text:
Is suicide similar to Nibbana?
I read a comment on this forum, which said:

why do you even need to work hard attain Nibbana? Why not just commit suicide when things get tough?

This comment gives me the impression the writer believes there are some similarities between suicide & Nibbana.
My questions:

What are the reasons why people equate suicide with Nibbana?
Why is Nibbana totally different to suicide?

Down vote for not including the part "if everything ends after death" which refers to your personal belief of annihilationism

Wrong. There is no death! (except in wrong view).

If so what happens when the body is no longer able to  sustain life? :)

The 'marana' in Buddhism is the same as 'Mara'. There are different words of the termination of life in Buddhism. Because you are a materialist, you believe death is something physical. This is how materialists think. They think death is physical and then they think they will be reborn into a new material body. This is how materialists think. Everything is material to them.

You did not answer my question :)

This is not a chat site. The comments section is not for discussion. Also, your question was answered. Many suttas refer to the 'termination of life' or 'ending of time' rather than 'death' ('marana').

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I decided to up vote because I see his question is valid

(1) seems highly speculative -- unless quotes from many of these people are provided, or something...

@Dhammadhatu you are becoming mad. Your attachment to your views is so strong that you can't even answer a direct question that may challange your views, ego protection mechanism. You should visit a wise teacher.

DD is a wise teacher. With metta

Nibbana?
To think,means to divide.You must stop dividing reality only then you will experience the truth! Let me quote the great Tilopa:

"Don’t recall. Don’t imagine. Don’t think. Don’t examine. Don’t
control. Rest"

Simple as that.If this life is like a dream what good is it to hold grasp of it?If you can recognize the light you can do it by just sneezing.The great Krishna has said if you recognize your awares while you sneeze you will become enlightenment in a second.

So instead of killing yourself just sneeze!

What are the reasons why people equate suicide with Nibba>

Because they do not understand what Nibbana means.

Why is Nibbana totally different to suicide?>

In Nibbana there is no re birth.

It is interesting to note that etymologically extinction means more or less the same thing as nibbana i.e. blowing out. Which is presumably why the dinosaurs haven't come back yet.

There is no death in Samsara. If one commits suicide they go on to a new existence because that's what they want. It's not that one wants not to exist when one kills themself, it's that one wants not to exist in reality as it is, they want a better existence so one isn't becoming annihilated or becoming  enlightened..

I would rather say that suicide and Nibbana are polar opposites, than “Suicide is similar to Nibbana”. North and South Poles are at opposite ends of the planet, and both are equally glacial, or very cold. I am NOT saying “Polar Opposites” in this sense.  Nibbana is the rightful escape from depression, and suicide is a momentary escape. I say this because you end up being in the same state in your next birth. One’s character “(gathi)” determines one’s future births.
Suicide statistics tell us that up to 15% of those who are clinically depressed die by suicide.. This brings home the message that we underestimate the severity of mental suffering compared to our physical suffering. If you would go more into Buddha’s Dhamma, you will get to see how our minds control our physical bodies. Then you will begin to understand how the “gathi” from the past life is conditioning your present thought.
Changing to a “gathi” of a Sotapanna is called a change in lineage where one becomes an Ariya or a Noble person and never turning back to the conventional way of life. That is the road to Nibbana – the Answer. By listening to, and reading & understanding the deeper meanings that lie within the first 58 books ever written on Buddha Dhamma, one becomes a Sotapanna (a Stream Entrant). Then by furthering the understanding through proper Guided Meditation, one goes up the ladder towards Nibbana.
Suicide would only make things worse in the “long term” in the rebirth process. Thus it is never too late to start at any stage in your life, this Path to Nibbana. Human life is rare and should not be wasted at any stage. But if you are one who entertain suicidal thoughts, as in to the point that you can’t imagine getting out of bed in the morning tough, you need help. And there should be no shame in seeking it.
A significant part of our suffering comes from the mind. Even some famous and rich people that we know could not bear this mental pain to such an extent that they committed suicide. One could be living in a mansion with a burdened mind and could even commit suicide, while a poor person who has learned the deeper Dhamma that lies hidden beneath the conventional, could be living in a hut with a peace of mind content with what he/she has and knowing that any hardship is just for a brief time (in this life).
Why is Nibbana totally different to suicide is because ONLY a person who truly understand the true meaning of ANICCA attains Nibbana, whereas a person who is all wrapped up in the notion of ‘self’ / ‘Atta’ may go the suicidal way.
The word “atta” can have many meanings depending on the context. In the conventional sense, “attā” means “a person”. The deeper meaning of “atta” is “in full control” or “the essence” or “the truth that is timeless”. Just like the word “anicca“, it is not possible to translate to English. One must get the idea by learning how it is used in various situations. The opposite of “atta” is anatta (“helpless” in case of a living being or “useless” in case of an inert thing) as in the Tilakkhana.
What I give above is a deeper meaning to two key words that are found in this Dhamma Path. If you look at suttas, there is no clear grammatical structure. It is the sound that gives the meaning and most verses have “double meanings”.  There is an apparently simple meaning, but deeper meanings are hidden most times. A Sotapanna begins to see this higher truth – the “Paramatta Dhamma” - that lies beyond the conventional truth that most of us are accustomed to.
Paramatta comes from “parama” + “atta“, where “parama” means “at the highest level” and “atta” means “the truth that is timeless”, the deeper meaning. This is a deeper ñāna that a person who is well into this Noble Eightfold Path sees. It is fourfold, and is called Patisambidha Ñana  whch in other words can be said as “atta, dhamma, nirutthi, patibhāna“. One who gets to see this two levels of Dhamma will not take “atta” as “a person” or “a self”, and will see Nibbana, and will eventually achieve Nibbana.
As for the ones who are fixed on the conventional meaning to the word “atta“, as well as for anatta, nicca, anicca and many other words, they have a likelihood of equating Nibbana with Suicide. This is one of the main reasons for people to equate suicide with Nibbana.

Puthujjana (ordinary people) believe Nibbana is like heaven or the ending of reincarnations; they believe it is the ending of life that occurs when craving is eventually extinguished. This is why they think there are similarities between suicide & Nirvana because both are views about the ending of life. The suicidal person imagines the ending of life will be peaceful & the puthujjana believes the ending of reincarnations will be peaceful. Therefore, both share a similar belief, despite the subtle differences between their respective beliefs.
While the (religious) puthujjana believe suicide is unwholesome and will just create more reincarnations, including possibly in hell, because they believe Nibbana is the ending of life they believe suicide & Nibbana have some similarities.
Where as, in reality, Nibbana is the here-&-now end of suffering & perfect peace of mind that occurs to the living mind. Therefore, in reality, suicide & Nibbana are totally different. Suicide is unhappiness & the wish to end life. Nirvana is happiness & the fulfilment of life.
In MN 29 & 30, the Lord Buddha said Nibbana is the fulfilment of the Holy Life. The Lord Buddha taught in Nibbana there is no "death" ('marana') because there is no idea of a 'self' that 'dies'. To the Lord Buddha, 'death' ('marana') is a 'self-view'. Freedom from self-view is called Nibbana & the Deathless. Being the 'Deathless', it is totally different to suicide and totally different to the Hindu idea of Nirvana after billions of life-times.
Thus, the Lord Buddha said:

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

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
  be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
  conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
  neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
  a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
  all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
  at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
  does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
  be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
  die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
  he yearn? MN 140

No, because in tipitaka, buddha and the other ariya never try to suicide.
In contrast, ariya still accept chances to keep their life by eating, healing. For the example  in vinaya, Buddha still ate, and Buddha ever gave chance to Jīvakakomārabhacca for healing Buddha's body.
P.S. Channa-bhikkhu suicide before enlighten.

The question has historical precedents, and early Christian writers were baffled by the idea of Nirvana, on the grounds that they could not see the difference with a, presumably beatified, suicide.
The analogy isn't quite as bad as you make out (I upvoted the question despite the potential antagonism to it), for a few reasons, including the suicide of some solitary Buddhas, and the supposed (?) loss of several hundred arhats, after the Buddha died. Obviously, Buddhas, as they need to preach the dharma, don't face any dilemma like that.
To sum, it depends on what you think suicide, and by extension death, is.

Ordinary people confuse similar words, not thinking what these words actually mean. Ordinary people think with labels and imagination. That's why instead of correct cognition people have wild fantasies.
Nirvana means stopping to stir the mind. It means

instead of ignorance we use prajna;
instead of entanglement in mental creations (samskaras) we act from the wholeness;
instead of jumping from fruit to fruit we live in completeness;
instead of believing in illusory objects (forms and concepts) we remain in reality;

and so on. It means, not developing thirst (tanha), we are satisfied and unconstrained, not squeezed between oppositions.
So there is one thing in common: troubles of this life end, both by suicide or by nirvana.
But Buddhism points out that tendencies from this life have continuation. So there is the difference - for example, for people around,

suicide usually continues suffering;
nirvana alleviates suffering.

What are the reasons why people equate suicide with Nibbana?

The main reason is misunderstanding of the Dhamma due to having wrong view.
Two other important reasons are;

Lack of insight into the true nature of reality.
Imbalance of the Five Spiritual Faculties, preventing one from seeing clearly.

Why is Nibbana totally different to suicide?

