text:
How does Theravada practice to obtain the direct knowledge of anatta?
In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta. I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain? In particular, is SN 5.10 included:

“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?  Māra,
  is this your theory?  This is just a pile of conditions,  you won’t
  find a sentient being here.
When the parts are assembled  we use the word ‘chariot’.  So too, when
  the aggregates are present  ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
But it’s only suffering that comes to be,  lasts a while, then
  disappears.  Naught but suffering comes to be,  naught but suffering
  ceases.”

I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature. It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge of anatta. Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is merely a convention.
So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta?
How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King?
Are there other Suttas which take precedence? What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?

Short answer: Theravada practices the four satipatthana to get insight into anicca, dukkha and anatta. See. the Satipatthana sutta.

There's no cutting corners nor shortcuts in Theravada. SN 5.10 speaks the truth. But to actually attain direct knowledge to this truth as opposed to mere conceptual understanding, one has to perfect the Gradual trainings of Sila-Samadhi-Panna, which Ven. Bodhi did a great job of explaining in his "Noble Eightfold Path". And to each aspect of the gradual trainings, there are many different suttas one'd need to read, study, contemplate, and put into practice (ie: for Sila: AN 8.39-43, 3.70, Sn 2.4, SN 3.5; for Samadhi: Anapanasati Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta; for Panna: MN 43, AN 8.2, AN 3.73, AN 7.6, and many more as detailed in Ven. Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words"). There're no shortage of teachers in the world who can eloquently speak at great length about all the ins and outs of anatta/shunyata and stuff. But when facing some young voluptuous beautiful women, some title, some power, some cash, etc. then the number start dropping like flies! Why? Because they're the experts of Anatta who fail the basics of Sila-Samadhi-Panna.

The outsider ordinary people of Buddhism don't have anattā-understanding in any mind-moment. They never know, so they never do anything follow to it.
The buddhist ordinary people, the practitioners, have a conceptual anattā-understanding in some mind-moments, but it still being a concept. So, they do something follow to it sometime, but sometime they forget, not be mindful on, it and do some improper things, too.
The sotāpanna have the perfect anattā-understanding in every mind-moments, so they  do everything follow to it.
If you understand like that, every sutta are the answer for your question.
And the reference sutta is the end of Sutta. Ma. Mū. Alagaddūpamasuttaṃ:

"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, are all stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
...
"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have a [sufficient] measure of conviction in me, a [sufficient] measure of love for me, are all headed for heaven. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags."

What you did, is what you take. If you still understand anatta as a concept, then your fetters still going on. So, the effect is not the same as sotāpanna, who does every moments of his life by anattā-understanding.

We disagree about the definition of sotāpanna, but that is minor. More substantially, you seem to equate having knowledge of anattā in every mind moment with direct knowledge of anatta. Is this what you are after? Like, when I walk into a room and know without a shadow of doubt that an Elephant is not in that room with me and in each subsequent mind moment in that room I don't for even an instance think that an Elephant is in that room with me? Is this how it is with anatta?

@YesheTenley  No, it isn't. I described  "direct vs inferential anattā-understanding". I didn't described about anattā. But If I have to describe about anattā, I will describe as "Every aggregates are being in paṭiccasamuppāda, and nothing can control paṭiccasamuppāda (causes&effects). So, every aggregates are anattā".

Thanks @Bonn, I can't say I completely understand your answer, but I am grateful for the attempt

Well the goal of the practice is not the direct knowledge of anatta. That already does not bode well. The goal of the practice for the puthujjana is the nibbidā, which is the disenchantment, the viraga, the dispassion, and the nibbana which is the cessation of dukkha.
The disciple must always have sati, which is having in mano and ideally in the citta the teaching and if there is only one paragraph to remember is the famous sequence that what is annica is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta, what is anatta is worthy of disappointment and once there is disappointment or dispassion there is the cessation of dukkha and its knowledge. The few puthujjanas who are obsessed with atta and anatta and atman do not talk about the end of the sequence. Their usual sequence is what is anicca is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta and they stop here. Just like The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta
where the conclusion is

"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"

And the usual way to go beyond understanding annica, which is called  Aniccānupassī, is precisely the method of the anapanasati sutta.
The beginning is the usual rise of samadhi for the citta and calming all the Shankaras that are still here. Just like for the jahnas. This is as far as a puthujana go without the teaching.
Of course, for the good puthujjanas, they want to go beyond the usual samadhi and want to stop being puthujjanas. Once the citta has samadhi or is in samadhi, then it is time to  Aniccānupassī, which again means "deeply see impermanence" so it is the vipassana that so many puthujjanas crave and manage to claim they got and do.
Now the sutta does not talk about dukkha and anatta of the sequence, since that's not really the goal, and jump form the annica to the goal, which is the  Virāgānupassī, meaning the dispassion, and  paṭinissaga, which is the "rejection of the things" and that's nibanna.
So again, the disciple begins with sati, but of course sati is not really an action. What is done for and with the rise of sati and the development of sati is the anapanasati or the Satipatṭhāna.
THe easiest way to have sati is the be around good people and to avoid bad people. The good people are the kalyāṇamitta who are the good friends meaning they show sagacity for the dhamma and  do not cause drama over material things and rules, conventions and norms.

You are right that the direct knowledge of anatta is not the goal. I agree with that. However, the direct knowledge of anatta is necessary as a prerequisite for achieving the goal. We seem to disagree, but thank you for your input.

A sentient being is not the same as the self. Please see this answer which explains why plants are not sentient beings, unlike animals. "Sentient beings" is the convention used to denote the presence of the five aggregates.
So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta? Are there other Suttas which take precedence?
Conversations between Nagasena and the king (Milindapanha) is not part of the Pali Canon. So, it is considered a secondary text.
My favourite sutta on the self is the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205):

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
  sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
  'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
  sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
  so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
  & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
  is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
  your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
  sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
  through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
  in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
  the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
  lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
  through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
  Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
  shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
  in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
  Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
  let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
  sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
  been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
  He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
  investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
  or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

Using a musical instrument you can play nice music. But if you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Music cannot be isolated from the musical instrument. Similarly, the self arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates. You cannot isolate the self from the five aggregates.
Perhaps, you can look at it in this way: The musical instrument is the sentient being. The music coming out of the musical instrument is the self. The musical instrument is composed of various parts which are analogous to the five aggregates. When these parts work together, they make music. The way they work together is dependent origination.
I think the dependent origination of the Pali Suttas are more complex than a mere assembly of parts. It describes a far more complex interaction. The Buddha stated that if you understand dependent origination, you understand the Dhamma in MN 28.
The Upanisa Sutta (SN 12.23) describes dependent origination and also the path to understanding it using the water flow allegory - this is more like a chain of processes where each link in the chain depends on each other - it's not an assembly of parts:

"Just as when the gods pour rain in heavy drops & crash thunder on the
  upper mountains: The water, flowing down along the slopes, fills the
  mountain clefts & rifts & gullies. When the mountain clefts & rifts &
  gullies are full, they fill the little ponds. When the little ponds
  are full, they fill the big lakes. When the big lakes are full, they
  fill the little rivers. When the little rivers are full, they fill the
  big rivers. When the big rivers are full, they fill the great ocean.
  In the same way:
"Fabrications have ignorance as their prerequisite, consciousness has
  fabrications as its prerequisite, name-&-form has consciousness as
  their prerequisite, the six sense media have name-&-form as their
  prerequisite, contact has the six sense media as its prerequisite,
  feeling has contact as its prerequisite, craving has feeling as its
  prerequisite, clinging has craving as its prerequisite, becoming has
  clinging as its prerequisite, birth has becoming as its prerequisite,
  stress & suffering have birth as their prerequisite
Conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite.
  Joy has conviction as its
  prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, serenity has
  rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its
  prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite,
  knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has
  concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge &
  vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite,
  dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has
  dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its
  prerequisite."

