind is filled with dangers; the mind of the Way is subtle; make your mind pure and dedicated and adhere to the Mean."

I was a telecom and system developer for a lot of my career -- which I figure was ethically neutral.
I always avoided applying for jobs with companies in defence industries.
Now I work with software for medical device data in hospitals, which I'm glad of -- it seemed to me more worth-while than working in Fintech, which was another option at the time and better-paid.
If you are involved in IT and are Buddhist, how do you connect the two (other than through donating to Buddhist causes)?
Well I think it's a job, a bit like others, I mean it's not like teaching the Dhamma, or peace of mind.
But I feel no remorse about seeking medical care for family who need it, I think it's a right thing to do, and writing software which assists the medical profession isn't a bad thing either, I don't know better.
Since you ask, providing medical care may be just about the only "work" that the Buddha told monks to perform (for other monks, who have no other family), which I guess goes to show something.
Also when my wife was telling me what I should say at her funeral, she said, "First of all, I'd like to thank the doctors for saving my life." So there's an element of that for me -- gratitude, and paying it forward.

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

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


text:
Impermanence, nonexistance of self, meaning of life
I've been learning lately about Buddhism and I have several questions about it. I haven't actually read any of the sacred books, just some stuff on the internet and now I'm reading What Makes You Not a Buddhist as an intro to Buddhism, so I might have some misconceptions about it.
So let's get to the questions:
1) In What Makes You Not a Buddhist the author says that asking a Buddhist about the meaning of life is inappropriate because it implies that somewhere there's a final purpose of being. Do Buddhists believe that there's no purpose in living? And if there is, what is it based upon. Where is the motivation to do anything if it isn't building up to something? Why be good/smart/compassionate/... ? And why not commit a suicide instead of learning and understanding things so that you don't suffer - wouldn't that be faster?
2) If I understand correctly Buddhism says that we don't exist, we're just made up of different parts and our conception of ourselves is just an illusion. But if Descartes was right when he said "I think, therefore I am.", then I don't see how that works with Buddhism - someone here must be wrong (I think). Do Buddhists believe that there's no essence that is "me" (like soul in Christianity), just random parts connected together in a certain point of time? If yes, then what is that thing that thought of the illusion of existing(Is it our mind? Does it also not exist?)?
3) One of the four seals is: All compounded things are impermanent. In the book author says that all things are compounded so saying "All things are impermanent" is equivalent. How is that even possible if anything we understand about the world is true? Everything is made out of atoms and atoms are made out of subatomic particles and perhaps those are made out of sub subatomic particles and so on (I don't know), but in the end, there must be a basic building block that makes those things and that's bound to be constant. It's hard for me to understand how everything could be a compounded because that means that it's made out of smaller things put together. But if those things are also compounded, this process goes on infinitely. But there's no infinity in nature.
I'll really appreciate the answers.
EDIT: Thank you all for the great answers. They really helped me understand some things better.
Because I hate deciding on which answer is the best, I'll let the community do it - after some time I'll pick the one with most upvotes.

Welcome to Buddhism SE. These look like interesting topics but there are three questions here. Could I suggest that you split them up and ask 3 separate questions.

@CrabBucket Thanks for the suggestion, but I think Bakmoon answered the question and I don't want to be redundant.

Do Buddhists believe that there's no purpose in living?
No.Buddhists believe the purpose in living is to free one's self from suffering.
And if there is, what is it based upon?
The universal need for happiness.
Where is the motivation to do anything if it isn't building up to something?
Now that you know the Buddhist goal is to be free from suffering this is where all the motivation goes to. Buddhism teaches the Eight Noble Path that when practiced,cultivated,developed and perfected will lead to happiness.
Why be good/smart/compassionate/... ?
Because choosing to do good is better than choosing to do bad.Also Buddhists believe in karma so the more bad things you do the more suffering follows.
And why not commit a suicide instead of learning and understanding things so that you don't suffer - wouldn't that be faster?
Because Buddhists believe if you commit suicide you'll just get reborn but the problems stays the same, if not worse.Not only is it pointless but by committing suicide you are creating a lot of bad energy.More bad karma than you can handle even.As killing is a very heavy karma and that includes killing yourself.You may also acquire the habit or tendency to commit suicide in future lives and trap your self in a never ending circle of suffering.
This is why it is Better to understand things so you don't suffer.But even if you can't understand anything.It's still better to Not commit suicide.Because that's will save you enormous amount of suffering.
Do Buddhists believe that there's no essence that is "me" (like soul in Christianity), just random parts connected together in a certain point of time?
Yes no Essence (like soul in Christianity).
If yes, then what is that thing that thought of the illusion of existing(Is it our mind? Does it also not exist?)?
It's one of the random parts connected together in a certain point of time you mentioned before. Though it's not random it follows a pattern of cause and effect.In other words it's conditioned.
"All things are impermanent" is equivalent. How is that even possible if anything we understand about the world is true?
I don't understand.What do you see in the world that makes you think everything is permanent.People are born and die.Food are bought and rots.Leaves turn green and falls.Flowers bloom and wither.2 years olds eventually become 80 years olds.You were thinking of jogging now your thinking of what's on tv.You were cold now your warm.You were standing now your sitting and now your standing up again.You had the intention to read about Buddhism now you have the intention to write a post.Even an atom is always moving.Always.Nothing stays fixed the way it is FOREVER.A tv might look a tv now but in 100 years it's probably molten liquid.
One of the reason people mistaken things for being permanent is because of not being able to see things from a wider time scale.

Much better answer than the chosen one. The OP was asking at the end "if everything is impermanent then why doesn't 1+1=2 change?"
My answer to that would've been... mathematics, physics... these things are concepts. Concepts used to describe Laws of the universe that do not change... one of those Laws being that all form, sensation, conception, volition, and consciousness (aka skandhas) being subject to change.

@Ahmed Whether Dharma is 'permanent' can be debatable. For example in Is the Dharma Itself Impermanent? one answer distinguishes between 'permanent' and 'eternal'. And one of the Qualities of Buddha Dharma is 'timeless', but Dharmas in Buddhist phenomenology suggests they're conditioned/empty (have no 'self'). IMO the Sabba Sutta suggests that "1+1=2" is just a (conditioned) idea.

@ChrisW Yeah that's basically what I was saying. The concepts are just concepts (3rd skandha, subject to 3 characteristics) that struggle to encapsulate the law. If the word Dharma refers to Buddhadharma then it is not permanent. If the word Dharma refers to the "knowledges pertaining to Buddhahood" then it is definitely impermanent.
Pointless discrimination IMO.

1) Do Buddhists believe that there's no purpose in living?

At large, there is no one absolute purpose "built in" the universe. Meaning, there is no single prize to be taken, no silver bullet to be obtained, no single problem which, when solved, would trump all other problems.

Where is the motivation to do anything if it isn't building up to something?

Because subjectively some experiences are still better than others. Being healthy is better than being sick, being at peace is better than being troubled etc. Plus, of course, there is the fun of creation, art; playing and dancing with the world.

Why be good/smart/...

Because making better choices leads to better experiences.

/compassionate?

Because we make each other's experience. If you are nice to me and I'm nice to you -- we just made our lives a bit better by cross-helping.

And why not commit a suicide instead of learning and understanding things so that you don't suffer - wouldn't that be faster?