Suicide is a concept. It belongs to conceptual reality.
Nibbana is one of the four Ultimate Realities (Paramattha Sacca).


text:
Is the following quote in conventional lanaguge?
DN 1 states the view of nihilist wanderers, as follows:

Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: ‘The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.’ In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent
  being.

Is the word 'self' used here in conventional language?
Or does the word 'self' here actually represent a belief in self by those nihilist wanderers?
If those nihilist wanderers did not believe in 'self' ( and thus used 'conventional language'), why were they not considered to be enlightened?

It appears to me those Brahmins believed in none existence.
It appears they did not believe in kamma and rebirth.
What Buddha taught was the dependent origination.
It is not enough to understand the not self. That has to be realised through dependent origination.

In his 2nd sermon, all listeners become fully enlightened by realising not-self. Realising dependent origination was not necessary.

Dependent origination is covered in the first sermon. Second noble truth is the understanding of Dependent Origination.

it is still not relevant. not-self can be realised without knowing the noble truths

Yes.But it is not enough to attain Nibbana.

In SN 22.59, the listeners realised not-self to attain Nibbana.

Yes, but these people are already progress in the path.

Its irreverent. bye

This hypothetical person regards the 'self' as the individuality physically distinguishable -- the physical body composed of the elements, born from mother/father.
Then, arguably such 'self' as used by this person might be the same 'self' as used in conventional language by the Buddha and the Arahats. The word, then, could have the same function for both groups, in this context.
While such person likely denies the existence of an enduring self  -- which would be in agreement with the Buddha -- the quote suggests the view that death marks the end of experiencing, that death is the end of experience. And this, according to the Buddha, is wrong view.
The best argument I know of in the suttas for this stance is that, if such was the case, then karma (and, consequently, morality) would be fiction: there would be no results of actions according to their moral nature (and consequently, morality would be an unnecessary obstacle to gains and benefits, to happiness). Or, more precisely, such results could only occur during this very life -- so one better do all evil things as fast and careful as possible and enjoy the benefits of it while avoiding any bad external outcomes (outcomes that are not really governed by karma law, but exclusively by social conventions of a given time and given culture, e.g. criminal laws and law enforcement).
Another argument against this view can be inferred from the suttas around Nirvana. That is, under this view, Nirvana would have a doubtful value. Why would anyone spend a lifetime avoiding worldly pleasures, enduring hardship, for the promise of an hypothetical "best pleasure" that would only last for a few years? That is, until the person dies. And yet, such person would still suffer physical pain, just like anyone else. Under this view then, once he/she dies, it doesn't matter who attained Nirvana and who didn't, since the same thing happens to everyone equally: the end happens.

Please provide links to your opinions here from suttas. Where is death marks the end of experiencing, that death is the end of experience. And this, according to the Buddha, is wrong view.

Your answer is the very opposite of what is written the sutta. No where does the sutta say nihilism refers to the ending of experience. The sutta states nihilism is the death of a self.

It's written "the quote suggests" -- that's one of the usual forms to express an interpretation. The interpretation is based solely on the quote and the characterization of such person as nihilist -- in extreme opposition to eternalists. If a nihilist believes death is not "the end", then that raises the question "what is a nihilist? And what makes it the extreme opposite of eternalist?"

Both nilhists & eternalist have self-views according to the texts. This is what seems to distinguish them from Buddha.

Sure, of course. But I can't make sense of a nihilist believing "life continues" after death (specially without "his self", supposedly annihilated upon physical death). Hence the inference sounds reasonable to me.

Personally, i think continuation of life is irrelevant. To me, both nihilism & eternalism are self-views; which is why they are wrong. Regards

No where in that quote show  nihilist wanderers not see 5 khandha as self.
That context mean " nihilist wanderers think about 5 khandha  (with avijjā and taṇhā that nihilist wanderers never known) as self. And they think that when self  die, self will never born again".
But the truth is "where is taṇhā, there is born (paṭiccasamuppāda)". However they can't think like that because they never enlighten paṭiccasamuppāda.

Every question of yours look like my view at 12 years ago, when I was an innocent buddhist and before I have learn pali and try to recite tipitaka-pali.
So I never support study system of western's buddhism, because I never want to take anyone jump to conclusions as alike as I never want to take anyone just believe in tipitaka.

In the translation of DN 1 that I'm reading, after the description of the 7 types of annihilation-belief, the Tathagata says (I paraphrase),

The Tathagata understands these views, and knows the result of these views (i.e. the next existence in which those who hold these views will be reborn). He knows the dhamma that's better than these views, doesn't have false view, therefore rids himself of the three poisons, because he understands cessation of sensation and liberation from attachment to sensation (i.e. realizes nibanna).

You asked, "If those nihilist wanderers did not believe in 'self' ( and thus used 'conventional language'), why were they not considered to be enlightened?"
It seems to me that no matter how they talk about "self", and no matter what kind of "self" or body is annihilated at death, the Buddha's definition of "right view" is something else: e.g. it includes knowledge of cessation of sensation (from the jhanas, I suppose) and liberation from attachment to sensation.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Did the Lord Buddha ever use the word 'materialism'?
On Buddhist forums, I read reincarnationists accuse or demonize truthers as being "materialists", similar to Zionists accusing truthers of being "antisemitic" or Americans accusing traitors as being "communist".
In the Pali suttas, I have heard the word 'rupa' means 'material' or 'physical'.
Did the Lord Buddha ever refer to a doctrine literally called 'materialism' or accuse those of wrong views as being "materialists"?

I searched briefly on Access to Insight -- and the closest thing I found was this article which says,

All theistic religions teach that the ego survives after death in some way or other, and is not annihilated. The materialist's concept is that the ego is annihilated at death. The Buddhist view is that there is no ego, or anything substantial, or lasting, but all things conditioned are subject to change, and they change not remaining the same for two consecutive moments, and that there is a continuity but no identity.

... and:

Because of its acceptance of this law of universal impermanence, Buddhism stands in direct opposition to sassatavaada or eternalism, which usually goes hand in hand with aatmavaada, i.e., belief in some kind of immortal soul. The Brahmajaala Sutta of the Diighanikaaya alone refers to more than ten varieties of eternalism, only to refute them as misconceptions of the true nature of the empirical world. But this refutation of eternalism does not lead to the acceptance, on the part of Buddhism, of the other extreme, namely ucchedavaada or annihilationism, which usually goes hand in hand with materialism.

So perhaps "materialism" is used as a synonym of annihilationism, perhaps because it's understood as a doctrine that something is "annihilated" with/by the death of the "material" body.

Thanks Chris. But this quote appear to be Thanissaro's opinions rather than words from the Pali.

Why "but"? I was saying that "materialist" doesn't seem to appear in the suttas, as far as I know ... but that "annihilationism" (ucchedavaada) does ... and, that people who use the term "materialist" may be equating it with "annihilationist".

Sure. But this is the idea of people. It is not the idea of the Buddha. The Buddha never called anyone or any philosophy "materialism", based on my research & questions to others.

The 51st through 53rd of the false views listed in DN 1 (i.e. the first three of the seven false views associated with annihilationism) is that the self has material form.

Yes. The "self" has material form. The Buddha in many places defined "rupa" as "material form". The nihilist view is wrong because of its view  of "self" rather than its view that materiality (rupa) exists.

Ajahn Buddhadasa said:

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

On this chatsite, no one could answer the same question, where it was answered:

I'm no pali scholar but I would bet there is no direct translation
  for the English word "materialism" in Pali.

Namo Tassa Bagavatto Arahanto Samma Sammbuddhassa! (Excuse my errors, I'm not fluent).
Did the Lord Buddha ever refer to a doctrine literally called 'materialism' or accuse those of wrong views as being "materialists"?
I will try to answer to the best of my ability! :)
The Buddha never referred to anything as being specifically "materialism," NOR did he say it was wrong because of this lack of mention (at least according to all current Pali translations I have read & know of), although, applying the Buddha's teachings to what many western Abrahamic religions call "materialism" works quite well.
The Buddha would sway away from materialism, due to its active use in the accumulation of sensual objects. This would only keep one on the path of greed. The Buddha preached to let go of all things in the end. This is when one becomes a monk or nun.
If in the lay lifestyle, then one can use the middle way with materialism, do not go overboard, but do not get rid of everything to the point that you will die.
Renunciation as a monk or nun is not extreme in accordance with the Middle Way due to them deciding to only have what is a necessity to live: robes, medicine, shelter, & alms.
To get rid of all things or to actively pursue things are the extremes.
Anyhow, I hope I answered your question!
Metta to you!

The answer to your question would appear to be "No."
Interesting that a search of all four of the main volumes of the Buddha's talks as published by Wisdom, along with their Sutta Nipata, turn up no occurrences of the word "materialist" or "materialism".
The little English-Pali dictionary I have on my computer offers only lokāyatika as Pali for "materialist". A search in the Digital Pali Reader comes up with only three suttas in which it appears: SN 12.48, SN 12.50, AN 9.38 (as well as in a Jātaka and in Milinda). In notes on SN 12.48, where lokāyatika is translated as a "cosmologist" it's noted that the pejorative sense of the word as meaning "materialist" probably came along well after the Buddha's time. Some have suggested that in the Buddha's day it was a  respectful reference to one who studied nature lore. Jayatilleke says since its use is always in association with loka (the world) or sabba (the all) it refers to cosmology. I'd expect that those two words refer to precursors of a modern Hindu belief in "the oneness of all", which is quite different from materialism.