Another description of the dependent origination based on the allegory of reeds leaning on each other from the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta (SN 12.67) - this is also not an assembly of parts:

"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for
  there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that
  intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said.
  It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one
  another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition
  comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes
  name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six
  sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes
  contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
  feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
  requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of suffering & stress.
"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other
  would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would
  fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the
  cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes
  the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes
  the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six
  sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of
  contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling
  comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes
  the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of
  clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the
  cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation
  of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &
  despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of
  suffering & stress."

What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?
From the Kimsuka Sutta (SN 35.204):

"Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong
  walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced,
  intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in
  those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would
  say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this
  fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central
  square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate
  report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the
  route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming
  from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper,
  'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say,
  'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of
  messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the
  fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come.
"I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message
  is this: The fortress stands for this body — composed of four
  elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel,
  subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart.
  The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper
  stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for
  tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the
  fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the
  four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the
  fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for
  Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the
  noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right
  action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration."

I think the above quote should be self-explanatory. Also, please see the Upanisa Sutta quote above, which I quote again below:

Conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite. Joy has
  conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite,
  serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its
  prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite,
  knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has
  concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge &
  vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite,
  dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has
  dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its
  prerequisite."

Thanks, Theravada doesn't hold Nagasena to have been an Arahant? Also, I don't get your distinction about "sentient being?" You don't think Vajira is displaying knowledge of the doctrine of anatta when she replies to Mara?

@ruben2020 actually, Milindapanha is included in Khuddaka Nikaya and considered part of the Pali Canon in Burma (but not in Thailand or Sri Lanka - even though the only extant copy is written in the Sri Lankan Pali using the Sinhalese script).

Vajira has correct understanding of anatta, but the terms "sentient being" (satta?) and "self" (atta) are not exactly the same. You can say "all phenomena is not self" but you can't say "all phenomena is not sentient being". It's not exactly the same.

@ruben2020 gotcha, but Vajira is demonstrating the analysis leading to understanding anatta in that sutta, yes? I think the same analysis is used in (SN 35.205): not the parts, not the whole, not the assemblage of parts, etc., ?

No. She is demonstrating the analysis leading to understanding sentient being. For understanding anatta, I would recommend the quoted Vina Sutta. Perhaps, you can look at it in this way: The musical instrument is the sentient being. The music coming out of the musical instrument is the self. The musical instrument is composed of various parts which are analogous to the five aggregates. When these parts work together, they make music.

The way they work together is dependent origination. I think the dependent origination of the Pali Suttas are more complex than a mere assembly of parts. It describes a far more complex interaction.

In this answer you wrote that, according to Mahayana,

What is an Arya being? Someone who has directly perceived emptiness in a completely unmistaken and non-conceptual way while in meditative equipoise.

My opinion is that, per the Pali suttas, people tend to "enter the stream" at a time when they must have been aware of all three characteristics (i.e. dukkha and anicca as well as anatta).
For example, there's the story of Skinny Gotami -- who is (if I can paraphrase) looking for the atta of her dead son -- from doing which she gains insight into her own (its saying "confirmed in the fruit of stream-entry" implies she has abandoned sakkaya ditthi).

Or from the comment which you quoted, which said:

Actually, a conceptual understanding of anatta is insufficient in Theravada. One has to "see it through wisdom" using vipassana. This is explained in the Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89).

I didn't understand that comment's saying One has to "see it through wisdom" using vipassana but the SN 22.89 (which it references) starts with,

And at that time Ven. Khemaka was staying at the Jujube Tree Park, diseased, in pain, severely ill.

I am not getting better, my friend. I am not comfortable. My extreme pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening.

IOW I think that means he's dying.

Perhaps this (i.e. saying that you see all three characteristics) is consistent with doctrine too -- since "doubt about the dhamma" is also associated with stream entry, and the dhamma includes "the three characteristics".

Also since self-view is a cause of (or associated with, or conditions, gives rise to) dukkha, you may perceive self-view if and when you perceive dukkha -- and conversely perceive anatta when you perceive non-dukkha.

So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta?
I don't think "direct knowledge" comes only from reading any sutta. The suttas (and/or the Dhamma) may be needed to explain experience, to describe experience, to guide practice.
Remember that for what it's worth a "human" birth is said to be more propitious/conducive to enlightenment than birth in a higher (i.e. less suffering) realm.

What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?
I'm not sure there's a single "precise method":

I learned 82,000 from the Buddha,
  And 2,000 from the monks;
  These 84,000
  Are the teachings I have memorized.
— the Venerable Ananda, in Theragatha 17.3

The four noble truths, perhaps; or compassion.

you say "I don't think "direct knowledge" comes only from reading any sutta." ... sorry for being unclear. In Great Treatise Volume 3, Je Tsongkhapa devotes a chapter to explaining exactly how one should practice to achieve direct knowledge of shunyata after correctly realizing it inferentially. The method relies upon various analysis including the Analysis of the Chariot. Ruben said that Theravada also understands the necessity of "direct knowledge of anatta" for achieving the goal. So I was looking for what Theravada relies upon that is analogous to Je Tsongkhapa's precise method.

I don't understand the question then. :-) FWIW Wikipedia says "In Pali literature, abhiññā refers to both the direct apprehension of dhamma (translated below as "states" and "qualities") as well as to specialized super-normal capabilities."

It is ok. Could be that I just have wrong idea. I think @AndreiVolkov might even think so too and I find we are usually on the same page even if not on the same paragraph, sentence, word, letter, ink spot, set of molecules, molecule, atom, sub-atomic particle, quantum wave function eigenstate, singularity, etc, etc

The suttas are slightly vague about practice -- or if not "vague" let's say "concise" (as if the word "concise" could be applied to the Tipiṭaka). So these days you get different schools of meditation, maybe arguments about "the right way" to practice vipassana. In Theravada there's also the Visuddhimagga which was maybe meant to fill that gap (detailed instructions) "considered the most important Theravada text outside of the Tipitaka canon of scriptures". E.g. Dhammadhatu likes the suttas but not later texts, and says the object is "to let go".

In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta.

The method to attain direct knowledge of anatta is to make the mind quiet (samadhi) so "self" thoughts diminish & also disappear. When this occurs, at the same time, the aggregates such as breathing/body, feelings of rapture, mental defilements and consciousness will be seen directly to be merely those elements/dhatu (breathing, body, feelings, defilements, consciousness, etc).
Its like observing a computer. It can be easily seen there is no 'self' in a computer; that a computer is just metal, plastic, paint, wires, glass, etc.

I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain?

The Eightfold Path explains, namely, abandoning wrong thoughts (2nd factor); abandoning covetousness & distress (7th factor); abandoning unwholesome and developing wholesome/supramundane (6th factor); developing samadhi (8th factor), which makes subtle thoughts naturally disappear. When samadhi develops by "letting go" (SN 48.10), direct knowledge of anatta occurs without an act of will (AN 11.2).

In particular, is SN 5.10 included: “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’? Māra, is this your theory? This is just
  a pile of conditions, you won’t find a sentient being here.

The above is just intellectual. It might help abandon self-thoughts but it takes a prolonged cleansing of self-thoughts for direct knowledge of anatta to arise towards everything.