If you only think about yourself then perhaps in some sense it seems like a valid cop-out. However like I said our lives are co-dependent. Buddhism is concerned with subjective experience of people who exist, not of people who no longer exist ;) So if you commit suicide you A) may induce suffering in your friends and relatives, B) leave others behind to suffer their own lives, which you could improve if you stayed, and C) the informational/causal chains that shaped your life to be what it is continue to function and will eventually lead to assembly of a situation similar to yours in many ways, and that new person will face same challenges, so in effect you would have merely deferred the problem.

2) If I understand correctly Buddhism says that we don't exist, we're just made up of different parts and our conception of ourselves is just an illusion. But if Descartes was right when he said "I think, therefore I am.", then I don't see how that works with Buddhism - someone here must be wrong (I think).

The fact that thinking happens does not mean there is a single independent agent that does the thinking.

Do Buddhists believe that there's no essence that is "me" (like soul in Christianity), just random parts connected together in a certain point of time?

Correct. Well, not all parts are necessarily material. There is also pieces of information that assembled together to form this person. Also, if you really think about it, the parts did not connect together "in a certain point of time". They keep coming together all the time.

If yes, then what is that thing that thought of the illusion of existing(Is it our mind? Does it also not exist?)?

It's like two mirrors reflecting each other, or a videocamera filming the screen showing its own output. Basically, a feedback loop, albeit a very complex one.

3) It's hard for me to understand how everything could be a compounded because that means that it's made out of smaller things put together. But if those things are also compounded, this process goes on infinitely.

"Compounded" should not be understood literally, as in physically consisting of multiple pieces. It means "brought together" or supported by a number of factors. Think multiple causal chains converging. For a compounded phenomenon to arise, all its necessary constituent factors must be present. As soon as one or more of the necessary factors goes out of effect, the compounded phenomenon ceases. (These factors are not necessarily objective either. For observable phenomena some of the factors reside on the observer's side.)

Welcome to Buddhism stackexchange. Your questions are a bit different from each other so I will answer them separately for the sake of convenience.
1) Buddhists believe that things are without meaning in them selves, rather than just believing that things are without meaning period. Meaning isn't something that resides in things, but is a product of our own minds, so it isn't predetermined or fixed, so instead of going out and looking for meaning in the world and in our lives, we choose to make our own meaning. From a Buddhist perspective, we should find greatest meaning in seeking enlightenment, which is a perfect and permanent happiness.
2) Buddhism doesn't say that we don't exist. Buddhism says that there is no such thing as an ultimately existing self. However, conventionally, there is a self. Self is a concept that we project onto a set of experiences. There is a bundle of physical and mental experiences that are in constant flux without any underlying core, but we can still refer to the bundle as a whole as being a self on a conventional level. If you go looking for a self that isn't just a designation however, you won't be able to find it, so we say that on an ultimate level, there isn't a self even though on the conventional level there is,
3) The word being translated as compounded is the word Samkhara, and in this context it doesn't mean being made of parts. It means something that is produced from a set of causes and conditions. I personally prefer to translate it as fabricated, produced, or conditioned in this particular context.

Buddhists don't "choose to make our meaning"... There is a very clear and obvious purpose within Buddhism. I can't believe this answer got chosen. Orion's is a little better at answering OP's huge delusions about Buddhism and facticities of life.. typical of pop Buddhist books..

I never said that Buddhists make their own meaning of Buddhism. I said that we determine the meaning of our lives. That's a bit different because you can't talk about something having a single well defined purpose unless it was intentionally created for a particular purpose, and Buddhism doesn't accept a teleological understanding of the world.

Id argue that there IS a simple teleological aim with Buddhism... all sects. The four noble truths suggest that the aim is happiness as you said (right effort) as a foundation for liberation (stages of insight) transforming ones consciousness permanently (Enlightenment) from the chain of being (right view)... And then helping others do the same (mahayana) as a Buddha

There is no existentinalist carpe diem dionysian yolo attitude in Buddhism. Buddhism is about happiness and moderation and stability to start with but above all for the sake of liberation of oneself and all beings (attain Buddhahood). One cannot walk the path without mastering happiness but one is not buddhist unless one wishes liberation for oneself and others (four noble truths)

There is a teleological aim in Buddhism, correct. But the questioner wasn't asking about the meaning or purpose of Buddhism. They were specifically asking about the meaning and purpose of life, which definitely does not have a teleological aim according to Buddhism.

Questioner asked about personal purpose which is Buddhahood. Of course tho that entails: self-restriction, moderation, good career, bliss, happiness, deeply studying Dharma, bodhisattva hood, a million merits, etc... Buddhahood is the meaning of life, the aim of Buddhism and the reason for existence. The cause for the origins of the universe isnt what he was asking tho right? Cuz if thats the case then to that question the Buddha said it is an endless and pointless question (story of the person shot with an arrow).

I think we should take this discussion over to the chat feature (http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/15162/buddhism) so we don't fill up the page. I'll put my response there.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

While others have provided full answers already, I'll choose and pick a few questions to suggest different perspectives.
"Do Buddhists believe that there's no purpose in living?"
Buddhists may believe there is some specific purpose in living. But I don't see anything related to "purpose/reason/meaning of life" anywhere in buddhist texts. I never saw this question being brought to the Buddha or the Buddha tackling it. So, from Buddhism (and in general), we're still clueless as to what is this (living) all about, what is the point of it, or what we're supposed to be doing here.
Not knowing what is this all about, we recognize there is suffering, we recognize it is undesirable and we recognize we are moment after moment subjected to it. Those of us who also recognize the possibility of becoming permanently free from it, may chose to make this their personal purpose.

Bhikkhus, if wanderers of other sects ask you:
"For what purpose, friends, is the holy life lived under the ascetic Gotama?"
— being asked thus, you should answer them thus:
"It is, friends, for the abandoning of the fetters ... for the uprooting of the underlying tendencies ... for the full understanding of the course … for the destruction of the taints ... for the realization of the fruit of true knowledge and liberation ... for the sake of knowledge and vision ... for the sake of final Nibbāna without clinging that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One."
Then, bhikkhus, if the wanderers of other sects ask you:
"But, friends, is there a path, is there a way for attaining final Nibbāna without clinging?"
— being asked thus, you should answer them thus:
"There is a path, friends, there is a way for attaining final Nibbāna without clinging."
And what, bhikkhus, is that path, what is that way for attaining final Nibbāna without clinging? It is this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view ... right concentration. This is the path, this is the way for attaining final Nibbāna without clinging.
Being asked thus, bhikkhus, you should answer those wanderers of other sects in such a way.
-- Annatitthiyapeyyala Vagga

"Why be good/smart/compassionate/... ?"
Because "it is good, it leads to the welfare and happiness of beings, it leads to Nibbāna".
"If I understand correctly Buddhism says that we don't exist, we're just made up of different parts and our conception of ourselves is just an illusion..."
If by "you" or "me" or "soul" it is understood that those things are fixed and eternal, yes, Buddhism instructs one to see how this fixed thing is no where to be found in the aggregates that composes what we refer to as "I". So, it is a misunderstanding to say that according to Buddhism we don't exist.
"but in the end, there must be a basic building block that makes those things and that's bound to be constant."
That was (and still is) the belief of a few scientists, specifically, physicists. Apparently, however, this building block was never found. Let alone something constant.