5 kāma = Color, sound, smell, flavor, and touch stimuli.
Materialists are people who attaching 5 kāma.
So they are called kāmāvacaro, kāmapuggalo, kāmayogi, kāmo, etc.

i think this post is wrong because it has nothing to do with Buddhism. you are just manufacturing your own ideas.

The questioner has asked whether buddha has referred materialism. --First of all all the bad virtues such as greed, lust, selfishness, hatred,etc which buddha has termed as akushal kamma(bad deeds) , are the base of materialism. to assign it "ism" is degradation of the word "ism". Further the "rupa" termed in buddhism is for physical body  and nam for mind. materialism is nothing but a rotten garbage cropped  out of development of science enhancing comforts and pleasures of body.it is a tricky mind"s excuse to find authenticity by attaching it to some established isms meant for  good purpose of liberation,salvation, moksha,etc etc.

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:
Is Buddhism now lost until the birth of Matreiya Buddha?
Has pure Buddhism now been lost from the present sociological environment (lost from today's world, lost from present society), until the Maitreya Buddha will be born?

Pure Dharma can be defined as clear, unmistaken explanation of the path all the way to complete awakening, endowed with Buddha's blessings.
"Buddha's blessings" here mean that a teacher doesn't only say words and explain theories, he also does it with proper atmosphere.
For example, some lecturers might explain "correct words" but with disrespectful attitude or with restless mind, and so these "correct words" are not well perceived by listeners, so they will not practise them.
Unmistaken explanation means, in particular, that words correspond well to the situation - it's not like explaining a teaching poorly suitable for the present case.
Thus a good teacher should have clear understanding of what he teaches and how that relates to our situations;
he should have clear mind - with proper attitude and "atmosphere";
he should speak what he knows and refrain from speaking what he doesn't truly know.
Expounded with clear mind, explanations are clear.
With correct "blessings", they are accepted by people and inspire them to practise.
There are such teachers nowadays: they practice thoroughly, they awaken, and they teach clearly.
Thus pure Dharma exists now, it is not lost.

It is predicted that Buddhism will vanish in another 2500- years, regardless of the present situation. Maithree Buddha will take much longer to appear in the world. Roughly half of an Antah-Kalpa and some.


text:
Can there be another Dalai Lama?
From what I understand, the Panchen Lama is supposed to choose the next Dalai Lama. If he has been captured, is there any hope for another Dalai Lama to be chosen?

Dedi,
The Panchen Lama is supposed to facilitate the recognition of the Dalai
Lama. However, depending on his devotion and his powers, the Dalai Lama himself can state the place and time of his reincarnation. If not, he would give to adversaries a way to hack the process (by capturing and controlling the Panchen Lama).
It's sad, but every monk has to be aware of the danger and to practice his way to enlightenment!

Overall 'Dalai Lama' means an 'Ocean of Compassion.'

Hope it helps!

Because of the Panchen Lama situation, the Dalai Lama has said that he would not be reborn in territory controlled by China and may choose to not be reborn in this world at all. He said that the institution of having a Dalai Lama, which has been around for a few centuries might have served out its usefulness.
Related note but not directly related to your question:  He once also said he might choose to be reborn as a woman.

Maybe everyone knows, my input is just duplicating. The selection of the lead Lama was introduced by Qianlong Emperor of Qing in 1792, called གསེར་བུམ་སྐྲུག་པ (gser bum skrug pa), or drawing lots from the Golden Urn, to pacify the political power struggle between the different Lama sects.
One of the two Urns is kept in Jokhang Temple in Lhasa >>

Emperor Qianlong said in his stone engraved "About the Lama":

乾隆皇帝在其御制碑文《喇嘛说》中有精到阐述：“其呼土克图之相袭，乃以僧家无子，授之徒，与子何异，故必觅一聪慧有福相者，俾为呼必勒罕(即汉语转世化生人之义)，幼而习之。长成乃称呼图克图。此亦无可如何中之权巧方便耳。其来已久，不可殚述。孰意近世，其风日下，所生之呼必勒罕，率出一族，斯则与世袭爵禄何异?
  …… 然转生之呼必勒罕，出于一族 (all coming from the same clan)，是乃为私 (this is
  for self-interest only)。佛岂有私 (How could the Buddha be for
  self-interest)？故不可不禁 (Therefore couldn't not prohibit
  it)。兹予制一金瓶，送往西藏，于凡转世之呼必勒罕，众所举数人 (the nominated few persons by
  all)，各书其名置瓶中 (writing every of those names put into the
  urn)，掣签以定 (drawing lot to confirm)，虽不能尽去其弊 (though couldn't
  rid all the faults)，较之以前 (yet compared to what was in the
  past)，一人之授意者 (appointing one person)，或略公矣 (this may slightly
  be more fair)。”

The stone engraving still resides in this palace in Beijing >>

Well, facts taking many camouflages, we will never know what is real. The only remedy maybe, practice, until one gained divine vision so that we can really know what is what. However, that the fun may be lost since ambiguity or fuzziness is always intriguing and enticing :)


text:
Unclarity on Sati-Sampajañña
In one Sutta the Buddha said that one should constantly be mindful of the fact of anicca. In the Satipatthana Sutta he said that when one is dressing, eating, speaking etc. one should be aware that he is doing exactly that.
Now my two questions (and yes I know that Sati is more than just present moment awareness in that it can also mean remembering something or calling somethibg helpful to mind)

The aspect of knowing what one is doing is connected with mental noting, right? Because the Buddha never (correct me if Im wrong) mentioned to note something as seeing, seeing, touching, touching.. etc.
If I am not mistaken the Buddha said one should constantly dwell/remind oneself of the fact of anicca but at the same time one should know what one is doing. This is confusing. When does one know when to use "what one is doing-mindfulness" and when to dwell on "impermanence-mindfulness"?
Is continous present moment awareness actually endorsed by the Buddha? Kind of confusing because first of one cannot be mindful all the time and secondly, how is one able to be present aware if one uses sati in the "remembering" sense when for example a hindrance is present?

I think that the word "constant" or "continous" is just a word that puts strong emphasize on a specific activity, but I might be wrong.

In one Sutta the Buddha said that one should constantly be mindful of the fact of anicca.

Sure. But you need to understand what the terms really mean.
Mindfulness (sati) means to remember.
Anicca is a wisdom (panna).
Sampajanna means 'situational wisdom', which is applying wisdom to a situation.
Mindfulness must remember to apply wisdom.
Therefore, mindfulness & wisdom always operate together.
There cannot be mindfulness without wisdom.
This is why the term 'sati-sampajanna' is often used, as a compound.
This video might help: Buddhist Meditation (4) Sati Sampajanna
This book might help: The Natural Cure for Spiritual Disease by Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

In the Satipatthana Sutta he said that when one is dressing, eating, speaking etc. one should be aware that he is doing exactly that.

Not really.
In the 1st part, about "I am walking, "I am standing", etc, the word is "pajānāti", which means to know. Here, knowing with wisdom is not emphasised. This is more about knowing with concentration.
In the 2nd part, about "going forward, looking ahead", etc, the word is "sampajānakārī". This not only means awareness but having wisdom with awareness.
As the video states, 'sampajanna' is of the wisdom faculty & not of the concentration faculty. Awareness without ready wisdom is not sampajanna.

Now my two questions (and yes I know that Sati is more than just present moment awareness in that it can also mean remembering
  something or calling somethibg helpful to mind)

Sati is never present moment awareness. Sati is only remembering or calling something to mind.
Present moment awareness may be a result or outcome of using mindfulness but mindfulness itself is not present moment awareness -- see this answer for a more detailed explanation.
Present moment awareness is simply a clear consciousness (vinnana), called 'anupassi' ('seeing') in the Satipatthana Sutta.

The aspect of knowing what one is doing is connected with mental noting, right?

Not really but sort of. Noting is a very subtle thing. Noting does not have to be strong thinking, as the Burmese Mahasi teach. The mind can note very silently, such as knowing it is typing on this website.

Because the Buddha never (correct me if Im wrong) mentioned to note
  something as seeing, seeing, touching, touching.. etc.

Of course he did, in the Satipatthana Sutta, that you mentioned, where it states: "I am walking", etc. However, this is only beginner's practise.

If I am not mistaken the Buddha said one should constantly dwell/remind oneself of the fact of anicca but at the same time one
  should know what one is doing.

There are many wisdoms apart from anicca. All sati-sampajanna includes some type of wisdom.
The Buddha did not actually teach to constantly remind oneself of anicca because this would mean the mind is always thinking. Instead, one only reminds oneself of anicca when necessary.
To goal of meditation is to stop thinking so the mind has concentration so it can develop calm and then see anicca directly (rather than reminding oneself about anicca).

This is confusing.

What is confusing is your views about it. Yes, you are making it confusing for yourself.

When does one know when to use "what one is doing-mindfulness" and when to dwell on "impermanence-mindfulness"?

When required.

Is continous present moment awareness actually endorsed by the Buddha? Kind of confusing because first of one cannot be mindful all
  the time and secondly, how is one able to be present aware if one uses
  sati in the "remembering" sense when for example a hindrance is
  present?