When the parts are assembled we use the word ‘chariot’. So too, when the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

This is just intellectual, again. It is the words of an arahant disciple to the evil Mara who believes "a being" is an thing rather than merely a "view".
Dependent Origination explains in its 11th condition about the "birth" ("jati") of these views or ideas or superstitions of "a being".
"A being" is also explained in SN 23.2; as merely an idea born from craving & attachment. In other words, there are no such thing as "sentient beings" apart from views, concepts & ideas.
This is what Venerable Sariputta teaches Yamaka in SN 22.85; that a Tathagata is not a "sentient being" that "dies" or that is "annihilated".

But it’s only suffering that comes to be, lasts a while, then disappears. Naught but suffering comes to be, naught but suffering
  ceases.”

The arising of the idea of "a being" (SN 5.10) or "self" (SN 12.15) is merely the arising of suffering; born from craving & ignorant contact (SN 22.81).

I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using
  analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature.

No. This is wrong. If the Analysis of the Chariot expounded in SN 5.10 was the best method for quickly realising anatta then Mara in SN 5.10 would have realised anatta.

It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge
  of anatta.

No. AN 11.2 says the method to achieve the direct knowledge occurs without an act of will. The very craving to analyze the aggregates itself produces "self".
The "self" cannot realise "anatta" by engaging in intellectual Mahayana analysis. The "self" must be subsumed with samadhi. Analytical analysis alone won't work.
In the Pali suttas, the intellectual analytical analysis is called YONISO MANASIKARA, which is used preliminary to the Path.

Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is
  merely a convention.

The above is merely intellectual. The realisation of anatta in confirmed when all craving and all defilements are destroyed in the mind. The realisation of anatta results in the IMPOSSIBILITY of suffering ever occurring again.

So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta?

No. Theravada does not agree with Mahayana.

How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King?

There is no evidence Nagasena was an arahant because he says many wrong things that even a child can refute.

Edited to remove controversial and provoking opinions.


text:
In which text first time "Gautama leaving Yashodhara for searching truth" story is written?
In which text first time "Gautama leaving Yashodhara for searching truth" story is found to be written?
 This text was written how many years after death of Buddha?

See also Which suttas in the Pali canon are relatively early or late? -- I'm not sure we know the sequence in which they're written -- so we can't say for sure which time is "the first time", though some people guess or assess via textual analysis that some bits might be later or altered somehow -- and/or maybe all suttas were written at the same time (i.e. at the 4th council).

If they were first time recorded in fourth council, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Buddhist_council says it happenned in 1st century BC. And Gautama was in fourth century BC. So can we deduce that first time, it was recorded 200-300 years after him?

Gotama left his extended family, clan or royal lineage rather than merely Yashodhara. The earliest Pali suttas never mention Yashodhara but only Gotama's mother & father.

So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and
  while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down
  their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and
  went forth from the home life into homelessness.
Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search

It seems Gotama has no interest in sex and women. The scriptures are not written like a modern romance novel or Hollywood movie.

Monks, I lived in refinement, utmost refinement, total refinement. My father even had lotus ponds made in our palace: one where red-lotuses
  bloomed, one where white lotuses bloomed, one where blue lotuses
  bloomed, all for my sake. I used no sandalwood that was not from
  Varanasi. My turban was from Varanasi, as were my tunic, my lower
  garments, & my outer cloak. A white sunshade was held over me day &
  night to protect me from cold, heat, dust, dirt, & dew.
I had three palaces: one for the cold season, one for the hot season, one for the rainy season. During the four months of the rainy season I
  was entertained in the rainy-season palace by minstrels without a
  single man among them, and I did not once come down from the palace.
  Whereas the servants, workers, & retainers in other people's homes are
  fed meals of lentil soup & broken rice, in my father's home the
  servants, workers, & retainers were fed wheat, rice, and meat.
Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person,
  himself subject to aging... illness... death, not beyond aging, sees
  another who is aged, he is horrified, humiliated & disgusted,
  oblivious to himself that he too is subject to aging, not beyond
  aging. If I — who am subject to aging, not beyond aging — were to be
  horrified, humiliated & disgusted on seeing another person who is
  aged... ill... dead, that would not be fitting for me.' As I noticed
  this, the [typical] young person's intoxication with youth entirely
  dropped away.
Sukhamala Sutta: Refinement

See also Which suttas in the Pali canon are relatively early or late? -- I'm not sure we know the sequence in which suttas were written -- so we can't say for sure which time is "the first time", though some people guess or assess via textual analysis that some bits might be later or altered somehow -- and/or maybe all suttas were written at the same time (i.e. at the 4th council).
If they were first time recorded in fourth council, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Buddhist_council says it happenned in 1st century BC. And Gautama was in fourth century BC. So can we deduce that first time, it was recorded 200-300 years after him?
I think we're meant to understand that the suttas were remembered when they were first spoken (e.g. spoken by Gautama) ... and "recorded" in the First Council ("a gathering of senior monks of the Buddhist order convened just after Gautama Buddha's death in ca. 400 BC").
By "recorded", I mean that they agreed on what to memorise, what to consider as "canon".
They were later written in the Fourth Council:

The council was held in response to a year in which the harvests in Sri Lanka were particularly poor and many Buddhist monks subsequently died of starvation. Because the Pāli Canon was at that time oral literature maintained in several recensions by dhammabhāṇakas (dharma reciters), the surviving monks recognized the danger of not writing it down so that even if some of the monks whose duty it was to study and remember parts of the Canon for later generations died, the teachings would not be lost.

I don't know in which texts "Yashodhara" (or Yasodhara) is mentioned by name -- there are some References in her Wikipedia article.
One the sources (the main source?) of the detailed story of Gautama from before his "noble search" started (i.e. the story with details of his leaving his wife) is in the introduction to the Jataka tales (e.g. here) -- perhaps she isn't mentioned by name though, though his son (named "Rahula") is:

Within the chamber was burning a lamp fed with sweet-smelling oil, and the mother of Râhula lay sleeping on a couch strewn deep with jasmine and other flowers, her hand resting on the head of her son. When the Future Buddha reached the threshold, he paused, and gazed at the two from where he stood.
"If I were to raise my wife's hand from off the child's head, and take him up, she would awake, and thus prevent my departure. I will first become a Buddha, and then come back and see my son." So saying, he descended from the palace.

I'm not sure what the provenance is of the Jataka Tales. They're included in the Khuddaka Nikāya of the Sutta Pitaka but somehow not exactly suttas (I'm not sure whether or when the Buddhist councils were involved with them).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Going to extremes?
In this answer, I wrote a little addendum that picks on a little tick that I find common amongst all kinds of Buddhists. That moderation is a virtue in and of itself without regard to what the object of moderation is. That "going to extremes" is to be totally avoided for all extremes. That the Middle Way of the Buddha counsels moderation should be held for every practice.
That unlike Colby, we shouldn't go too far :)
I think this is wrong.
TADYATHA [OM] GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA
"It is thus: Proceed, proceed, proceed beyond, thoroughly proceed beyond, be founded in enlightenment."
This is the mantra of the Heart Sutra and I interpret it as an exhortation by the Buddha that we should all go to an extreme. Now, regardless whether you think the Heart Sutra authoritative (please be respectful) I think the same exhortation can be found in the Pali Canon.
Consider MN 59:

"And what, Ananda, is another pleasure more extreme & refined than
  that? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending
  of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters &
  remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another
  pleasure more extreme & refined than that."