The meaning of life is a phrase from a different tradition, but if we put square pegs in round holes, then the meaning of life in a Buddhist context is to complete one of the paths of liberation and solve the fundamental problem of suffering. Depending on sect, the path of liberation varies wildly, as does the exact formulation of the fundamental problem. (In Mahayana, the fundamental problem is ignorance about who we really are)
Next two questions regard non-self. You have to keep in mind why this question was being asked. The Indic thinking of the Buddhas time was something like-- some part of you is eternal and unchanging, therefore you will never die, and you have a Indic-style soul and may eventually go to heaven or at least be reborn one village over when you die. Saying subatomic particles exist and are constant, unchanging is something of a nonsequitor unless you can think of a way for subatomic particles to be the foundation for evidence for a soul, reincarnation and after-death heaven.
Now switching over to my Mahayana influenced personal, secular beliefs, I think the non-self bit is true and the consequence is that we personally don't exist, we will die and not be reborn one village over, but the mass of humanity exists. The fundamental problem is how do we solve the problem of misery for all of humanity, because that is the only meaningful, real identity we ever had. That naive notion of an immortal soul was the cause of our misery-- we spent all our efforts trying to preserve that immortal soul and keep it from harm, when the real problem is the world of misery that surrounds us. Once we realize that there isn't such a strong difference between us and the surrounding collective consciousness, our motivation for action shifts.

And why not commit a suicide instead of learning and understanding things so that you don't suffer

My Dad once said to me that suicide really hurts the other people in a family who are left behind, who lose their family member to suicide. When he told me that, I understood him to be saying that I'd be hurt if he killed himself, and that he'd be hurt if I killed myself, and so (to not hurt each other) neither of use should kill ourselves.
The first of the 'five precepts' is to abstain from killing. There are verses in the Dhammapada,

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

I think you owe as much compassion and non-violence towards yourself, as you owe anyone else.
Finally, there are the four noble truths which explain how to avoid or escape from suffering. The idea of killing myself makes me think, "You are at suffering: you are feeling attachment (to the idea of death), you are feeling aversion (to your view of life), you are at risk of becoming overwhelmed by suffering, at risk of succumbing to suffering. Buddhism teaches that, instead, you should detach from the desires and aversions that are causing this, be kind to yourself and others, be wise.
If suffering (i.e. 'dukkha' or a feeling of dissatisfaction) is an illness, it's an illness you can want to recover from or become immune to, not an illness that you're meant to kill yourself over.

wouldn't that be faster?

Rather than 'faster' the question to ask may be, "Which is better?"
Also the Buddhist view of 'rebirth' implies that death is no final solution.

If I understand correctly Buddhism says that we don't exist

That's not quite right. Buddhism says that various things are not the 'self'.
Saying exactly what the self is, even saying whether the self is or isn't, is something which the Buddha avoids doing: these questions about the self are among the unanswered questions. It's an interesting question but I think that Buddhism recommends that you let that question go.

Do Buddhists believe that there's no essence that is "me" (like soul in Christianity), just random parts connected together in a certain point of time?

Sort of yes in the sense that it's not possible to identify something which is both 'eternal' and 'me'. Things change, my body changes, maybe I'm changing, and who knows about a hundred years from now?
It's not entirely "just random parts" though: people do things deliberately, and the things which people do have an effect, consequences ... there's a view of 'karma' which says that things aren't entirely random.
A central view in Buddhism is that of 'interdependent causation'.

there must be a basic building block that makes those things and that's bound to be constant ... there's no infinity in nature.

I'm not sure whether your statement is correct (people's intuitive understanding of quantum physics is unreliable). There were (early) Buddhist theories about atoms, too, but I don't see why they're helpful.
I think that Buddhism is best when it's talking about, when it's applicable to the things we can experience, not just metaphysics.
For some further explanation see for example the Wikipedia article on Saṅkhāra.
There's a line about it in the Dhammapada again:

277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

I think the idea is that things are unsatisfactory because they're impermanent: i.e. you suffer when you lose them -- that's an example of the second noble truth.
And, apparently, understanding that they are impermanent is the way that leads to the end of suffering -- that's an example of right view.


text:
Vipassana on arupa worlds
S. N. Goenka in Why Vedana and What is Vedana? says:

It is clear that vedana as a part of the nama that is firmly rooted in kaya is what the Buddha wanted us to focus on when he talked about meditation to eradicate suffering. This is also the reason why brahmas from arupabrahmaloka cannot practise Vipassana and why the Buddha could not give Dhamma to his past teachers of arupa jhanas (seventh and eighth jhanas/dhyanas). In the fifth to eighth jhanas, jhanas the mind is set free from the body and thus there is no experience of vedana. Therefore, these brahmas lack rupa and cannot experience body-sensations. Hence, the practice of the awareness of vedana is not possible for them and they cannot walk on the path of liberation.

Likewise another paper (The Importance of Kaya-samphassaja-vedana in Vipassana Meditation) states:

For a person like the Buddha, access to these [arupa] worlds was not impossible, nor was it impossible to communicate the teaching mentally to beings of these planes of existence. However, the fact that these beings in the arupabrahma-loka do not experience bodily sensation prevented the Buddha from teaching the Dhamma to them.

(Both papers are collected in the book: The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna published by the Vipassana Research Institute)
So, the Buddha didn't teach Vipassana to arupa worlds's inhabitants because they cannot feel sensations: is this claim generally accepted in the Buddhist world, at least among the Theravada?
By the way, living in an arupa world would imply in my understanding that it is possible the arising of a mind consciousness (manovinnana) without a physical sense base (such as our heart base or hadaya-vatthu): is this assumption correct?

Correct, vedana can exist on the basis of manas alone. Goenka is making a didactic point though, that for meditation to be effective we must pay close attention to the psychosomatic component of experience. His logic is secondary to his method, a rationalization IMHO.

Andrei, would you be so kind to explain this comment more extensively. Thanks.

I think @AndreiVolkov is saying that Goenka said two things: a) "we must pay close attention to the psychosomatic component of experience" e.g. 'because that is what the Buddha wanted us to focus on' b) "therefore, even though vedana can exist on the basis of manas alone, beings who cannot experience body-sensations cannot use Vipassana to eradicate suffering". Andrei's comment is that b) is merely a didactic point, a rationalization, and logic secondary to the method ... and that what's important to primarily understand is the method i.e. a).

I edited the question to make my main question clearer: the claim "the Buddha didn't teach Vipassana to arupa worlds's inhabitants because they cannot feel sensations" is just a Goenka's view or do other traditions hold that?

People reference this page, which says, "The inhabitants of these realms are possessed entirely of mind. Having no physical body, they are unable to hear Dhamma teachings." ... but that page doesn't say which sutta it gets that quote from.

"the awareness of vedana is not possible for them and they cannot walk on the path of liberation"
Does this mean that all the thousands of meditation methods to Liberation involve vedana (rupa-based focus)?

In the arupa worlds you cannot hear the Dhamma as you do not have this faculty, also the mental process is too subtle making it not possible to meditate on it. But if you have experiences even the 1st state of sainthood you can progress from here to the final goal.

By the way, living in an arupa world would imply in my understanding that it is possible the arising of a mind consciousness (manovinnana) without a physical sense base (such as our heart base or hadaya-vatthu): is this assumption correct?

My thinking is also that the heart base does not have a physical associated location in the arupa realm as there is nothing physical or corporeal here.
In addition, in the brahma world as you quoted you to not have physical sensation relating to the elements but sensations are present in the arupa cittas. See 121 cittas in Abhidhamma.

If my understanding is correct,"mind states correlate with realms of rebirth".I don't think you can practice Vipassanna in any Jhanic State.Not even the first jhana (rupajhana). So i don't think any one reborn in a corresponding jhanic realm can practice vipassanna as they are in Absorbtion.I think those born in a non-jhanic realm such a tusita realms etc can hear the dharma.But not those in the rupa or arupa jhanas. Except for the Five Pure Abodes i think their an exception.Though forgive me if i am mistaken.