Your questions are like: "How & when & why do I do this turn when surfing and surf inside the wave when surfing?" before you have even learned to paddle a surfboard & catch a wave.

I think that the word "constant" or "continous" is just a word that puts strong emphasize on a specific activity, but I might be wrong.

I think you are thinking too much. When the mind has developed some calmness, it will begin to understand the teachings and what to do. Developing some calmness does not require too many questions & answers.

About this unusual understanding of sati ("Sati is never present moment awareness") I hope the reader of this answer put some time reading the suttas to come to his/her own conclusion about what sati can refer to.

So the answer of Dhammadhatu is wrong concering Sati?

My answer is not wrong.

There are 2 important type of experts: consciousness expert (addhayasaya) and wisdom expert (sampajañña).
When you thinking about your mother, you have not to  know the story about her that "she is my father's wife. She is my mother. Her name is Sissy." because you already being an expert in her detail. But you realize that all story automatically while you thinking about your mother. That is called "consciousness expert (addhayasaya)".
Wisdom expert (sampajañña) has the same characterize of consciousness expert, but sampajañña auto clearly comprehends in clauses (pros&cons) and effects (6 benefits & 6 detriment; ānisaṅsa & ādīnava for [1] this life, [2] next lift payojana, [3] nibbāna, [4] self, [5] the others, [6] social).
So you can see many clauses and effects such as paṭiccasamuppāda, kammassakatā, etc.  in almost all of tipitaka, commentary, and sub-commentary. Because every things, include supernatural, is clauses and effects. And every effects must will be vanish when their clauses vanish, too (aincca, dukkha, anattā).
Furthermore, sampajañña must arise same time with consciousness, but consciousness can arises without sampajañña. So  there are some geniuses, who have autometic unwholesome consciousness to do new bad kamma (cons) to take old good kamma's benefits, these some geniuses have not sampajañña.
For reference:

ñātaṭṭhena ñāṇaṃ (paṭisambhidāmagga, the end of every niddesa, by sāriputta).
ye ye dhammā abhiññātā honti, te te dhammā ñātā honti (paṭisambhidāmagga, abhiññāta niddesa, by sāriputta).
ye ye dhammā abhiññātā honti, te te dhammā ñātā hontiฯsā hi sobhanaṭṭhena abhisaddena ‘‘tesaṃ tesaṃ dhammānaṃ sabhāvajānanavasena sobhanaṃ jānana’’nti katvā abhiññāti vuccatiฯ (paṭisambhidāmagga commentary).
describtion of suttamayapaññā, cintāmayapaññā, bhāvanāmayapaññā (abhidhammapitaka vibhaṅga, taught by buddha to sāriputta, and re-taught in sāriputta's literal by sāriputta).

The aspect of knowing what one is doing is connected with mental noting, right? Because the Buddha never (correct me if Im wrong) mentioned to note something as seeing, seeing, touching, touching.. etc.

My person likes to correct. It actually needed for every deed (by mind, speech an body) to "know" what's up, to speak in common words. Such can be done by everyone, everywhere and will possible lead to insight.
In regard of this and the question on "keeping on thinking: anicca" it's possible not only for insight, this world and the next of benefit to apply anicca. Especially if just an idea, defilements will use it when things actually matter (in thimes of dislike) and forget it in times when actually of use (when greed arises).
So if not leading a complete contemplative live, especially then, it (the constant repeating of anicca) will propably lead to dangerous householder-equanimity.
To provide here some words of people who practiced:

The Broken Glass
You may say, "Don't break my glass!" But you can't prevent something breakable from breaking. If it doesn't break now, it'll break later on. If you don't break it, someone else will. If someone else doesn't break it, one of the chickens will! The Buddha says to accept this. He penetrated all the way to seeing that this glass is already broken. This glass that isn't broken, he has us know as already broken. Whenever you pick up the glass, put water in it, drink from it, and put it down, he tells you to see that it's already broken. Understand? The Buddha's understanding was like this. He saw the broken glass in the unbroken one. Whenever its conditions run out, it'll break. Develop this attitude. Use the glass; look after it. Then one day it slips out of your hand: "Smash!" No problem. Why no problem? Because you saw it as broken before it broke. See?
But usually people say, "I've taken such good care of this glass. Don't ever let it break." Later on the dog breaks it, and you hate the dog. If your child breaks it, you hate him, too. You hate whoever breaks it — because you've dammed yourself up so that the water can't flow. You've made a dam without a spillway. The only thing the dam can do is burst, right? When you make a dam, you have to make a spillway, too. When the water rises up to a certain level, it can flow off safely to the side. When it's full to the brim, it can flow out the spillway. You need to have a spillway like this. Seeing inconstancy is the Buddha's spillway. When you see things this way, you can be at peace. That's the practice of the Dhamma.

The same is within the practice itself. If we have a wrong understanding of anicca, it's actally aversion and we might cut us of to walk further on the path.
Let my person note in general: Better to try to gain skills next holding all other things would be to sacrify times to just serve and spend time next and near a contemplative. It's not easy to get it right in a "fast-food-way".
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

The question you are asking is well explained in: The Four Sampajanna, VRI

Maintaining the continuity of the thorough understanding of impermanence based on vedana (sensation)1 is called sampajanna. The Atthakathakara (the commentators) have further explained this term in various ways to clarify its meaning.
A few of these explanations follow-

Samma pakarehi aniccadini janati ti sampajannam.

One who knows in a right way impermanence as well as suffering and egolessness has wisdom, has sampajanna.

Samantato pakarehi pakattham va savisesam janati ti sampajano.

One who understands the totality clearly with wisdom from all angles (of whatever is manifesting) or who knows distinctly has sampajanna.

Samma samantato samanca pajananto sampajano.

One who knows in a right way, in totality through one's own wisdom is sampajana.
  These definitions convey the same sense as found in the canonical texts of anicca (impermanence), and its continuity. In the commentaries and the subcommentaries, sampajanna is also elaborated in a fourfold way-

satthaka-sampajanna (purposeful sampajanna),
sappaya- sampajanna (beneficial sampajanna),
gocara-sampajanna (domain sampajanna),
asammoha-sampajanna (non-delusion sampajanna).

(1) Satthaka-sampajanna (purposeful sampajanna)
The Pali term satthaka (sa + attha = with meaning) means useful or purposeful. The sense here is in distinguishing between what is useful and what is not. For a meditator who is treading on the path of Dhamma (satthaka), the most useful, purposeful thing is something that can help in the realisation of paramattha sacca (ultimate truth), the cessation of suffering. To attain it, one has to totally eradicate the sankhara, which are the source of all suffering. For this, one has to realize anicca (impermanence), the arising and passing away at the level of sensations. Thus, the usefulness and purposefulness of sampajanna lies only in leading meditators to realize impermanence, which alone is beneficial in the attainment of their life's mission, nibbana. This is the true sense of satthaka sampajanna. The continuity of practice should be maintained in all activities, such as moving forward or backward, going for begging alms, or going to visit a cetiya (shrine) etc.
(2) Sappaya-sampajannam (beneficial sampajanna)
The term sappaya means beneficial. Knowing in totality for one's own benefit with wisdom is sappaya sampajannam.5 The most beneficial thing for a meditator is to move on the path which leads to the attainment of nibbana. The experience of anicca based on body sensation is the most beneficial tool, since by mere observation of its arising and passing away, with objectivity and continuity, one goes beyond the sphere of sensations to a state beyond mind and matter.
(3) Gocara-sampajannam (domain sampajanna)
The literal term gocara (go + cara) means the field where the cow moves, but here the term refers to domain. Technically, when the term is used in meditation, it has two meanings- (i) while a meditator dwells internally, it means the body is the domain of his meditation; (ii) it also means the external movements of the meditator, eg., going for begging alms etc., (gocara).6
  Thus the significance of gocara sampajanna lies in maintaining constant thorough understanding of impermanence, both while meditating and while performing worldly activities.7
(4) Asammoha-sampajanna (non-delusion sampajanna)
The term asammoha means non-delusion or without ignorance. It refers to the non-ignorance of having thorough understanding of what is happening both inside and outside the body. The realisation of impermanence is asammoha (non-delusion). Therefore with the experience of anicca, a meditator will be able to understand through direct experience, three of the four paramattha dhamma-citta (consciousness), cetasika (psychic factors), and rupa (material qualities). All these are samkhata dhamma (conditioned). By observing these dhamma objectively as anicca, one reaches the state where there is no arising and passing away, which is the fourth paramattha dhamma-nibbana.
Although the Buddha did not mention these four sampajanna in the Canon they are found in the Atthakatha. If we analyse each of them, we find that they are not separate from one another but have the same goal, the realisation of anicca (anicca-bodha). Anicca-bodha is our real purpose (satthaka). It is beneficial (sappaya) for us and is the domain (gocara) of our meditation, leading to right understanding (asammoha), that ultimately results in the final emancipation- nibbana.

Source: The Four Sampajanna, VRI

So dharma teacher Joseph Goldstein is wrong then, that Sati means present moment awareness without defilements?


text:
Why are 'eternalism' & 'annihilationism' mentioned in SN 12.17?
In SN 12.17, it is said:

Well now, good Gotama, is suffering caused by oneself?
No indeed, Kassapa," said the Blessed One.
Well then, good Gotama, is one's suffering caused by another?
No indeed, Kassapa.
Well then, good Gotama, is suffering caused by both oneself and another?
No indeed, Kassapa.
'He who performs the act also experiences [the result]' — what you, Kassapa, first called 'suffering caused by oneself' — this amounts to
  the Eternalist theory.
'One person performs the act, another experiences,' — which to the person affected seems like "suffering caused by another" — this
  amounts to the Annihilationist theory.