Emphasis mine. That entire Sutta is understood to my mind as describing the Path and the actual attainment as ever more refined and extreme states of pleasure with the ultimate extreme equated with Nibbana.
If you look, in the Suttas the Buddha is very careful to describe the specific extremes that are to be avoided. I've looked, but can't find any Sutta where the Buddha proclaims that all extremes are to be avoided.
So my questions:

Have I got this wrong or misunderstood?
Are all extremes to be avoided?
Is there any Sutta proclaiming that all extremes are to be avoided?
Is moderation in everything a complete virtue?
Is there anything we should not be moderate about?
If not all extremes, then what is the total list of specific extremes the Buddha specifically warned us against?

BTW, I tagged this personal practice, because I'm of the view that this aversion to extremes is actually a hindrance to progress on the path. If we think that moderation is a virtue in all things we can use this to justify being lazy since we shouldn't be "trying too hard" anyway.
Thanks!

Some questions that touch on "extremes" for ref: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=extreme

I suppose "perfection" is related to this topic -- monks are told to be "perfect in virtue" for example.

@ChrisW, yes, I very much think so. perfection is an extreme after all.

One meaning of the word "perfection" is "a task to have been completed" ... and, of an "extreme", the destination of a path (as well as, the limits at either end of a spectrum).

In general, I've seen only specific extremes and selective middle path in the suttas. I haven't seen anything about all extremes.
The middle path is not necessarily that which is in between two extremes, rather it is could be a different path that does not take extreme viewpoints.
One definition of the middle path comes in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of practice. Here, one takes neither the path of enjoying sensual pleasures in a nihilistic and hedonistic way, nor self-mortification through extreme asceticism. Instead, comes the Noble Eightfold Path, which really isn't about allowing or prohibiting sensual pleasures but covers much more.
Another definition of the middle path comes in the Acela Sutta where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of philosophy. Here, one neither takes viewpoints of eternalism (there is an eternal self) nor annihilationism (there is no self at all and no existence), but rather takes a very different viewpoint, which is of dependent origination.
There are all kinds of advice of moderation that I've seen in the suttas, but they are littered everywhere. I don't think there's a master list somewhere.
For example, for overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see this question). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see this answer) to counter it. So, that's moderation on the practice of the contemplation on unattractiveness.
I've also written this answer on the use of mutually exclusive approaches in practice which balances out the practice of different techniques for different situations. There's a skillful technique for everything. For e.g. here is a technique to inculcate thinking that reduces bad conduct.
Then there's moderation advice for lay people for their material lives. You can read this answer for advice on maintaining livelihood in tune and how to allocate monthly expenses for enjoyment, investment and savings. There's more advice for lay people on finance here and in the Sigalovada Sutta (on relationships, finance, moderation, virtue etc.).
And what about extremes?
This question discusses some extreme technique to get rid of evil thoughts.
Here is an answer by Andrei Volkov that uncovers the advice on extreme perfection of virtue.

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


text:
How do I proceed to seriously study Buddhism?
I have been sincerely studying Buddhism for the last 6-8 months.

I have covered most of the famous authors and teachers namely Ajahn Brahm, Thich Nhat Hanh, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Tenzin Palmo, Alan Watts, D.T. Suzuki, Sharnyu Suzuki.
I watched a few youtube videos of Ajahn Brahm to get some idea of Buddhist outlook towards life.
I read most of the books available out there to cover the history of the Buddha written for the beginners. But I am not much interested in the history, specifically the progress of sangha and spread of Buddhism in East.
I have read a few topics that interest me on this stack.
I completed 2 10 days Vipassana retreat and one-month long Zen retreat which included a mini shesshin.

But now as I see the amount of literature is simply enormous. The Tripitaka, itself is massive. For an e.g., I tried reading an article on 12 nidanas on the wiki but it's difficult to read it that ways. It just feels like information overload.
Can you guide me how should I proceed from here studying Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana?
Give an answer based on the school you are following. In your answer also include the source from where to study, for e.g. 'Read about 8 fold path from this website'.
Please answer in the following format:
Theravada
Study in following order.

4 Noble Truth
8 fold path
10 paramis

Also kindly include the recommended retreat and study centers world over that you know of.
Imagine that I will be studying this dedicatedly for the next 3 years or so. Also, include the online resources and paper books if required.

So you're asking for a study syllabus? For Theravada, you can take a look at AccessToInsight.org's "Path To Freedom: self guided tour to the Buddha's teachings".

@ruben2020 yes something like this, but you can make it more personalize by including books, study centers, retreats and excluding what you think is trivial. I will appreciate if you put it as an answer.

https://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/2017/11/should-lay-buddhists-teach-dhamma.html and https://unmixedtheravada.blogspot.com/2017/09/how-to-find-right-dhamma-teacher.html

Read books by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw

@Dhammadhatu I will appreciate your answer about going about studying Theravada. Thanks.

Maths is a big subject too. And so is German Literature, or Engineering, or Roman History. Perhaps people aim to become competent rather than all-knowing.

I noticed this about the Gelug curriculum (a school of Tibetan Buddhism) -- Geshe:

The Gelug curriculum, which lasts between 12 and 40 years, centers around textual memorization and ritualized debate, and is invariably taught through the medium of the Tibetan language.

And 14th Dalai Lama:

In 1959, at the age of 23, he took his final examination at Lhasa's Jokhang Temple during the annual Monlam or Prayer Festival. He passed with honours and was awarded the Lharampa degree, the highest-level geshe degree, roughly equivalent to a doctorate in Buddhist philosophy.

The Dlaia Lama's training started when he was a young child:

According to the Dalai Lama, he had a succession of tutors in Tibet including Reting Rinpoche, Tathag Rinpoche, Ling Rinpoche and lastly Trijang Rinpoche, who became junior tutor when he was nineteen.

After you read an anthology like In the Buddha's Words, I recommend the answers to these questions, about resources for studying the Pali suttas online:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners (i.e. sequence of the Pali suttas)

I think of this i.e. the Sutta Pitaka as "elementary Theravada doctrine, for lay people".
If you're interested in studying themes you might like Dhammafarer's Sutta Discovery series -- see SD 1 through SD 50 or so of the navigation bar on the right-hand side of this page. Not everyone agrees with everything he writes, but it is well formatted and annotated and cross-referenced.
I find that enabling the Pali translation/dictionary tools of Ven. Sujato's translations on SuttaCentral is helpful too (because part of my initial confusion is from using English words that have several meanings, and from different translators giving different English words, so being to understand what the Pali says is helpful; for that reason I like buddha-vacana.org too, e.g. here or here).

I wish I could tell you how to approach Mahayana. Some of the changes seem big (e.g. the Heart, Diamond, or Lotus Sutras seem to me very different from the Pali suttas), but some other differences seem to me so slight or incremental as to be hardly noticeable.
I think that the suttas (or the Chinese equivalent, i.e. the agamas) are seen as fundamental (or maybe elementary or introductory) by Mahayana schools.
Since finding the Pali suttas I've tried reading some Tibetan texts, and found that (with some knowledge or understanding of what Buddhism is, from the suttas) the Tibetan doctrine/text seems to be easier to make sense of than I think they would have without that.
Maybe you should beware of modern or semi-modern authors who explain things in their own words (e.g. the popular books which introduced "Zen" to American readers, 50 years ago and more) -- perhaps not as clear as studying earlier/original texts from each school.
Also you might be handicapping yourself by studying alone (without someone else), or by study alone (without 'practice'). The Buddha was explicit about depending on and learning from people you admire -- learning "morality" perhaps, in person -- and even if you only consider doctrine (as if it were a subject like Maths or Latin) people usually say it's beneficial to have a good teacher.
I did once read a (non-Buddhist) aphorism, "Don't just study the subject -- study the teacher."