Just trying to answer my question in a partial and tentative way: according to Mahasi Sayadaw, in its Discourse on Sakkapañha Sutta:

A stream-winner in the immaterial world (arûpaloka) will not forget to
  practise mindfulness. He can contemplate the mental processes and
  attain Arahantship. [1]

Anyway in another passage he gives importance to having a physical body:

For, as a discourse in the Anguttaranikâya says, the physical body of
  a deva is pure and radiant and the Dhamma becomes clearly manifest to
  one who has practised in his previous life. It may take some time to
  recollect, but recollection is instantly followed by attainment of
  insight knowledge. [2]

So it seems that in general it would be possible to practice vipassana in an arupa world, but only if one already practiced it presumably with a physical body.

According to AN 8.29, being reborn in the formless realm is considered to be one out of eight "inopportune" moments that are not right occasions for living the spiritual life:

...Again, a Tathāgata has arisen in the world … and the Dhamma leading to peace, nibbāna, and enlightenment is taught as proclaimed by a Fortunate One. But a person has been reborn in a certain order of long-lived devas. This is the fourth inopportune moment that is not the right occasion for living the spiritual life.

and Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Comy. in his "Numerical Discourses":

Dīghāyukaṃ devanikāyaṃ. Mp: “This is said with reference to the order of non-percipient devas (asaññaṃ devanikāyaṃ).” However, it also seems to apply to the devas of the formless realm, who (because they lack bodies) cannot hear the Buddha or his disciples teach the Dhamma and thus cannot attain even the path of stream-entry.

Goenka said: It is clear that vedana as a part of the nama that is firmly rooted in kaya is what the Buddha wanted us to focus on when he talked about
  meditation to eradicate suffering.

The suttas do not conform with this. To quote:

On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he isn't infatuated with pleasing ideas, and doesn't get upset over unpleasing ideas. He dwells
  with body-mindfulness established, with unlimited awareness. Having thus abandoned compliance & opposition, he doesn't relish any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — doesn't welcome it, doesn't remain fastened to it. As he doesn't relish that feeling, doesn't welcome it, & doesn't remain fastened to it, delight doesn't arise. From the cessation of his delight comes the cessation of clinging. MN 38

~~~

"If anyone were to say, 'Feeling at the intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the intellect are
  discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would
  follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be
  tenable if anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self. MN 148

Goenka said: This is also the reason why brahmas from arupabrahmaloka cannot practise Vipassana

MN 1 & MN 111 states vipassana can be practised on arupa jhana. To quote:

the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of
  consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness...
  the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the
  dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception...does not conceive as 'mine'

Goenka said: and why the Buddha could not give Dhamma to his past teachers of arupa jhanas (seventh and eighth jhanas/dhyanas).

The Buddha could not give Dhamma to his past teachers because they died. Refer to MN 26.

In the fifth to eighth jhanas, jhanas the mind is set free from the body and thus there is no experience of vedana.

MN 111 explains there is vedana in arupa jhana. To quote:

Sariputta entered & remained in the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. Whatever qualities there are in the dimension of the
  infinitude of consciousness — the perception of the dimension of the
  infinitude of consciousness, singleness of mind, contact, feeling,
  perception, intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence,
  mindfulness, equanimity, & attention — he ferreted them out one after
  another.

Goenka said: Therefore, these brahmas lack rupa and cannot experience body-sensations. Hence, the practice of the awareness of vedana is not
  possible for them and they cannot walk on the path of liberation.

'Vedana' does not mean 'body-sensations'. To quote:

And why do you call it 'feeling' ('vedana')? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
  feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
  feeling. SN 22.79

In fact, what are generally regarded as 'body-sensations' or 'stress' are generally 'sankhara' (mental formations of lust, hatred & delusion) that condition & get stored in the physical body rather than 'vedana' (pleasant & unpleasant feelings). To quote:

For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the clinging to the five aggregates head toward future
  accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming —
  accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that —
  grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow.
  His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses &
  mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental
  stress. MN 149


text:
What is the meaning of 'Om mani padme hung'?
I found on google that 'om mani padme hum, mean that in dependence on the practice of a path which is an indivisible union of method and wisdom, you can transform your impure body, speech, and mind into the pure exalted body, speech, and mind of a Buddha..'.
I want more about this.

You will probably not find a better explanation than that of the Dalai Lama.

It is very good to recite the mantra OM MANI PADME HUM, but while you
  are doing it, you should be thinking on its meaning, for the meaning
  of the six syllables is great and vast. The first, OM, is composed of
  three pure letters, A, U, and M. These symbolize the practitioner's
  impure body, speech, and mind; they also symbolize the pure exalted
  body, speech and mind of a Buddha.

The entire talk can be found here:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/omph.htm

Thus the six syllables, OM MANI PADME HUM, mean that in dependence on
  the practice which is in indivisible union of method and wisdom, you
  can transform your impure body, speech and mind into the pure body,
  speech, and mind of a Buddha. It is said that you should not seek for
  Buddhahood outside of yourself; the substances for the achievement of
  Buddhahood are within. As Maitreya says in his SUBLIME CONTINUUM OF
  GREAT VEHICLE (UTTARA TANTRA) all beings naturally have the Buddha
  nature in their own continuum. We have within us the seed of purity,
  the essence of a One Gone Thus (TATHAGATAGARBHA), that is to be
  transformed and full developed into Buddhahood.   (From a lecture
  given by His Holiness The Dalai Lama of Tibet at the Kalmuck Mongolian
  Buddhist Center, New Jersey.)

Complete reference to this can be found in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om_mani_padme_hum#Meaning

Mani literally means 'jewel' in Sanskrit, and it is used to mean Buddha nature, for instance in the metaphor Indra's Net. It is described as a possession or attribute or treasure of awakened beings.
Padme is Sanskrit for 'lotus flower'. It is a powerful symbol in Buddhism, because the flower rises from the lake mud and is held above the lake, even while it is non-dual, not separated from the mud. Even in this mundane life, we can rise above, and attain purity.
Om & hum have been called 'interjections without linguistic meaning, but widely known as divine sounds'.
So I would suggest the mantra as a whole is directed at remembrance, invocation, of the powerful Buddhist symbols of jewel and lotus, of intrinsic power of minds to awaken symbolised as faceted jewel, and dynamic power to awaken symbolised as a lotus flower that rises above what is impure.


text:
Where in the Pali Canon does it give examples of right livelihood and it's opposite
A while ago I remember reading part of the Pail Canon where it gave a comprehensive list of professions the Buddha considers not right livelihood. It has things like fortune tellers in the list. I remember the list was quite anachronistic in parts but also very interesting and instructive. Can anyone give that reference and perhaps copy in the original text if it isn't too long.
Also is there an equivalent list of professions that would be considered right livelihood in the Pail Canon.
Many Thanks

An introduction to Right Livelihood on accesstoinsight references very short definitions of right and wrong livelihood for lay followers. And in fact I've never yet found a detailed description of right and wrong livelihood, beyond these quotes. You can also infer some ethical rules from what the Sigalovada Sutta says about Workers; and from RIght Livelihood being on the "ethics" branch of the Eight-fold path.
The "not right livelihood which include things like fortune tellers in the list" might be from here, The Great Section on Virtue in Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life (note that these are said to be 'wrong' for "contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith"):

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
  signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
  blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
  cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
  gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
  bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
  charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
  arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
  female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
  fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
  march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
  their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
  triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
  triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
  triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
  eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
  a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
  sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
  asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
  will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
  an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
  will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
  moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
  the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
  asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
  as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
  drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
  rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
  will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
  counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
  and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
  the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
  calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
  collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
  make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
  undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
  tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
  or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
  addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
  medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
  forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
  abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."
"A monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger anywhere from his
  restraint through virtue. Just as a head-anointed noble warrior king
  who has defeated his enemies sees no danger anywhere from his enemies,
  in the same way the monk thus consummate in virtue sees no danger
  anywhere from his restraint through virtue. Endowed with this noble
  aggregate of virtue, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
  blameless. This is how a monk is consummate in virtue.

The five types of wrong livelihood:

Weapons dealing
Human trafficking (slavery, prostitution)
Intoxiciant dealing
Poison dealing
Any work dealing with meat
-- AN 5.177

Wrong Action in One's Livelihood

Scheming
Persuading
Hinting
Belittling
Pursuing gain with gain

-- MN 117
Wrong Livelihood for Contemplatives

reading marks on the limbs [like palmistry]
reading omens and signs
interpreting celestial events
interpreting dreams;
reading marks on the body
reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice
offering fire oblations
oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil
offering oblations from the mouth
offering blood-sacrifices
making predictions based on the fingertips
geomancy
laying demons in a cemetery
placing spells on spirits
reciting house-protection charms
snake charming, poison-lore, scorpion-lore, rat-lore, bird-lore, crow-lore
fortune-telling based on visions
giving protective charms
interpreting the calls of birds and animals ... [The list goes on and on]

-- DN 2

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/articles/mn117-counterfeit.html claims that section of MN 117 is "tampered with material from the Abhidhamma" and is taken from a list in AN 5.83 of things which would be disagreeable endowments in a bikkhu.


text:
If science can't prove the existence of other dimensions forever
Should I believe what is said in the Buddhist text instead? Even though I can't prove it myself either.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

Wait for the Hadron collider to come with an answer :) They are currently looking in to this about multiverses and all that stuff...

Three possible approaches, here.
One, you just acceptt this on faith. Depending on your mindset, this can be something like believing the impossible or groundless, or something more like feeling like you need to a decision. You can't prove tea or coffee is better for breakfast, but you can't stand around all day weighting the alternatives. So you make a decision, aware that the reasoning has some holes.