Alternate translation:

Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who
  experiences the result,’ then one asserts with reference to one
  existing from the beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When
  one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one
  thinks, ‘The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result
  is another,’ then one asserts with reference to one stricken by
  feeling: ‘Suffering is created by another.’ When one asserts thus,
  this amounts to annihilationism. Without veering towards either of
  these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With
  ignorance as condition, formations come to be; with
  volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin
  of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless
  fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional
  formations; with the cessation of formations, cessation of
  consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering.’

Why are 'eternalism' & 'annihilationism' mentioned in SN 12.17 when SN 12.17 does not appear to be directly about reincarnation or about the denial of reincarnation?

In this sutta, "another" doesn't mean another being (conventionally) but the same being present at past (at the time the action for the present suffering has been done) (conventionally). So this sutta tells about anatta mark of existence. If one mark of existence is present, other two are also present. See how beautifully this Dhamma affirmed the teachings everywhere? Externalism says that there's eternal soul. Annihilationism says there's no one who feels the result for present deeds as the present being completely destroyed at this very moment.

In Buddhism, it's taught that "No doer is there who does the deed, nor one there who feels the fruit" (Visuddhi Magga). So both externalism and annihilationism are rejected.

you should post an answer . regards

suffering caused by oneself=single relationship=easy to control=lord god=eternalism.
one's suffering caused by another=non relationship=hard to control=no avijjā&taṇhā to becoming/born=nihilism.
Those above all are impossible, so buddha taught paṭiccasamuppāda after denied acelaka kassapa's self view.

Very good answer. However, please notice reincarnation is not mentioned SN 12.17. Please notice how nihilism is not related to reincarnation. Regards

one's suffering caused by another=one's suffering is calved by another. Every effect born by clause. Denied clause or effect equal to denied born. That is why buddha taught paṭiccasamuppāda (with born and becoming) in this sutta.

The eternalist view affirms self; believing the self (rather than the element of ignorance) causes suffering.
The annihilationist view both affirms & denies self, blaming another self (rather than the element of ignorance) for causing to suffering to oneself.
Both are self-views.
Eternalism & annihilationism are both self-views (rather than views about continuity of life).

They're two wrong views which the Buddha wishes to quash. Sometimes they're referred to as 'extremes', but I think the problem is simply that they're concepts which jump into our minds from time to time and usurp the reality lying before us.

I think this passage can be understood by recognising that the Buddha is speaking about the fruits of kamma (i.e. action, intention) across lifetimes. Think of 'He who performs the act' as a person in the present life, and 'he who experiences [the result]' as the next rebirth. So, the views boil down to i) "The person in this life [He who performs the act] remains identical, exactly the same person, following rebirth [also experiences the result]" i.e. Eternalism. And ii) "The person in this life [One person performs the act] ceases to exist following rebirth [another experiences]" i.e. Annihilationism. The Buddha dismisses both of these as false views, but does not spell out what actually happens. I guess one possibility, based on the implications of conditionality (Pratītyasamutpāda), is that some aspect of our consciousness is reborn (i.e. Annihilationism is false), but that it can change, evolve, based on previous kamma and can even be destroyed (i.e. Eternalism is not true). But this conjecture goes beyond the Buddha's words and it would seem that he avoided, or would not declare his position on, metaphysical speculation.
With kind regards - Peter

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


text:
Why does MN 117 refer to a dirty defiled (กิเลส) right view of bondage?
MN 117 states:

And what, bhikkhus, is right view that is affected by the taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions? ‘There is what is
  given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and
  result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other
  world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn
  spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and
  brahmins who have realised for themselves by direct knowledge and
  declare this world and the other world.’ This is right view affected
  by taints, partaking of merit, ripening in the acquisitions.

Why does MN 117 refer to a dirty defiled (กิเลส) right view? How can this be so? How can a right view be polluted with asava (effluents, outflows, taints, corruptions, discharge, secretions, กิเลส)?

Good topic, one of my favorite.
Right view with taints is still a deeply materialistic view, full of naive simplifications and reifications.
In right view with taints, we still have the world with its beings, with their karma and goals and fruits and suffering.
In right view without taints, we clearly know -- with direct knowledge -- how things are. We clearly see the limits of the extent to which there may be a notion of "entity" and "karma" and "suffering" and "experience" and "right view". We see the elements ("dharmas") and how they can be analyzed in multitude of different ways. We see essenselessness, we see transitory collections of causal chains, we see dependent-coarising, we see the "gears" of the "mechanism" at work.
Why does MN 117 refer to a tainted right view as "with bondage"
Because Buddha wanted to clearly delineate the difference between upaya and truth, between conventional and ultimate. Because people were confused and did not clearly see the difference. Because of this they were getting caught up in the reifications associated with the tainted right view, and due to these reifications they were still caught in the wheel of suffering.
By the way, in my interpretation, "sasava" means "with asava" where "asava" is a type of liquor (a kind of sweet beer with honey and spices). Generally speaking asava means intoxicant. So sasava as adjective means "drunk", in contrast to "sober". In this case drunkenness stands as metaphor for delusion, and sobriety - for clarity of wisdom. So the sasava right view, is merely a useful view that is still deluded, as opposed to the real Bodhi.

Where is it said that those two levels are opposed sside of ideas of defilement mind? And why using "we" in a communist manner? The Buddha never used we. Just his opponents to win the favor of the audience, a low debater trick.

The complete right view includes the deluded right view and utilizes it as a tool. So it's not opposition. It is only contrasted here, for the sake of understanding. Using "we" because I am inviting the reader to join me :) I could say "I" but in that case I would have to declare myself as Buddha, and I am not ready for that :))

So you give all including your self the status to be Buddha when following you? Or what is that good for, honestly? Nyom Andreis addition here condradicts the notion in the answer, like many times in the same pattern. Where again is it said that the second kind utilizes the first, aside of ideas from you and yours or what ever is behind "we". How about "there is the case" or " if this than that" the Buddha said, being clear of what he told and is grounded by him.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don%27t_feed_the_Troll

A Buddha or Arahat migh ask or answer without desire. It's not a question of preference of food. Sure aversion can come up when not able to nurish on something... so what about the raft?

In Pali text, it  says  sāsavā, not  asāvā.  Because there are no direct translation of both words to English that would capture meanings and differentiate them at the same time.  The translator tried his best to preserve original Pali text.  A new word in English may have to be invented.
Maybe "still a taint" is another option for sāsavā?

...And what, bhikkhus, is right view is still affected by the taints
  ...
...Katamā ca, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi? Sammādiṭṭhimpahaṃ
  , bhikkhave, dvāyaṃ
   vadāmi—atthi, bhikkhave, sammādiṭṭhi sāsavā puññabhāgiyā upadhivepakkā;.....

there is no direct translation to english for sāsavā . But I understand this word as "positive attachments to mind, things of good merits", quite opposite of asava, negative attachements to mind).  However, any attachment; positive or negative is still a taint (asava)
Where further in this sutta "anāsavā lokuttarā", i understand it as positive attachments to mind that noble disciples know they need to let go.
They are 3 different key words in this sutta:

sāsavā
asava
anāsavā

sa -  prefix, used as first pt. of compounds, is the sense of “with,” possessed of, having same as; e.g. sadevaka with the deva https://suttacentral.net/define/sa

Buddha was mindful with every word he said.   In MN 117 Buddha did not refer defilement as a right view, but rather even a right view (from lay person) is still a defilement.  That was why two words were chosen, sasava and asava. Compare to views of a noble ones which is neither one of those but Anasava...  I am going to draw a similarity with another popular sutta about karma you might have read.  Buddha broke karma into 3 categories; black, white, and neither black nor white.

black karma is that which brings pain to 5 skandhas, compare to white karma which brings pleasures.  Both are still defilement because it is involved with 5 skandhas.  however, neither black nor white karma (8 fold path) which isnt a defilement because it is a path to eradicate 5 skandhas at the end.   I retracted part of my answer because the translator of the english text probably wanted to preserve the original text as close to buddha as possible but unfortunately for him, there is no direct distinguishable words for both sasava and asava in english.

For translation of sāsavā see: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23970/10100

Sāsavā right view is a basic right view that available every time, though without buddhism. This sāsava right view is an important base of vipassanā-meditation.
However, the sāsava right view can't destruct āsava. Because sāsava right view arises in control of āsavā, especially avijjā-āsava and bhava-āsava, that ignore and attach the resultant (upadhi) of sāsava right view.
For the example of sāsava right view:

We stop to attach everything in kāma-loka for birth in brahma-loka (that is attached by bhavā-āsava).