Having warned against modern authors, the meditation instructions/descriptions I've found have tended to be modern authors (or e.g. the Visuddhimagga which itself must have been relatively modern when it was first authored) -- perhaps details or meditation practice were always meant to be taught person-to-person, or by example, or studied/discovered for yourself, anyway there are suttas which describe meditation, and maybe or maybe not that's enough -- anyway many forms (of meditation) are described in old texts, and there's more than one modern school as you know.
If you're trying to create a new habit (your having completed 10-day and month-long retreats, perhaps you're past that) maybe it's better to practice for 5 minutes every day than to practice for half an hour but only once a week.

Finally sila is important, fundamental. I've seen it described as a basis or root -- I wonder if it's a goal or fruit as well. Anyway not just book-learning, not just teachers, and not just meditation either, IMO.
Maybe not just negative too (e.g. "self-restraint" and "silence" and "harmlessness"), but also positive (e.g. "generosity" and "right speech" and the brahmaviharas).

Thank you for answer. The place where I live does not have any Buddhist monasteries or Theravada or Mahayana teacher. In India we have a different school of Buddhism called Navayana, but it is more of a political offshoot rather than a tradition practicing for nirvana.  So I am seriously handicapped on that part. I was hoping to read all this stuff because many questions pop up in day to day life, many are also related to the environment and society you are from, for e.g. the answer I received about the rihnocerous sutra cleared many doubts, otherwse it was difficult to find those answers.

@FriedrickNietzsche Have you been to http://www.panditarama-lumbini.info/ ? One of my current teachers (see my post) lives there for most of the year.

@Medhiṇī thankyou for the link. I haven't been there, but it's still too far away from me. It's in Nepal, do you live there, in Nepal?

@FriedrickNietzsche No, I don't. Ven. Vivekananda fortunately travels around the world. I know of another place in Ladakh. That's even further. Sorry, those two places are the only Theravada places I know in India.

@Medhiṇī its funny how its completely wiped out from the place of its origin.

@Friedrick You could always mail them. Maybe they no someone near you. :)

This directory lists 400+ centres in India.

@ChrisW thankyou for the link. I have visited two of the places there. Its difficult to find a monk/techer who is simultaneously well acquainted with both the practise as well as complexities of modern life. Besides its written as theravada but in reality there are hardly 100-200 real theravada people in india. In reality most of them are political converts. Till date I haven't met a buddhist here who is calling him/herself buddhist because he/she wants to attain nibbana. The matter is extreamly complex. my be I'll have to go to Bodh Gaya for this.

no offence to anyone but that is truth.

@FriedrickNietzsche I don't mean to criticise you. Where I live, too, at least for now, is far from any monastery.

@ChrisW ahh no no, I didn't take it that ways, it didn't crossed my mind, sorry if my reply felt that ways. I just tried to explain the situation, I was assuming you are in the US, I just meant to explain the situation.

For those (relatively) new to Buddhism here is what I'd (generally) advise in order:

Read Bikkhu Bodhi's In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon as this will ground you in the Buddha's own words.
Read HHDL and Thubten Chodron's Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions which will give you a respectful overview of the different traditions extant today and where they agree and where they disagree. Note this book is product of extensive consultation with experts in other traditions and their viewpoints are included. Among those other experts are some that you cite above such as Bikkhu Bodhi, Thich Nhat Hanh.
Find a local community of practitioners and sangha that follow one of the traditions outlined in #2 that fits your interests and predilections. In particular, research the community and the teachers to make sure they are valid. After you've made some investigation you can ask others here which communities do a good job representing the various extant traditions.
Really buckle down and try to understand whichever tradition you've picked in #3 and concentrate on that tradition. Don't go picking different ideas from different traditions until you've first really grokked your own tradition otherwise this will likely lead to a lot of confusion.

I am partial to the Mahayana as taught by the Gelug tradition of Tibetan Buddhism that is authentically taught in the West by the FPMT community and the community at Sravasti Abbey in Washington State. However, there are very good Theravada traditions and teachers and some individuals will be better off with them. Not everyone is the same and you'll have to make your own decisions as what is best for you. Trust yourself to do so.
Hope this helps!

As an aside, this is the course that I followed with the exception of #2 since it was written much later. However, I think I lucked out in finding the community I did as it really was a very good fit. I think #2 is good because it will let you know what you are getting into with #3 with some foresight.

Thank you for the answer. It provided a lot of resources.

You are quite welcome @FriedrickNietzsche and best of luck.

Theravada
In the first year I read a lot. Nowadays, practice comes before study.
My advice would be do practice and look into the texts to figure out what you experienced in practice, if need be. Don't read and try to experience what you've read. That will only lead you to wrong places and will become a hindrance on the path.
Literature
The Noble Eightfold Path, by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, by Bhikkhu Bodhi
Just Seeing, by Cynthia Thatcher
Amazing book which I've read several times already. Cynthia Thatcher was also a meditation teacher.
A Discourse on the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta, by Mahāsi Sayādaw
Well, basically all books by Mahāsi Sayādaw are advisable since he was not only a meditation teacher but also a scholar. Good combo, imho.
The Tree of Wisdom, the River of No Return, by Bhante Sujiva
He was one of my first teachers. He is amazing and incredibly wise.
One of my current teachers is Venerable Vivekananda. Very wise, a lot of humour.
Great teacher.
As far as I know he didn't write anything yet. But a lot of talks can be found here.
Practice
I practice a lot, three retreats a year and of course daily meditation at home. Reading comes second.
Further daily practice includes taking and practicing the five precepts. In addition I cultivate the ten parami and watch one of the four satipatthana in daily life. That's about it.

Thanks for all the great info. I'll go through all of it.

It will be a short answer to your question about studying Vajrayana, but I will tackle it fully only theory-wise. Practise bit will be more relaxed advice.
If you'd like to study Vajrayana step by step, there isn't a better single source than:

Study Buddhism project

Order of steps I won't provide here since it has order formulated there in form of a designed path of learning.
Practise-wise, it depends where are you based. I could help more with London, I presume you're not UK based so I will list some global communities options. So, there are many global organisations, world-wide, some controversial ones due to past/recent misconduct, like Shambhala or Rigpa, and others controversial due to the nature of teachings (or unclear transmission), like Diamond Way. I would possibly stay away to be on the safe side and pick something authentic that is local.
In terms of the latter, in Vajrayana, it is generally speaking best to get involved in a place with a resident Lama that at the same time also conducts plenty of teachings and events, courses. You will always start from a generic course on meditation and then continue on developing Shamatha, then after some time proceed into Vajrayana refuge, and then preliminaries. It takes a couple of years to finish prelims until you start doing some real deal stuff, so be warned.
I hope it helped.

If you do not wish to become a Buddhist scholar, I would suggest to stay away from too much literature.
You do not need retreat centers and gurus either. If you are interested in practical Buddhism, i.e., personality change, I suggest you focus on meditation.
Talking about meditation, again, it is easy to get caught up on technique and irrelevant details. Try to remember that you should not look for anything complicated. True revelation is subtle, simple, calm, and mostly independent of the method.
Meditation is the mind observing how the mind works. There is nothing more to it. It thus follows that there are many ways of meditation. Sooner or later, all of them leads to insight. The trick is to be efficient enough so that it happens within your lifetime.
This is the guy who kickstarted my investigation. I recommend him for beginners, because of his no-nonsense, to-the-point attitude. Expect that your path will diverge after a while but that is OK.


text:
A noobs balance. Where to go on my journey?
I’ll keep this short and sweet. Recently I’ve been pondering the idea of becoming a professor of Eastern Religions, particularly Buddhism. I can’t put my finger on it exactly, but something about Buddhism, it’s core teachings and practicality, the Buddha himself, and my interactions with avid practitioners (especially my advisor in college who is a Zen Buddhist herself and someone who I greatly admire) have shown me that this is what I want to do with my life. I do not want to be a monk, as my dream is also to be an educator who inspires people and one day have a family.
My question is:

Where do I go from here? One thing I have learned about Buddhism is the danger of over-intellectualization.