Two, you look at these as a myth, an instructive story and you don't even put much thought into if the story is true. In our distant past, everything was hearsay. There was no science, no reliable news outlets, and it was just a bunch of people telling stories. People got used to some stories seeming a bit far fetched, but everyone you ever heard in your life was a bunch of plausible sounding stories.
Three, you look at these as patently incompatible with everything we know about the world from multiple reliable sources-- science, journalism, and so on. You either discard that part of Buddhism as nonsense, or alternatively review it and look for what can be salvaged-- for example, some modern readers view the cosmology as a metaphor for states of mind (hell is the state of mind in this world and this body that we put ourselves in when we act unskillfully)

I would add a fourth: "you accept it as conjecture". It is different than the first one, as "accept by faith" imply an affirmative. It is sound, since it is still a possibility. It is safe, as there is no premature and fragile commitment to a view. Finally, it opens up options from the tension of having to select either "believing (without grounds)" or "not believing (without grounds)" -- only to find out later "you were fooled".

Physics is talking about physical reality. The "planes" of Buddhism aren't (necessarily) physical planes. So you don't (necessarily) have to choose between them. You can believe both, either, or neither.
But "should I believe" implies you have control over what you believe. Is that really true? Can you actually choose to belief any specific thing? Isn't it more the case that you find yourself believing something, depending on what you experience, read, hear, how you act, and so on?
Given that, one approach is simply to get on with life, practicing as you are willing and able, and see what you find. As the Buddha is reported in Maha-parinibbana Sutta to have said, "Strive with earnestness";similarly in Philippians 2:12 of the Christian New Testament, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

... yes and no (no, later on)
It is a part of Right View to believe in karma in general, including the process of reincarnation.
Honestly though karma is pretty common sense and proven by science, psychology, and everything. Reincarnation is a step further with the principle of karma, combined with Newton's 3rd Law.
The details of the Thirty-one Planes of Existence are very believable due to its correlations with many other phenomena, I would suggest Professor Bavo Lieven's beautiful, rich, and very motivating cosmological analyses in the first half of his book, "The Mind Experiment" to really get some tasty details on the 31 Planes.
And now comes the "no" part of the answer.
The Buddha himself said many times throughout the suttas that when you attain 4th jhana, you  will either spontaneously be able to see all these realms as easily as you see the current Desire realm. Or one will have to develop the paranormal power to do so if one doesn't spontaneously see (how? read the Path of Purification, a step by step scientific experiment to do all this).
It's really just about developing the 1st-4th jhanas (a sign of mental stability and concentration power--not comparable to tripping out on shrooms and seeing such things) and verifying these things for yourself.
So... no. You don't have to take it as belief especially to progress with Buddhism.
You do have to believe in the concept of karma (which isn't hard... try doing an experiment of bad actions and good actions... I did this 15 years ago for a whole year and I certainly felt the results short-term and long-term) to be practicing Buddhism because it is a definition of Right View, the first step of the Buddhist path.
From accepting karma as a principle of the universe (Right View)... reincarnation is a short step. And from there the Thirty One Planes are just arbitrary details that can be verified later!

I think that other spiritual worlds or a faith in its existence usually has no essential influence on our way and everyday life. So such beliefs can be considered as interpretations of one’s experience, which can be helpful and appropriate for his practice. Especially if this experience becomes quite unusual. For instance, I expect that deep spiritual practicians of different ways even can see things in which they believe.


text:
Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?
Any authentic sutta or part of sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of sexual relationship partner to choose?
I'm thinking the Vimalikirti sutra should say something about such layman concerns.
Specifically things like what kind of partner would an ideal layman choose for family purposes if choose at all?
Should one find a companion who already understands the Dharma and is thus highly capable of being a companion and teacher to children?
Or is the proper bodhisattva action to practice the dana paramita by bonding and inspiring  someone who lacks the dharma--but is ready to receive it--and thus help to transform their karma as well as the whole universe's (through increasing Dharma quotient in a "lower denominator")?
[The Taoist tradition (which I highly honor) has some insights into this matter and for me is very connected to Buddhism and according to my learning would imply that a cultivated woman choose the latter and a cultivated man choose the former.]

Here's a summary of Chapter 5 of The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness.

If you fail to find suitable associates it's better to be "like a solitary rhinoceros"
Leave aside unproven traditional criteria: including race, caste, gender, and external appearance (and creed)
A person's inner development is more important than their birth
Be cautious of first impressions and initial understandings

People cannot be know well by their appearance
  Nor can they be trusted after brief impression.
  Yes, the undisciplined may roam in the world
  In the attire of the well displined.

Associate with a person, observe and evaluate their words and actions
Be wise and rational in order to obtain a clear picture of the person you're evaluating
Find wise people who cause no fear or worry
Look for someone who is compatible in four ways:

Similar confidence in spiritual development
Similar respect for self-discipline
Similar respect for humanistic practices
Similar level of wisdom

These similarities are "so important for a peaceful marriage".

Spiritual development: if one person respects spiritual believes and practices, and the other holds them in total disregard, then the two people are simply incompatible.
Self-discipline: if one partner is well-disciplined and the other unscrupulous then their incompatibility will become obvious and cause problems.
Humanistic practices: includes dana, also caga (generous acts).
Level of wisdom: i.e. samapanna, includes knowledge, skill, emotional maturity, reasoning power; doesn't mean that both should have same education and intellectual ability, but wide difference in these areas could cause incompatibility and lead to conflicts.
Chapter 6 is about how to treat your partner after you marry.

Thank you for such a good answer and reference. So the suggestion here seems to be to find someone compatible, not necessarily to find someone incompatible and guide them become more disciplined, humanistic, and spiritual.

Yes: advice about how to be a parent isn't until chapter 7. The book is written by a bikkhu in Texas. Its premise is that laypeople should be happy, prosperous, and not suffer. I don't know but finding someone incompatible might be an austere (and useless/fruitless) practice.

I suppose that a harmonious/compatible couple can do more good for/towards the society in which they live.

This was a great answer containing direct references and guidelines.+1.

I wonder ChrisW, how different is this answer from the checklist that people make for the "perfect" partner. I see how wide-difference can lead to "incompatibility" but acceptance and love doesn't discriminate. It is funny how clinging onto these guidelines can lead to suffering even though its purpose is to lead to more peaceful relationships.

Thanks for sharing this, @ChrisW. Any idea where I can get a pdf or ebook. I don't live in the States.

@Luv I've only ever seen it as a paperback -- a neighbour lent me a copy. The hyperlink I posted -- to amazon.co.uk -- say that they can deliver to the UAE.

There is some guidance from the Sigalovada Sutta on the responsibilities of the husband and wife. So, by extension, a suitable partner is one who can fulfil these responsibilities.

"In five ways should a wife as the western direction be respected by a
  husband: by honoring, not disrespecting, being faithful, sharing
  authority, and by giving gifts.
"And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways:
  by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and
  household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods,
  and being skillful and diligent in all duties.


text:
What if God created the universe but the Buddha just discovered how it works?
Just like God created The Sims game and the Buddha as a character in it happened to discover how it works by somehow hacking into the program, perhaps by meditation?

Welcome to Buddhism SE! Since this is not a discussion forum, we prefer adherence to these rules: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask (To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?”)

Srsly man. I hatez those kind of ignorant questions. It was still fun to dismantle it as a thought experiment.

I love "what if questions"...they make you think so hard i swear they are good for concentration practice.ahaha.

@Ahmed I hate to have to interfere, but someone flagged your comment above as "Rude or Offensive". While I personally may or may not disagree with that, this is not the first or even a second time other users find your comments controversial. Whatever side the "truth" is on, the objective situation is, the way you communicate causes some mild disturbance in the community. Please think about this and try to be more agreeable, assuming you want to enjoy being here ;)

Apologies for my vitriolic humor, I'll be more mindful from now on. I have played countless hours on Sims and other video games and have actually wondered similar things when playing. I should've been more compassionate!
I have found that the most mindless malice that comes out of us is actually due to disliking an aspect of our very own selves and needing to come accord with it... Anyway sorry user17755

"'The world is swept away. It does not endure': This is the first Dhamma summary stated by the Blessed One who knows & sees, worthy & rightly self-awakened. Having known & seen & heard it, I went forth from the home life into homelessness.
"'The world is without shelter, without protector': This is the second Dhamma summary...
"'The world is without ownership. One has to pass on, leaving everything behind': This is the third Dhamma summary...
"'The world is insufficient, insatiable, a slave to craving': This is the fourth Dhamma summary...

@Ahmed I thought your first comment was funny. Nice apology though, with good insight as to cause.

What if God created the universe but the Buddha just discovered how it works?
Well that's great because after The Buddha discovered how it works he shared with the rest of us how to be free from suffering.
Note: He didn't share with us How it All works and who created the universe.
You know why? Because when he was sitting there trying to find the answer to that question he realized oh my god this is going on forever and ever, thats when he realised he had bigger fishes to fry. Like "Suffering and the Cessation of suffering".
In the Sutta Cula-Malunkyovada Suttahere's an explanation of a man who got shot by an arrow and instead of getting help immediately he wanted to know who shot him,what weapon,what clan the shooter came form etc.When he should really be treating the wound.The wound is suffering and we should be treating it instead of trying to find if There's a God or when this universe was created sort of questions.Because it distracting us from the the real problem,that of suffering.