So sāsavā right view arises before or after āsava. Only a khīnāsava-puggala (a taintless person, i.e. an arahant) has anāsava right view.
Even a anāgāmi-puggala (a non-returner) also has āsava arising, before he will change to be khīnāsava-puggala.
For translation of sāsavā see: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/23970/10100

Taking the whole passage in context, it says (I summarise):

"Wrong view" is "nothing matters, there's no fruit, no virtue"
(which I think means "nihilism")
"Right view sāsavā" is "things matter, there is fruit, there are virtuous people"
(which I think means "the opposite of nihilism")
"Right view anāsavā" is "wisdom and discernment of the states"

The reason why "right view sāsavā" is "right view" might be obvious: it's the direct opposite of wrong view; it motivates a person on the eightfold path; etc.
The reason why "right view sāsavā" is "sāsavā" is ... perhaps it's because it's to do with "merit" and "acquisition", so maybe it includes (it doesn't necessarily exclude) identity-view and greed (even if only spiritual greed, some conceit about being good).

My answer to this question is obsession with morality prevents the eradication of self-view & liberation from the world. Morality views sense phenomena as "beings" ("satta") rather than as "elements" ("dhatu"). Even St Paul in the Christian Bible taught attachment to the moral law does not set the mind free. Imagine if the Buddhist teachings resulted in more bondage (upadhi) than Christianity? How pathetic & embarrassing would that be for the Noble Dhamma.

The different between the "two kinds" of right might be easer to be understood in the sample of right speech, having the same pattern:

MN 117
[3] "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong speech as wrong speech, and right speech as right speech. This is one's right view. And what is wrong speech? Lying, divisive tale-bearing, abusive speech, & idle chatter. This is wrong speech.
"And what is right speech? Right speech, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right speech with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right speech, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right speech that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? Abstaining from lying, from divisive tale-bearing, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter. This is the right speech that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.
"And what is the right speech that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The abstaining, desisting, abstinence, avoidance of the four forms of verbal misconduct of one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right speech that is without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right speech.

There is no distinction of the elements but simply in the distinction of "in training" or "on the path".
Just if the magga (path) is reached one is on the lane of transcentent toward phala (fruit), the next, and so on... till finally destruction of effluents.
It's a great missunderstanding that the first right view and the secound are different. At first it is "just" imitated trained, to strengthen the other factors as well, then it might become a matter of discerment rather then Saddha.
If understanding that it might be understood why even an Arahat does not abound to teach "simply" the first kind since the secound is a "product".
Imitating the second, an attainment, does not lead to much of benefit. It's like being a donkey running after behind cows. (Note that monk here should be understood as one not an outsider, e.g. an Noble One)
And what is then heightened virture? (To continue toward {next} fruit, next path, with possible fast success?)

And what is the training in heightened virtue? There is the case where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the Patimokkha (even as lay person would train in this sphere), consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the slightest fault. This is called the training in heightened virtue.

Once path is gained, the training in virtue becomes a training in heightened virtue, no more relaying on wordly understandings of what is taking without being given for example. Stealing is no more justified by conventions in regard of tolerated transgressions by other laws aside of simply that.
For one no shame in deliberal lying and all it's various appearances, hiding his misconducts and so on, such is not only not even near the path but said that there is no evil such a person is not able to do.
One of right view, beyound world, therfore is not able to transgress the basic precepts deliberatly for any purpose in or for the world, not even for the sake of Nibbana, since he knows and has no more doubt of what is path and not-path.
At the very end of all sufferings discernment and views of all kind are (to be) released.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains my means of trade and exchange]


text:
Where is the suttas is 'sati' defined as present moment awareness?
I read the following on the internet:

About this unusual understanding of sati ("Sati is never present moment awareness") I hope the reader of this answer put some time
  reading the suttas to come to his/her own conclusion about what sati
  can refer to.

Where is the Palis suttas is 'sati' defined as 'present moment awareness'?

The word 'sati' means to 'remember', 'bring to mind' or 'keep in mind' as follows:

And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous,
  remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said
  long ago. SN 48.10

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. One is mindful to abandon wrong
  resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right
  mindfulness. One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter &
  remain in right speech: This is one's right mindfulness. One is
  mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action:
  This is one's right mindfulness. MN 117

When the suttas used phrases, such as "remains focused on the body", this is a pre-occupation of mindfulness rather than mindfulness itself:

He remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
  He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of
  itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, &
  mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.
  This is called the faculty of mindfulness.

Thus mindfulness above does more than to just remember to 'focus' (poor translation). It also remembers to put away greed & distress & to abide without greed & distress.

Mindfulness means remembering or keeping in mind what you must remember to do. For example, if my current duty or purpose is to work (rather than post on a chatsite), I should be mindful of my work (instead of getting distracted on a chatsite).
Similarly, if my duty is to focus on the body in & of itself, that is the pre-occupation of mindfulness rather than mindfulness itself.
Therefore, present moment awareness can be a result, product, object or pre-occupation of mindfulness but is not mindfulness itself.
For the mind to have present moment awareness, it must stop thinking. The role of mindfulness here is to remember to not think. The awareness (consciousness, observantness) arises automatically. It is not mindfulness but only a product of the mindfulness that remembers to stop thinking (about the past or future).

Why or how is the distinction (between "mindfulness means remembering what you must remember to do" and "what you must remember to do is remain observant") important or consequential?

Regarding your last paragraph: it is similar to how, when conversing, it is necessary to remember to stop talking and listen. The mind can think, but if it only thinks, it gets nowhere.

Thank you for your explanations.  I am trying to understand which Pali word corresponds to "present moment awareness".  And which Pali word corresponds to "mindfulness itself".  Do you know which Pali words are appropriate for these concepts?

Sutta does not define that 'sati' as present moment awareness.
Mindfulness in Buddhist teaching is much more than the english meaning of mindfulness and the the general mindfulness taught in the west.
To understand the meaning of 'Sati' we should have a good understanding of the following two Suttas.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html

Putting aside the fact that pāli->english translators have chosen the word "mindful" (mindfulness, mindfully, etc) to translate sati in many occasions, and that this word is associated with awareness...

Suppose a man would enter a thorny forest. There would be thorns in front of him, thorns behind him, thorns to his left, thorns to his right, thorns below him, thorns above him. He would go forward mindfully (satova), he would go back mindfully (satova), thinking, ‘May no thorn prick me!’
-- SN 35.244

The above passage explains how a person is attentive to the surrounding dangers while moving around. sati is used to characterize his attitude. I suppose one can choose to read this passage as meaning strictly that the words 'May no thorn prick me!' is in that man's mind. However, such a reading doesn't seem very appealing: how having these words in mind would help this person in this dangerous situation?
On another vein, SN 48.11 defines the satindriya  as the result of the satipatthana practice. And we all know that satipatthana is not a mere memory exercise.
While I never believed sati to mean what is usually called "bare awareness", I'd be very cautious about completely divorcing the meaning of sati from awareness (e.g. of what is going on, of what one is doing or of something present in the present moment).
For the reader looking for further information, I suggest looking for translators comments and books dealing with this subject (e.g. "Mindfulness in early buddhism" by Tse-fu Kuan).

The sutta says: "mindfully (satova), thinking, ‘May no thorn prick me!’". This is thinking & recollecting the wisdom of avoiding suffering. Mindfulness here is recollecting wisdom about how to avoid suffering rather than "present moment awareness". For example, if in the present moment, I think about how to kill a person in the present moment, is that more mindful about thinking about ordaining as a monk in the future?

SN 48.11 is simply does not provide an answer. It is says nothing.

Sati is defined in the Sati Sutta (SN 47.35).
Relevant words from that definition seem to me to be viharati and ...passī:

viharati -- stay, abide, dwell, sojourn
...passī -- observing

So, "to dwell observing": that is more-or-less "present moment awareness", isn't it?

Also maybe Thiago meant SN 48.10 rather than SN 48.11.
The definition there is the same as in SN 47.35, i.e.,

Katamañ-ca, bhikkhave, Satindriyaṁ?
  And what, monks, is the Faculty of Mindfulness?
Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako satimā hoti,
  Here, monks, a noble disciple is mindful,
paramena satinepakkena samannāgato,
  endowed with superior mindfulness and carefulness,
cirakatam-pi cirabhāsitam-pi saritā anussaritā.
  remembering and recalling what was done a long time ago and what was said a long time ago.
So kāye kāyānupassī viharati,
  He dwells contemplating (the nature of) the body in the body,
ātāpī, sampajāno, satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
  ardent, clearly knowing, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world.
Vedanāsu vedanānupassī viharati,
  He dwells contemplating (the nature of) feelings in feelings,
ātāpī, sampajāno, satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
  ardent, clearly knowing, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world.
Citte cittānupassī viharati,
  He dwells contemplating (the nature of) the mind in the mind,
ātāpī, sampajāno, satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
  ardent, clearly knowing, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world.
Dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati,
  He dwells contemplating (the nature of) things in (various) things
ātāpī, sampajāno, satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṁ.
  ardent, clearly knowing, and mindful, after removing avarice and sorrow regarding the world.
Idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, satindriyaṁ.
  This, monks, is called the Faculty of Mindfulness.

... except that it also introduces two other concepts at the beginning, i.e. "carefulness" and "remembering and recalling".
Bikkhu Bodhi said,

Even the word sati, rendered mindfulness, isn’t unproblematic. The word derives from a verb, sarati, meaning “to remember,” and occasionally in Pali sati is still explained in a way that connects it with the idea of memory. But when it is used in relation to meditation practice, we have no word in English that precisely captures what it refers to. An early translator cleverly drew upon the word mindfulness, which is not even in my dictionary. This has served its role admirably, but it does not preserve the connection with memory, sometimes needed to make sense of a passage.