How do some of you find a balance between Buddhist practice (which aims to free us from our minds), and using your mind effectively (to learn about the teachings or follow your passion and calling in life)?

Also, for those of you that have PhD’s in this field, what is your advice?
If you have any further questions you need feel free to ask and I greatly appreciate your help.

Edit:
At the moment, I am a 21 year old rising college junior pursuing a major in religious studies.
I meditate daily using the app 10% happier, but as I progress would like to learn more advanced Buddhist specific techniques. There is a sangha run by my professor every Tuesday that I hope to attend when I return to school in a week.
I would say I have a decent grasp of a basic history and understanding of Buddhism and its teachings, yet find myself daunted by just how much there is to learn and a concern of mine is losing myself in the teachings/history which would be required of me if I pursued the career I hope to. Perhaps though, this in itself is a great opportunity to learn balance and the challenges mentioned are all the more reason to pursue. Thank you.

What college are you studying at and what tradition do you study or are you interested in?

Hi there, I go to Kenyon College and am most interested in Tibetan and Zen Buddhism, though am not entirely set on those.  I am aware that there are countless schools within those branches, but at the moment have not focuses entirely on one school as my major focuses mostly on the religions as a whole.

Sorry your question is getting more questions than answers here. See also this (which may be a related topic): Are there any higher education opportunities in Buddhism? Also a question like this might (or might not) possibly be on-topic on the Academia.SE site (e.g. if you posted a question there aimed at Buddhist academics and/or academic Buddhologists).

@FriedrickNietzsche honestly, a little bit of both. I’m a male. Like I said, it will always be my aim to spread peace and joy no matter what career I enter. For me personally I think being a professor of Buddhist studies would bring the best out of me and allow me to best exercise my skills. Also, I found that the biggest inspiration for myself to pursue the dharma in my own life came from learning about it from an objective academic perspective in a classroom. My prof, who is a zen Buddhist, was adamant that she was teaching from an academic perspective independent of her own experience.

@FriedrickNietzsche simply reading the texts for class was enough to inspire me. I remember while reading about the 12 links of dependent arising being able to witness the activity unfolding in my mind. I feel that it is inevitable to read Buddhist texts and not feel somewhat inspired. Perhaps one might not pursue Buddhism, that’s totally fine, but if a class i taught is anything I’d hope it to be, the students would walk away with somewhat a shift in perspective. Again, I recognize the importance of teaching from an objective point of view in an academic setting and that is something I can do

A few thoughts in answer-like form :)

You are only 21, but you might be dead tomorrow. Always keep in mind that we don't know the hour of our death so we should practice now. Young people generally don't think about death too much as it seems far away. As we get older contemplation of death comes more and more, but those young people wise enough to contemplate while young will have a great head start. Knowledge of our own death and how the hour is uncertain can be a great teacher and guide when planning what to do in the here and now.
That's not to say that planning for the future is wrong. Rather, don't be too rigid in your planning. Samsara has a way of interfering with our plans. What you can do is figure out what to do now with an eye towards the future, but don't let your gaze wander too far.
It sounds like you have a perfect human rebirth. Don't waste it! Take advantage of this rebirth and practice Dharma and learn Dharma while you can! Somewhat paradoxically to the above, remember that we practice Dharma not with an eye towards happiness in this life, but with an eye towards happiness in our future lives. If we practice thinking only to achieve happiness in this life we risk falling into worldly desire. Practicing for future lives will help prevent this and also decreases the self-cherishing attitude.
Buddhist Geshe's study in a monastery for 17+ years. I don't think there is any better place to learn Buddhism. Rare and precious are the western individuals who learn Buddhism at Sera Monastery for instance. Did you know you don't necessarily need to be a monk to study and learn at one of these places? I don't think you even have to be Buddhist necessarily...
Of the western places to learn Buddhism you might want to consider https://maitripa.org/ or https://www.iltk.org/en/ if your interest is in Tibetan Buddhism.

Probably the best piece of advice I could give is to go out and seek the advice of the other people who have done which you wish to do instead of asking here :) Go ask Robert Thurman or Alexander Berzin ;)
Hope this helps!

This is fantastic advice, thank you. I appreciate the insight into planning wisely for the future and unhealthily obsessing about it. Also, taking into consideration future lives is not something I thought of so thank you for that. In terms of death contemplation, I recently downloaded the app “we croak” which reminds us of death 5x a day, which I have heard they do in Bhutan daily and is one of the reasons for their happiness. I look to build on this practice. I will also look into these centers. I will be studying abroad in France in the spring, and look retreat at plum village. Thank you.

May the deep insight of direct practice inform your steps and broaden your reach.
You were seeking more knowledge and perhaps had not realized that practice must go hand in hand with study. Study without practice is weakly informed and of little value.
Were you aware that my answer was actually suggesting that you would not find an intellectual answer? This is the danger described in https://suttacentral.net/an5.73/en/thanissaro
Another aspect of practice is that although sitting in peaceful meditation may feel good, it may also not be enough. For example, I studied Zen while in college and after I had meditated for over a decade, I thought I had attained a certain equanimity. But when I went rock climbing, I became irrationally terrified. This pitfall of relying solely on safe and peaceful sitting meditation tends to trap those of us who value thinking and learning. We think we are at peace, but are not. To deepen your practice, also consider the meaning behind MN4, Fear and Terror.. Master Hakuin struggled with this as well and wrestled with the story of Yantou's death shout.. With your practice firmly established, academics will be bright and full.

Hi again, thank you so much for your consideration on my post. This is exactly what I was looking for. I want to be a professor because I feel it is my calling, and specifically of Buddhist studies like my current professor because I find it fascinating and could see myself learning about it academically for the several years it would require for a PhD. That being said, my primary focus in life would be to find the tranquility and isolation as mentioned in the text you attached here. Before I were to enter graduate school, I plan on spending time in a monastery learning Buddhist meditation.

I’m continuing here due to character limit. After that I hope to continue meditative practice (which I have already begun on a basic level) no matter where I go in life, even if I don’t end up as a prof. My main concern was simply finding an appropriate balance between the two (leaning in the direction of independent practice) and your response helped to clarify that for me. I will return often to that sutta.

@user13997 thanks for explaining more about your situation. I have added another sutta reference pertinent to those of us who love to study.

Where do I go from here? One thing I have learned about Buddhism is the danger of over-intellectualization.
That's not true at all. There is a sutta where monks specializing in absorption meditation (jhana) disparaged monks specializing in the study and teaching of the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings), and vice versa.
Here's what Ven. Maha Cunda eventually advised them to do in AN 6.46:

“Thus, friends, you should train yourselves: ‘Being Dhamma-devotee
  monks, we will speak in praise of jhana monks.’ That’s how you should
  train yourselves. Why is that? Because these are amazing people, hard
  to find in the world, i.e., those who dwell touching the deathless
  element with the body.
“And thus, friends, you should train yourselves: ‘Being jhana monks,
  we will speak in praise of Dhamma-devotee monks.’ That’s how you
  should train yourselves. Why is that? Because these are amazing
  people, hard to find in the world, i.e., those who penetrate with
  discernment statements of deep meaning.”