If you're talking about a God which is not a being but the cause of all causes then yes that God is the same as our True Nature or Buddha Nature as Buddha called it.
If you're talking about a God which created worlds, galaxies, etc. then that is simply just a God in the form realm or the higher Desire realm heaven. (See Thirty-One Planes of Existence.)
If you're talking about one specific being created this entire universe (and all multiverses) including its countless solar systems within countless galaxies... then (1) you need to look at some astronomy videos and (2) the The Buddha specifically says that specific Gods (from the Form and Desire realm heavens) that delight in creation created particular galaxies/places and no one God created every single thing.
He also says that excessive speculation will only waste your time and distract from the actual issue: unhappiness and being trapped in birth-and-death.
Is it more important to be find True Happiness (free of conditions like having physical pleasure, the right relationship, enough money, etc.) and be able to decide where you go in the universe or is it more important to spend your life intellectually understand the origin of the universe?
The Buddha emphasized the former and said that the latter would take too long to explain (although he did a good job with the 31 Planes of Existence).

It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with
  poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide
  him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow
  removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble
  warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't
  have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the
  man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or
  short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or
  golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city...
  until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow
  or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was
  wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I
  know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or
  cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with
  which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a
  peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which
  I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a
  langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed
  until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a
  common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander
  arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown
  to him. —Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to
  Malunkya" (MN 63), Majjhima Nikaya

I don't understand your first sentence: what is the "Buddha Nature" which, "as Buddha called it", is "the cause of all causes"? Are you referring to 'the housebuilder' i.e. Sankhara-khandha?

No that's different. Buddha Nature (Tathagatagarbha) is what we all have before it was clouded by ignorance and then sankhara-khandha and the rest of causation occured.
We all have Buddha Nature but for an Awakened individual (bodhisattva) it is less clouded to the point that a Buddha has it completely unclouded.
Although Buddha Nature can be referred to as a "God" it is not a creator/destroyer though and is free of will and intention so it's not who the questioner was referring to (Abrahamic type of God).

In a way there ultimately is no Sims. The Buddha taught how one can see past the simulations that we make up and assume are real. This is how we transcend the assumptions we have about suffering and find true peace and happiness :)


text:
Can We Teach Animals the Dhamma?
I have a dog that i love very much.I don't feel like his a dog.I have a lot of respect for him.And treat him like an old friend.As he is old now.I heard somewhere that animals who hear the Dharma can be reborn as a human??I don't know if that's true or which sutta it's in.But I have formed a habit of either reading the sutta to him,chanting in Pali,or sometimes just talking to him about the Four Noble Truths.As that's the one thing i want to remember when i die.I know it seems too silly but i just feel like somewhere inside he can understand me.He has a very serene and calm demeanor too.I hope that there is a sutta about animals hearing The Dhamma having a better rebirth,because this dog has qualities that even i as a human being lack.I hope that there is some way to share the greatest gift(The Dhamma) to our animal friends.
Is it true is there a way to benefit animals by helping them come into contact with the Dhamma? Such as teaching them the Dhamma?

Inasmuch as dogs understand human body language, they probably learn something from a human who has good qualities, versus a human who does not. Then, the dog probably has a better mental inclination at the time of death.

Apparently Lama Zopa Rinpoche has written articles somewhat related to this topic. Here is his article on "How to Benefit Animals" http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=333&chid=1389

To add to the discussion, I recently watched a documentary on discovery channel about a tibetian monk in himalayas who had a tiger as a 'pet'. Not just that, they had trained the tiger to be vegetarian! This seems nothing short of a Dhamma miracle!

You have a link to that, regarding the tiger? That sounds much more like a Chinese project-- there are zoo/temples that have been doing stunts with animals, more for the tourism it generates than for any benefit of the animals. Anyhow, here is a link to a temple cat in South Korea that sounds legit. http://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/animals-vegetarianism/vegetarian-cat-in-south-korea.html

There's a Jakarta story of a previous incarnation of the Buddha giving his body to a hungry tigress. The reason for that act was to prevent the tigress eating her cubs, which would have damaged her sila.

Therefore, I will kill my miserable body by casting it down into the precipice, and with my corpse I shall preserve the tigress from killing her young ones and the young ones from dying by the teeth of their mother.

My mum rescued a stray dog. She (the dog) was initially aggressive to other dogs, but my mum taught her not to be.
My mum also taught her self-restraint: including to not rush to get her dinner immediately, but to wait when the dinner bowl is set on the floor, wait until she is told that she can get it.
I like to think that you're able to help a dog, for example by teaching it some morality.
In terms of teaching them Dhamma, although they cannot read books I hope they can read you.

Chris, one thing is wrong about your answer. The gauthama Bodhisattva wasn't concerned about an animals sila. Because sila is a word for a way of life practiced intentionally to achieve better state, and animals do not have any sila. It was meththa (compassion & kindness) towards these animalsthat led Bodhisattva to give life.

The tale is told using phrases like, "he can save the tigress' purity"; "I shall preserve the tigress from killing her young ones"; and "The tigress transgresses all limits of affection". Though sila may be intentional, people also say that wrong-doing is wrong (and that negative consequence of wrong-doing are real) even if a wrong-doer is ignorant that it's wrong.

Also, other animals in other jataka tales are depicted as moral: they're given human speech and reasoning etc.

In Chinese/Mahayana Buddhism, not only is it possible, but under the Brahma Net Sutra precepts, you are obliged to teach the dharma to all sentient beings including animals.
In that cosmology, hearing the dharma today creates the karma and merit that will bear positive fruit in future lives.

Failure to Teach Sentient Beings

A disciple of the Buddha should develop a mind of Great Compassion.
  Whenever he enters people's homes, villages, cities or towns, and sees
  sentient beings, he should say aloud, "You sentient beings should all
  take the Three Refuges and receive the Ten [Major Bodhisattva]
  Precepts." Should he come across cows, pigs, horses, sheep and other
  kinds of animals, he should concentrate and say aloud, "You are now
  animals; you should develop the Bodhi Mind." A Bodhisattva, wherever
  he goes, be it climbing a mountain, entering a forest, crossing a
  river, or walking through a field should help all sentient beings
  develop the Bodhi Mind.
If a disciple of the Buddha does not wholeheartedly teach and rescue
  sentient beings in such a manner, he commits a secondary offense.

ref: http://www.fodian.net/world/1484.html
Now from a secular standpoint, this question pivots on if animals are sentient, intelligent and capable of language.
On the topic of sentience, even neurologists don't have a good explanation for why or how human are sentient let alone animals. For those who'd like to think this seal the case that animals are insentient, it doesn't. It means we aren't sure that humans are sentient.
In the area of intelligence and language, there is a mixture of objective evidence that animals are smarter than they look and a lot of people who want to continue to believe that animals are dumb, mindless automatons. It makes it more tenable to continue to eat and exploit them with clear conscience.
On the other hand, while I personally find it plausible that animals have some intelligence, have animal communication systems, it falls short of the tricks humans can do and falls short of human style language.
So no Doctor Doo-little and no chance that an animal, even a chimp could digest something abstract like the tenets of a religion. I do speculate that chimps, whales, dolphins and other social animals probably have an intuitive understanding of ethics.
So finally, I think it is a good project to teach the Dharma to all sentient beings, including animals. It is the heart of my favorite Buddhist vow. It will take kalpas. It will take kalpas to familiarize even a small percent of humans with the dharma. But in kalpas, that's enough time for animals to evolve the intelligence required.
Lets hope we don't exterminate them before that time passes.

No.  strong NO.
I assume that you are not referring human as animal.
Animals do not have wisdom to comprehend dhamma.  SO they are restricted from achieving Janna (meditation achievement) or to become Stream Enterer. Only human or higher (with the exception of divas in Arupa world) can be stream enterer.   humans who committed 5 heinous karma (Ānantarika-karma) are also doomed.  they cannot achieve higher level of dhamma in current life.  However, Animals (or doomed humans) can still do good merits for happiness and pleasure for next lives.  None of any suttas ever mentioned Buddha teaching to non-human animals.  Buddha would not waste his time.  However, in some sutta, buddha would be kind to animals by accepting gift (fruit/honey from a monkey) from them and one occasion, allowed an elephant to carry his alm bowl knowing that they will be reward for the good karma. Buddha mentioned being born into animal or helm realms is like being in prison for a long sentence.
you can teach your dog to do good.  I have a golden retriever and every time i make small donation to charity in a mail, i would have him carry my letters to mail box.   Least we can do for our furry friends.

I agree with dean's harsh but canonical answer. Animal's do not possess the intelligence necessary to create enough understanding of Dharma to Awaken. They also have other obstacles such as being uncomfortable, emotionally bonded to tribe, etc.
If an animal does manage to reach a high level of cultivation in its life (very rare) then it tends to die on the spot (source: an old story about a monk who's cow Awakened and fell dead and he went looking for the human incarnation of the cow).
is there a way to benefit animals by helping them come into contact with the Dhamma?
Definitely!