... so it implies "remembering" too

If viharati & passī were sati then wouldn't they be called 'sati'?

Maybe "sati" should have been translated into English as "remindfulness".

There are variant "present" words'  meanings in tipitaka and commentaries because of variant sutta contexts such as ability of listener, etc.
Commentaries collected  "present" words in tipitaka as 3 periods: present by rebirth period, present by doing period, and present by citta&rūpa arising period. Another  "present" word that focus on arising khandha, now.
present by birth period (addhāna-paccupanna)
The kammaṭṭhāna teacher, such as buddha, will teach this meaning to the beginner practitioner who has gotten jhāna or uggatitaññū/diṭṭhicarita-vipacitaññū. So this meaning always use in suttanta-pitaka especially paṭiccasamuppāda. So in abhidhamma-pitaka, vibhaṅga that was memorized by sariputta-mahāsāvaka then retaught in his  literal,  wrote that paṭiccasamuppāda by rebirth, is suttanta-method. And in paṭisambhidāmagga, that author by sāriputta-mahāsāvaka, wrote that viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is rebirth (paṭisaṇdhi). Also bhaddekarattasutta.
present by doing period (santati-paccupanna)
The kammaṭṭhāna teacher, such as buddha, will teach this meaning to a fool who can not  get high level vipassanā (udayabbayañāṇa) or neyya/taṇhācarita-vipacitaññū. For the example in mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta "sāmissaṃ vā sukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vediyamāno sāmissaṃ sukkhaṃ vedanaṃ vediyāmīti pajānāti". Or in commentary such as arūpadhammānaṃ upaṭṭhānākārakathā
 and indriyatikkhakāraṇanavakakathā of visuddhimagga.
***Doing period is period between after come from the hotter temperature place then sit in the colder place, between the temperature changing is present doing period. Another same vīthi's javanāni are present doing period.
present by citta&rūpa period  (khaṇa-paccupanna, paccuppannā dhammā)
***Khaṇa is  the smallest period in the universe. It is just arising part+lving part+vanishing part (3 anukhaṇa) of citta&rūpa. There are more than trillion khanā while just snapping fingers. Every suffering truth that have own causes to make it's arising, has their own khaṇa period. So 11 group khandha have their own present arising: past khandha arising, future khandha arising, present khandha arising, self khandha arising, others khandha arising, not smooth khandha arising, smooth khandha arising, good khandha arising, and bad khandha khandha arising. So past and future khandha are reality, that is the object of vipassanā meditation, too.
Arising Present khandha As the Object Of Vipassanā Meditation
The kammaṭṭhāna teacher, such as buddha, will teach this meaning to the advance practitioner who can clearly comprehend paṭiccasamuppāda. Because practitioner who already understand paṭiccasamuppāda, has already seen anicca/dukkha/anatta-lakkhaṇa of the whole khandha (11 group khandha: past, future, present, self, others, not smooth, smooth, good, and bad khandha). He already has auto clearly comprehended in them, so when he is sitting to do vipassanā meditate, without the other jobs, his object should be the present himself that  comprehending another object. Present himself, arising khandha khaṇa, is the closest khandha to
 be attached by taṇhā/diṭṭhi/māna. The mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta's commentary very focus in this meaning, because kuru people are uggaṭitaññū.
P.S. It is very very deep,very hard to explain. Please see every  reference to understand  "present".

bhaddekarattasutta refers to the "present dhammas" or "present sense objects"

paṭisaṇdhi is not in the suttas. viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda is not rebirth. paṭisambhidāmagga is not sutta.

Search "atītamaddhāna" in tipitaka. See how to use the word. Then go back to read  bhaddekarattasutta. Reader always destroy tipitaka, so buddha had chosen reciting, not reading.  Before I decide something, I will make the research first. You make the same mistake like your teacher, buddhadāsa, who lazy to learn, then try to cut tipitaka instead. So he never understand why commentary who memorized tipitaka decide to comment like the text that buddhadāsa cutted off. Commentary declare themselves to keep tipitaka, not  to cut off or modify tipitaka like buddhadāsa already done.

atītamaddhāna is about the past

‘‘sace maṃ, bhante, evaṃ puccheyyuṃ – ‘ahosi tvaṃ atītamaddhānaṃ, na tvaṃ na ahosi; bhavissasi tvaṃ anāgatamaddhānaṃ, na tvaṃ na bhavissasi; atthi tvaṃ etarahi, na tvaṃ natthī’tiฯ evaṃ puṭṭho ahaṃ, bhante, evaṃ byākareyyaṃ – ‘ahosāhaṃ atītamaddhānaṃ, nāhaṃ na ahosiṃ; bhavissāmahaṃ anāgatamaddhānaṃ, nāhaṃ na bhavissāmi; atthāhaṃ etarahi, nāhaṃ natthī’tiฯ evaṃ puṭṭho ahaṃ, bhante, evaṃ byākareyya’’ntiฯ

‘‘sace pana taṃ, citta, evaṃ puccheyyuṃ – ‘yo te ahosi atīto attapaṭilābho, sova [sveva (sī. pī.), soyeva (syā.)] te attapaṭilābho sacco, mogho anāgato, mogho paccuppanno? yo [yo vā (pī.)] te bhavissati anāgato attapaṭilābho, sova te attapaṭilābho sacco, mogho atīto, mogho paccuppanno? yo [yo vā (pī.)] te etarahi paccuppanno attapaṭilābho, sova [so ca (ka.)] te attapaṭilābho sacco, mogho atīto, mogho anāgato’tiฯ evaṃ puṭṭho tvaṃ, citta, kinti byākareyyāsī’’ti?

This is meaning that used in many sutta, included bhaddekarattasutta. You should research and recite before decide something in tipitaka.

Paṭisandhi is jāti-paṭiccasamuppāda and viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda. In dukkha-ariyasacca-niddesa of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta explained that jāti is khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo. So Saṅkhārā are paccayā (cause) of viññāṇa, rūpa, vedanā, saññā, and saṅkhārakhandha (phassa cetanā vitakka vicāra taṇhā upādāna kammbhava). Then that saṅkhārakhandha become to paccayā (cause) of jati (patisandhi) again. loop.

The oft-cited Bāhiya Sutta is a good example of present-moment-awareness:

“Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
two. This, just this, is the end of stress.”2

There is only one thing missing: the goal at hand, aka mindfulness.  with the clear goal in mind, Bāhiya is all set to go.

The question is about the definition of "sati".

@ruben2020 bahiya sutta describes sati as present-moment-awareness...

Where in the Bahiya Sutta does the word "sati" appear? Please see link for inline Pali text.

@ruben2020 it is to be inferred, not as definition but description

@ruben2020 so can mindfulness be applied to worldly activities such as driving?


text:
Is belief in the end of experience wrong view according to the Buddha?
I read on the internet the following opinion:

... the view that death marks the end of experiencing, that death is the end of experience... this, according to the Buddha, is wrong
  view.

However, Dhammapada 41 states:

Vata  Alas! Ayam kåyo  This body, Aciram  Cannot endure. Apetaviñ
  Apetaviññåno  When consciousness is gone, Chuddho  They throw it away,
  Adhisessati Adhisessati  To lie,   Pathavi Pathavim  Upon the earth
  Kalimgaram iva  Like a fallen log, Nirattham Useless,
  meaningless ...

Also, the last words of the Buddha from DN 16 are:

"Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

If experience did not end at the termination of life, why would Dhp 41 use the word "Alas!"?
If experience did not vanish at the termination of life, why should a Buddhist practitioner strive with earnestness?

Why should he strive if experience ends at termination of life?

I don't remember now the sutta name, maybe colleagues can help me with the quote, this is inexact :
To one who see the arising aspect of the world with wisdom there is no anihilationist view and to one who see the passing away aspect of the world there is no eternalist view.

Sutta sounds like SN 12.15 https://suttacentral.net/en/sn12.15 .


text:
Why did Yamaka have wrong view in SN 22.85?
In Yamaka Sutta, this was wrong view:

As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more (mental) effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
  annihilated, perishes & does not exist after death.

In Yamaka Sutta, this was right view:

Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?
Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is
  unsatisfactory (dukkha). That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and
  gone to its end.

Most Buddhists believe an arahant has ended the cycle of reincarnations. If so, what made the view of Yamaka wrong view?
Also, what makes the right view here right view?

The first view is wrong because ven. Yamaka thought that there is a self that ends at Nibbana. In other words, he thought that the five aggregates is a self.
The seconds view is right because it doesn't  take the five aggregates as a self.
Also the second view is talking about an Arahath. Not an ordinary being. So this has nothing to do with Annihilationism.

A very good answer comes from the Ananda Sutta (SN44.10):

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
  self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
  with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism
  [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being
  asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer
  that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &
  contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that
  death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by
  Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that
  there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of
  knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
  Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'"

Did the self that the monk used to have before Nibbana suddenly not exist any more after Parinibbana? That's the wrong view.
Instead of looking at it from this way, the Buddha prefers to look at it from the perspective of dependent origination.
There is another good exposition of this in the Acela Sutta (SN12.17). Please see this answer for a discussion on this.
There are also the six wrong views of the self in Sabbasava Sutta (MN2):

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
  established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
  true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
  mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
  good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
  everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
  is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
  views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
  Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
  not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
  stress.