So, while AN 5.73 warns those over-intellectualizing to also practise meditation, AN 6.46 reminds us that learning and understanding the Dharma is quite important too.
There is nothing wrong for those specializing in being Dhamma scholars, and for those specializing in jhana meditation, as long as there is balance and moderation.
However, you must remember that these two suttas are directed at monks, not lay people. Lay people are generally advised to practise the five precepts, practise virtue (Right Action, Right Speech, Right Livelihood) and learn the Dhamma (to have Right View).
Right View is the forerunner of the Noble Eightfold Path according to MN 117. So, if you help others learn the Dhamma in order to help them have the Right View (assuming that you already have Right View), then you are giving them the supreme gift, for Itivuttaka 100 says:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

How do some of you find a balance between Buddhist practice (which aims to free us from our minds), and using your mind effectively (to learn about the teachings or follow your passion and calling in life)?
As mentioned above, having the Right View is the forerunner of the Noble Eightfold Path. So, it makes a lot of sense to learn the teachings.
Basically, I'm trying to encourage your interest in having an academic career in Buddhist Studies, as a means to study the Buddha's teachings in-depth and convey its message, albeit in an academic form, to students, the scholarly community and people everywhere.

Thank you very much for your insight. Balance is key and I look to grow my practice with it now and carry it into the future. Have a great day!

@user13997 OK. Basically, I'm trying to encourage your interest in having an academic career in Buddhist Studies, as a means to study the Buddha's teachings in-depth and convey its message, albeit in an academic form, to students, the scholarly community and people everywhere.

I am very thankful for you encouragement. I think it would be a beautiful opportunity to both deepen my own practice and spread this wonderful message to people from all backgrounds. My professor has had a profound impact on my life in this way and I admire her greatly for that. I’m at an age where I am discovering myself and trying to imagine what I want to do with my life, and I can say for certain that this path seems the most precious to me and provides a valuable opportunity to help others. Thank you again!


text:
Is it possible to attain wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration?
Concentration and mindfulness is a rare achievement. People can have wrong views , wrong intentions but it seems they are able to achieve high concentration and mindfulness.
My question is : Is it possible to achieve wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration?

I see wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration all the time with video games. :D

I think a lot of wrong mindfulness persists today utilised mainly in a non-Buddhist way. Many attempts were made to separate Mindfulness from Buddhist context. Example is mindfulness for mindfulness sake as in therapy; if people don't know the reason are they mindful, then the problem arises. As in, what is there to be found in the present moment, any why? They often don't know the why and what, and this is confusion.
All of the non-Buddhist approaches as MBSR might go extremely awry. Many charlatans make money by trying to make people to be mindful of the present moment as a "cure-all" therapy for everything. It has caused some cases of depression and people suffering from mental breakdown. Mindfulness like that has long history of creating examples of blind obedience in the East, such as creating Samurai culture in feudal Japan, as means of controlling people without questioning the orders.
In Buddhism however, the reasons are very clear, we want to apply wisdom of the teachings, releasing and transforming karmic seeds, breaking bad habits. It is much safer to do it this way, rather than apply it as a therapy for a specific case. Mindfulness should not be devoid of ethics, for performing good deeds ultimately lead us to a better life. Performing selfless acts destroys clinging and disease of "mine" and therapeutic mindfulness doesn't go that far.
Thus, mindfulness without practising other parts of the path in tandem is wrong mindfulness.
As for Right concentration, there has been a lot of issues recently about mixing Samatha, or mediation in general with psychedelics as it might be profound experience. Many magazines were involved in promoting such ideas. That I would call wrong concentration, the one that goes against composing the mind, but altering it.

Is it possible to achieve wrong mindfulness and wrong concentration?

Of course they all can be developed to a "zen" level of wrong practice if the intention is unwholesome. An expert sniper can stay mindful 100% on his enemy target for hours, ready for the right moment to pull the trigger. A master samurai can single-mindedly concentrate on a single spot of his target, ready to strike and kill with one single precision hit.

Very well said. Wrong mindfulness can not lead to Nirvana.

No, it is impossible. Because the uddhacca-cetasika (restlessness-mind-factor) arises with every unwholesome-mind, such as diṭṭhi-mind. This mind factor is the enemy of the main keyword of achievement, ekaggatā-cetasika (concentration-mind-factor). See the path of purification samādhiniddeso pathavīkasiṇaniddeso.
This is the reason that why in tipitaka the effects of unwholesome-minds have shorter period than the effects of wholesome-minds. And This is the reason that why the wholesome-minds have more mind factors than the unwholesome-minds.

I also want to believe that. But there are people with wrong view and not bad view can achieve higher concentration. For example adult movie director or actor...

Actually, while the achiever is in jhāna-state, except abhiññā, they can't use 5 senses because mind-senses are arising continuously. And if they can't achieve 6 abhiññā, special waching, etc., it means they have not achieved higher concentration, too. See the path of purification abhiññāniddeso & samādhiniddeso pathavīkasiṇaniddeso.

Mindfulness can be wrong, according to venerable Yuttadhammo.
He gave a short speech about this at the 10th Global Conference on Buddhism.
You might want to watch it.
I don't remember him saying anything about wrong concentration. But, since concentration comes up together with mindfulness I would assume that with wrong mindfulness comes wrong concentration.

In the first sermon, the budha claims that the citta had samadhi and that there was headaches, tummyaches due to following the breath, but since the citta was in samadhi, the buddha was not troubled by those and he continued to follow the breath like that.
Of course, at the time, the goal of the buddha was not to be disturbed by tummyaches by putting the citta in samadhi, the goal was to stop dukkha so he acknowledges the failure of his actions with respect to his intentions and then with the citta still in samadhi, he turned the citta to know about karma and to know about rebirth.
The conclusion is that there are wrong meditation of following the breath. Even when the citta has all the samadhi that is possible, which prevents being upset by all the aching that humans can endure, it is still not the cessation of dukkha.
The good concentration when you deal with the breath is having the citta in samadhi and then following the breath with knowing annicca like in the Ānāpānasati sutta: getting the citta in samadhi and on this good basis,  turning the citta to right view to achieve viapassana. That's for breath mediation.
Besides wrong concentration, there is the incomplete concentration, still about breath mediation, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn54/sn54.006.than.html
here are chinese parallels about the proper breath meditation
https://lapislazulitexts.com/tripitaka/samyukta-agama
https://lapislazulitexts.com/articles/anapanasmrti-in-the-agamas

Yes...
"They fall into what Ajaan Lee called delusion concentration: moha-samadhi. Things are quiet, pleasant, still, but you have no
idea where you are."
"That’s what happens in delusion concentration: You hit that nice little source of ease, you just stick yourself in it, and then you let go of everything else, including the mindfulness, including the alertness. It feels good, but you don’t really gain anything from it. It is restful to some extent, but not nearly as energizing as if you were focused on the breath, staying mindful and alert. Because we’re not here just to bliss out. We’re here to learn how to use the bliss. This is part of our path."
"There were two exceptions to Ajaan Fuang's usual practice of not identifying the state you had attained in your practice, and both involved states of wrong concentration. The first was the state that comes when the breath gets so comfortable that your focus drifts from the breath to the sense of comfort itself, your mindfulness begins to blur, and your sense of the body and your surroundings gets lost in a pleasant haze. When you emerge, you find it hard to identify where exactly you were focused. Ajaan Fuang called this moha-samadhi, or delusion-concentration.
"The second state was one I happened to hit one night when my concentration was extremely one-pointed, and so refined that it refused settle on or label even the most fleeting mental objects. I dropped into a state in which I lost all sense of the body, of any internal/external sounds, or of any thoughts or perceptions at all — although there was just enough tiny awareness to let me know, when I emerged, that I hadn't been asleep. I found that I could stay there for many hours, and yet time would pass very quickly. Two hours would seem like two minutes. I could also "program" myself to come out at a particular time."
"In both these states of wrong concentration, the limited range of awareness was what made them wrong. If whole areas of your awareness are blocked off, how can you gain all-around insight? And as I've noticed in years since, people adept at blotting out large areas of awareness through powerful one-pointedness also tend to be psychologically adept at dissociation and denial."