New Age techniques, such as crystal absorption, sun absorption, moon energy absorption, are all various methods to improve one's energy levels including on a psychic plane. Master nan talked about a fox spirit in the mountain he did a retreat in and how she cultivated by stealing other monk's sexual essence and disrupting their cultivation. He also mentioned how wolves stare and howl at the moon and this is a way of absorbing its energies to create a longer life and more harmonized system.
Playing dharma talks aloud can build a positive connection as it will transfer to his unconscious mind and eventually, perhaps in a future life time, he will be more quickly accept Dharma into his life.
Doggy train him to bow to a Buddha statue and to other monks. There is a story in the canon about how a person when he was a dog in a past life eons ago built good karma with the Buddhadharma by throwing his poop at a Buddha statue! To us, this may not seem like a "good thing" to do yet from the dog's perspective this is its offering of wonderful delicious, interesting aroma (poop). Thus, that monk (who was otherwise a very bad person) was allowed to enter the sangha.
Entering a meditative state of concentration with an animal (including human) and looking directly into their eyes can transmute the state of consciousness to them. This is linked to one of the yogas of Naropa, consciousness transference. This requires strong cultivation on your own side. I only mention this for the record and do not reccommend it.
Include him in your meritorious activities! Dogs are already building positive karma all the time and it sounds like your dog definitely is not building as much bad karma as some dogs I know in my neighborhood!

I'm glad you have such a closeness with him and you are already doing as much as you can for your dog while also improving your own cultivation. Good job!

Of course animals can understand love and compassion. Most people who dont know this have not spent a lot of time with animals. I personally have watched horses and dogs help human beings awaken to kindness and self revelation when humans failed them.

No, like Mr. Dean quoted. But of course they are in small amount able to adopt certain behavior on a level of rites and rituals, which have also certain impacts on their future well-being.
Such as path factors are not possible to develop for animals, since they would always lake on right view.
How ever, its is not a waste of time, if you invest it in a certain wished relation ship but a question of how much you actually benefit from such an relationship for a long term at fist point.
When ever something looks nice and good for you, don't forget, its just your preoccupation about it. The dog as people, do not leak you because they "love" you, they and you do such for a gain: sensual pleasure. Atma would like to quote some sentence in regard of love, to make it even understandable how much humans are actually "animals". or say, not different of them:

"How few understand what love really is,...
...and how it arises in the human heart. It is so frequently equated
with good feelings toward others, with benevolence or nonviolence or
service. But these things in themselves are not love. Love springs
from awareness. It is only inasmuch as you see someone as he or she is
really here, and not how they are in your memory or your desire or in
your imagination or projection that you can truly love them; otherwise
it is not the person that you love but the idea that you have formed
of this person, or this person as the object of your desire not as he
or she is in themselves.
The first act of love is to see this person or this object, this
reality as it truly is. And this involves the enormous discipline of
dropping your desires, your prejudices, your memories, your
projections, your selective way of looking ...a discipline so great
that most people would rather plunge headlong into good actions and
service than submit to the burning fire of this asceticism. When you
set out to serve someone whom you have not taken the trouble to see,
are you meeting that person's need or your own?"

"You see persons and things not as they are but as you are. If you
wish to see them as they are you must attend to your attachments and
the fears that your attachments generate. Because when you look at
life it is these attachments and fears that will decide what you will
notice and what you block out. Whatever you notice then commands your
attention. And since your looking has been selective you have an
illusory version of the things and people around you. The more you
live with this distorted version the more you become convinced that it
is the only true picture of the world because your attachments and
fears continue to process incoming data in a way that will reinforce
your picture."
from The Way to Love--- Father Anthony de Mello

That is the fact of such mostly called "compassion" and it counts for most of every being most of the time, if you feel that your need to help. So being in a way not really dependent on each other or feel not attached, is the ground where real help could appear.
One instance wher the Buddha encountered the matter of an animal is reported in the Vinaya (giving animals no acceptance to join the Sangha):

“You nāgas are not liable to growth in this Dhamma and discipline. Go, nāga. (Staying) right there[2], observe the uposatha on the fourteenth (or) fifteenth and eighth of the fortnight. Thus you will be freed from the nāga-birth and quickly regain the human state.”
The nāga, (thinking,) “It’s said that I’m not liable to growth in this Dhamma and discipline!” sad and unhappy, shedding tears, let out a shriek and left.
from: The Case of the Animal

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains my means of trade and exchange]

Yes! Once the dog or cat or animal heard the dharma even if they don't understand it..the fact the matter is the Dhamma energy will take root in their Karma and evently will grow and will lead them to be reborn in the human plane of existence...

As to Theravada Buddism Animals have benefited from dhamma and had many good things as returns.But they can't understand dhamma because of their low capabilities.
But if you want to help animals here are some tips....
How to give animals better lives

One day a frog who was near a monastery heard a dhamma session and
  listened to the beautiful sound that it heard. Meanwhile a person who
  is a Shepard came to listen and as he was tired he gave some weight of
  his body to the stick that he was holding which was on that frog. But
  he did not knew that. The frog immediately dies and was born in
  heaven.

So what to learn from this?
Animals can hear dhamma and if they listen and liked it it would generate good and powerful karma that can get them out of lower realms and to higher realms.
So if you want to help your animal...
Recite dhamma in a very distinct and nice tone. recite them so nicely that it would be attractive to anyone nearby. This would generate good Karma to you and to your dog as it listens.
But talking would not work because dogs can't understand it. But if you do Meththa meditation it will effect anyone in any place including all forms of life. That is a sure fire way to communicate goodness to any being.

Paying Homage to Buddha - Audio file
Loving Kindness Meditation - Audio file
Practice these and recite whenever you can,it will give protection to you while helping your little friend to a better life.

It's worthy to comment, that such as sending metta, does not have any real effects for the target beings aside of a maybe accordingly behavior which it benefits. There is no such as merit transfer. All this ideas are simply good for one self, yet does not change much on the animals situation.
The message of the story "How to give animals better lives" is actually terrible, and now often even taken on as thought. But aside such, that is endless arrogant and hubristic, not to speak that such violates the fundamental teachings. There are people who kill and steal while sending metta...

There are a lot of inreresting cass involving animals gaining glimpse of Dharma.
Many monks may know or have those experiences.
If you so desire to know or confirm, you can ask them.
They will freely answer the truth.

People think Dhamma Dana (gifting Dhamma) is by printing dhamma books and distributing them. However, the true Dhamma gift is being able to inspire others to be virtuous, kind and wise. Animals, especially dogs do possess a degree of intelligence. Kind owners, who speak kind words and treat their animals and others kindly do impart their kindness on their pets. This will serve for their long term benefit. May all beings be happy.


text:
How did monks time their practice?
How did monks traditionally time their practice before the age of timers?
Any sutta references would be greatly appreciated.
I'm looking for an organic way to time my sittings.

Related answer here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1698/how-to-determine-the-end-of-a-meditation-session-without-a-clock/1717#1717

Yeah Robin that's a good answer... maybe copy that over as an answer if you want the points?
@ChrisW This question is specific to avoiding the usage of clock, timer, all "inorganic" tools haha.

Instead of copy-and-pasting answers it's normal to close duplicate questions.

I understand but this is not duplicate is it? One asks how to avoid clock. Mine asks how to avoid all digital devices but still time correctly

I titled my question wrong (but can't change it anymore..). I wanted to ask how to practice without timers (which is why I was asking how monks used to practice)..

To refer to the traditional way that time is kept:

"The best way I've heard to a) keep track of time b) without a clock
  (or timer) was related to me by my 91-year-old teacher who said in the
  old days they used to use incense sticks; once the incense stick was
  finished, they would switch from walking to sitting. For shorter
  sessions, you could cut the sticks in half, etc. Of course, it still
  means you need to open your eyes every so often during sitting."
  --this answer

The act of not timing your sitting is a profound one. It's not like the Buddha timed his sittings when he attained Enlightenment!
After nourishing himself the Buddha himself literally said "I will not get up from this Bodhi tree until I attain Awakening! Let my bones break and my flesh rot before I shall arise."
And then he entered the 1st jhana, 2nd jhana all the way to 4th and then experienced the 4 formless absorptions one by one and then attained Awakening.
He did not time his sittings except taking a bit of a break when he was truly exhausted and he opened his eyes to look at the night sky to take a bit of a rest.
And like magic, right then, he Awakened.
[Similarly Zen practitioners and other "hardcore" practitioners do not time their sittings... and they tended to Awaken when they took a bit of a rest and their Buddha Nature spotaneously opened to them, their skandhas dropping away giving them a strong taste of Awakening.]
Thus, the ultimate "inorganic" method is your own physical exhaustion, your own body telling you it is time to take a break from your arduous efforts!
Nonetheless, You can use other similar methods that are "organic" and do not use digital devices: tea kettle boiling, the birds starting to chirp in the morning as you push your meditation on in the early morning, etc.
Also your question is an important question because we all need to do an electromagnetic detox! We are all heavily dependent on our devices and are sleeping, reading, and practicing in a pool of EMR. I definitely notice a huge difference when I wear my crystals than when I am not.
Many of us experienced times when we go to a garden or some greenspace, far away from wifi connections and our mind completely clears and it feels the bliss of concentration is close at hand. It is also much easier to think about one's own life and contemplate in such an environment, also due to having less electronic devices subconsciously yelling and calling us in hundreds of ways.

This answer would be great on the original question mentioned in the comments to OP.