My analogy here is concerning different application windows running on a PC like the browser, a wordprocessor, a spreadsheet etc. Do they truly exist? Not quite - they are simply overlaid images on the screen by software (essentially 1s and 0s - electrical signals moving through electronic circuits), that goes off when the PC is switched off. Then do they truly not exist? That's not true either because they exist in the way that you can use them to do productive work. So, instead of discussing whether those application windows truly exist or truly not exist, we should view them from the perspective of how they arise and disappear, and arise again and disappear again, from a technical perspective.
The Yamaka Sutta discusses later on, that such wrong views come about due to associating the five aggregates with the self. This is also discussed in the Samanupassana Sutta (SN22.47).

"In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no
  regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their
  Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or
  disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self,
  or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as
  in form.

And the same applies to the other four aggregates.


text:
Was Anuruddha, one of the ten Great Disciples of the Buddha, born in Sri Lanka?
When I was searching for the translated name from Chinese 阿那律 to Sanskrit while attempting a comment on one post, I entered 阿那律 or Anuruddha to Google it came up with the list and the usual short brief at the right corner of the screen, to my amusement the brief said:

Anuruddha
Born: Sri Lanka

Though I open the brief the Wikipedia full page is Born: Kapilavastu, India
Is there a movement to relocate Buddhism (not just relocate, but part of the grand scheme to invent in the sense of re-invent Buddha's teachings) to be originated from Sri Lanka since the Sri Lankan Pali Canon is splendidly adored as the only authentic plus the most early Buddhism's teaching? - As the first step. Now here comes the next step to relocate Buddha gradually first by migrating :D !! one of his ten major disciples? I'm diligently waiting to be enlightened in this context.

thank you @ChrisW. but you edited my original question to render this question totally like an idiot making a silly question. i can do nothing but only to remove it.

I restored your original question.

thank you @ChrisW we should respect all Buddhist schools. also as Buddhists we should uphold the correct teachings, neither should let it being corrupted by insider nor outsider. thus it's a valid question to ask in this manner. anyone concerned should be aware of if there is such an attempt or trend.

Anuruddha-mahāsāmi (thai:anuruddhācāriya) was one of ancient saṅgarāja in sri lanka. He author abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, that is popular summary of  abhidhamma-pitaka.

thank you for enlightening me on this piece of knowledge of the abhidhamma-pitaka. but in term of prominence if i simply type Anuruddha it should come up with the info of Anuruddha-mahasami.

It is bug of google.

if i simply type Anuruddha it should come up with the info of Anuruddha-mahasami. - typo: it shouldn't

By over 10 years experience with pali canon, I completely say that no pali canon wrote "anuruddha-aggasavaka born in sri lanka". Just google wrote it.

I've no previous experience with how Google creates this kind of summary.
I'm not sure I understand where Google got that data from, to put in its summary -- "Sri Lanka" isn't given in any version of the history of the Wikipedia article.
There are modern Anuruddhas born in Sri Lanka (e.g. a cricketer) but that (mixing different people with the same name) seems like an unlikely or silly mistake for Google to make.
The image (of a statue) in the Google summary does comes from a different web site (not Wikipedia) though, so maybe Google does aggregate data from different sites somehow.
Based on this page I wonder if it's possible that Google prefers to scrape its data from Wikidata instead of from Wikipedia -- the Wikidata entry for Anuruddha doesn't include a birth place (it was in the Wikipedia article but not in the Persondata template when the Persondata template was migrated to Wikidata) so perhaps Google is aggregating from several sites, getting its information mixed up, or confusing it with a modern Anaruddha?
If you want to report a correction to Google's summary, perhaps you could try editing the Wikidata entry, and/or pressing the Feedback link on the Google summary.

it's the same result with born: Sri Lanka when I entered 阿那律. i can't see there would be a person in the same name as 阿那律 in the manner your explaint above, @ChrisW.

I too see "born: Sri Lanka" in the Google summary, same as shown in the image you posted. What I don't know is where Google gets that data from. I know that people sometimes make (disputed) edits to Wikipedia, and so I thought that maybe Google was displaying someone's old Wikipedia edit ... but in the history of the Wikipedia article I see no version with that data. I cannot confirm nor deny your hypothesis, that a human created that data intentionally.

thx for the knowledge of the technical part about how Google/Wikipedia renders data etc.


text:
What does "break-up of the body after death" mean in the suttas?
The Pali suttas, particularly in teachings about kamma, has the phrase: "at the break-up of the body after death".
Are there contexts other than kamma where this phrase is used?
What does "break-up of the body after death" actually mean in the suttas?
Are these words in the language of materialism?
Do they have a non-materialistic meaning?

"break-up of the body" refers to conventional death. It doesn't refer to instant death of experiences.

Evidence? Thanks

The excerpt from your own question here has a reference which is clearly describing about conventional death :)

Sankha kulanthantille so the break up of the body is when the body is cremated rather than when you die?

@TheDBSGuy it refers to death.

I don’t know if this is truth but when people die do their mind made body come out of their body and wander around till their body is cremated or destroyed?

@TheDBSGuy when the person is dead, the body cannot support the mental stream anymore. So it doesn't matter if the body is cremated or not. It is just going to rot if it is not cremated.

There are beliefs in some Buddhist countries that when a person die their “soul” come out of the body and that it look just like the physical body and wander around. For me, this doesn’t make sense because as long as there is a body invisible of visible the five aggregates are present therefore there is no soul.

There is no such thing called the soul according to Buddhism. It could be a Peta or a Gandhabba life.

There are 3 things that defines your lifespan. Body heat, Life span (Ayusha) and Consiousness. All 3 things needs to come to an end to have your body break apart as mentioned in your question. The heat of the body should fade away, the life span should come to an end and the consiousness leaves the body.
That is why when Arahants are in Nirodha Samapatti which means they are not breathing, literally, they don't die. Because those 3 factors are still there.
That's what you mean by "at the break of the body".

My answer:
The word 'kaya' means 'group' or 'collection'.
The word 'death' or 'marana' means the death of 'a being' ('satta'), which is a 'self-view', as stated in SN 23.2, SN 5.10 and SN 12.2.
For example, if a person gets drunk on alcohol, the body (rupa) & mind (nama) are made up of a certain & specific collection of aggregates & elements, such as alcohol in the blood & happy feelings & uninhibited thoughts. The drunk person or aggregates identifies with being drunk & dances & sings: "I am so happy. I love alcohol".
But when the alcohol wears off; this is the ending of the 'kaya' ('body'). This is 'death' of that state of 'being' or 'identity'.
The next day, the person or aggregates have a very bad headache from drinking alcohol and regret they drank alcohol. Here, a new 'being' ('satta' - illusion of self) takes birth in hell (suffering) because of the kamma of drinking alcohol.
Therefore, "break-up of the body after death" means the break-up of one collection of aggregates & the arising of another collection of aggregates, which also results in the death of a self-identity and birth of a new self-identity.
The is why the suttas say: "In laying down one body & taking up another body is blameworthy".
This is a knowable visible here & now and non-materialistic discernment.


text:
What is the meaning of 'two truths' in the Manorathapūraṇī?
In the Manorathapūraṇī (a later-day commentary), it is written:

duve saccāni akkhāsi sambuddho vadataṃ varo sammutiṃ paramatthañca tatiyaṃ nupalabbhati
The Awakened One, best of speakers, Spoke two kinds of truths: The conventional and the ultimate. A third truth does not obtain.
tattha: saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ lokasammutikāraṇaṃ paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ dhammānaṃ tathalakkhaṇan ti
Therein: The speech wherewith the world converses is true On account of its being agreed upon by the world. The speech which describes what
  is ultimate is also true, Through characterizing dhammas as they
  really are.
tasmā vohārakusalassa lokanāthassa satthuno sammutiṃ voharantassa musāvādo na jāyatī ti
Therefore, being skilled in common usage, False speech does not arise in the Teacher, Who is Lord of the World, When he speaks according to
  conventions.
(Mn. i. 95)

Is this saying worldly people understand dhamma different to enlightened people & that worldly people do not understand dhammas as they really are but only how they imagine them to be?

I haven't read Manorathapūraṇī. Is there an internet link to the source? It is interesting to read the comment "A third truth does not obtain" This is the first time I heard that term. So I gave you a score up.

See also Conventional versus Ultimate and What is the difference between relative and absolute truth in Buddhist philosophy?

I am not sure for this quote's quality because my english is terrible. However, this is the easiest way to answer on mobile phone.

Realities - There are two realities - apparent and ultimate. Apparent reality is ordinary conventional truth (sammuti-sacca). Ultimate reality is abstract truth (paramattha-sacca).
For instance, the smooth surface of the table we see is apparent reality. In an ultimate sense the apparent surface consists of forces and qualities or in other words, vibrations.
For ordinary purposes a scientist would use the term water, but in the laboratory he would say H2O. In the same way the Buddha in the Sutta Pitaka resorts to conventional usage such as man, woman, being, self, etc., but in the Abhidhamma Pitaka He adopts a different mode of expression. Here He employs the analytical method and uses abstract terms such as aggregates (khandha), elements (dhātu), bases (āyatana), etc.

http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_1.htm