Wrong concentration is mentioned in the sutta MN 117.
Any concentration that is not founded upon a letting go (vossagga) from Right View is not Right Concentration.
Again, refer to MN 117 and also SN 48.10 and the end part of MN 118.

With Samadhi the entire eight fold is accomplished in an instant; when others try to stump you in a stop and think moment... especially; when all internal thoughts have been put to an end? It's annoying.
You know crickets, squirrels and frogs/toads all can speak the same language right? Some call it "twilight language".
I don't like naming names... as I see life as life no matter the form encountered.
Enlightenment sucks to be honest; it's dragon swallowing the moon.. those people won't shut up until dead... and in that moment realizing death? They better get to their shrine or temple within three days and then practice practice practice... I walked to mine in that moment over forty miles away; Abbot and Mara attendant was more interested in hearing some damned Sila bird squawking about something so I walked back home. Took all three days of course seeing the most perfect thing rising out of my corpse from across the room was amazing some people jump right on that perfect all encompassing golden orb when they see it and they are entirely wrong to do so. Wish I practiced dying on the cushion 28 years ago instead I swallowed the stupid moon thinking I achieved something jibber jabbering like a loon.


text:
How do zen practitioners balance the mix between Buddhism detachment and Taoism attachment?
On this site there's a topic Is there common ground between the Tao Te Ching and Buddhism? where one of the answers says:

A commentator of the Taoist philosopher Guo Xiang's work and a Taoist himself, I forget his name now (I can look it up) once wrote that - I paraphrase from memory - Buddhism and Taoism are diametrically opposed, because one seeks detachment from all existence, while the other seeks attachment to all existence. One seeks liberation by detaching from all phenomena, while the other seeks liberation by becoming one with all phenomena. The two paths seem to be the same, but really they are opposite.

And in an answer to the topic Are there many differences between Taoism and Buddhism?:

Buddhism seeks to transcend suffering while Taoism seeks unity with nature

So they don't necessary mutually exclusive each other, and of course one can combine it in zen.
But how do practitioners do that exactly?
How do they seek detachment and attachment at the same time?

FYI: Detachment (philosophy)

To understand this seeming-contradiction you would need to understand the doctrine of 'Two Truths' or 'Worlds. This states that there are always two contradictory and complementary ways of describing Reality. Lao Tsu makes this clear when he states 'True words seem paradoxical'. For Buddhists Nagarjuna explains this remark.
If we do not know the Two Truths doctrine in some form then we will see a morass of contradictions in Zen and more generally the Perennial philosophy and miss the unity of its message. Not for nothing is Nagarjuna considered important.
I would recommend Khenpo Tsultrum Gyamtso The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way

To say that Zen = Buddhism + Taoism is an utter simplification. To say that Buddhism seeks "detachment from all existence" is not at all accurate and to say that Taoism seeks "attachment to all existence" is a caricature.
And yet I will answer this question on its own terms, to help you clear your doubts:
If you detach from all existence, completely 100%, at the end there won't be "you". If you unite with all existence, completely 100%, at the end there won't be "you". In both cases the result is the same.
That said, you should study the Goal of Buddhism (Nirvana or Enlightenment) and the Goal of Taoism (living in harmony with the Tao) to understand what both of them really mean, so you can go beyond simplistic definitions and understand what this is actually about.

I agree that I should study more, but in the meantime can you elaborate more on the first paragraph? Thanks.

Well, even though Buddhism speaks about "cessation of craving and clinging" what that refers to (at least in Mahayana understanding) is cultivation of peace co-emergent with wisdom of understanding "how things are". So it's not detachment in the sense of separation. It's detachment in the sense of dispassion or the peace of wisdom. Taoism's understanding of harmony with Tao is such that each thing in the world has its role, place and function - including the Taoist sage himself. So it's not as much dissolving in the absolute as being in harmony with it while playing your individual role.

Just wanted to add this to Andrei's answer: this is also partly a problem created in translation. When Buddhism came to China, a lot of the (usually rather long) Pali/Sanskrit terminology had to be transformed into Chinese characters. For example, Dharma became 法 fa - a character meaning (human or natural) law in Confucian and Taoist texts. This obviously led to misunderstandings. For a detailed analysis, see this thesis.

Is there a personal story that the author explains how their problem has been solved by the detachment/dispassion?

@Ooker Who is the "author" you are referring to? Andrei?

@YesheTenley no, I just want to read a story about a person who apply the detachment "technique" to solve their own problems

@Ooker - I suspect that anyone who has made some progress with their practice of detachment and dispassion will attest to its power to solve problems. More to the point is helps stop problems arising. Problems become more abstract things causing less stress and become easier to face and solve. This would be especially true for problems with relationships. Things always improve when we stand back and detach the ego.

I can't speak for Zen, only a little about Taoism.
I'm surprised to read "a Taoist himself" describe Taoism  as "seeking attachment".
Instead I think that Taoism seeks some non-duality; and especially a harmony or a proper balance (e.g. between Yin and Yang ... not exactly a "middle way" necessarily -- i.e. sometimes what's appropriate is a lot of yin with just a little yang, or vice versa).
I think that (IMO from a Buddhist or a "personal" perspective) perhaps there is some attachment e.g. to the body -- but it isn't described as such, instead there's a quest for longevity (or immortality), or youth (pliant like a young reed rather than breakable like an old stick), is maybe one of the goals or ideals of Taoism -- with death and disease being described as an imbalance within the body (or between the body and the world) -- this is the subject of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
I'm not aware of (not privy to) the more mental or doctrinal aspects of Taoist training (partly a language barrier, i.e. me not understanding the Chinese language). A practical or physical aspect of it that I met was some kind of autonomicity -- for example, when practicing the art of hand-writing it's maybe better not to stop and think about that too much ... instead just kind of do it, carefully but automatically, maybe relying on training, maybe "reacting appropriately" without thinking about it too much or getting lost in details.
So see also for example:

Acting on your non-conceptual (pre-conceptual) knowledge/wisdom/intuition is one of the most important Zen practices

I think that kind of getting out of the way and doing things naturally is Taoist.
Though I think there's also (apart from, you know, not thinking) a lot of scientific or pseudo-scientific knowledge, about medicine and so on.
I think a corollary, too, of doing things naturally, is maybe not stressing about stuff under pressure.
There is such a thing/practice as Taoist meditation too ... so maybe it has that is common with Zen too (i.e. the existence of sitting meditation as a practice). I think the form of Taoist meditation I was taught (i.e. visualising something in the body) is unlike the form of Zen meditation but, who knows, maybe there are several different forms (and I was being taught a very elementary or beginner's form).

Also perhaps you're ignoring the possibility of evolution. When I read that, "Chan = Buddhism + Taoism", I thought that was in the context of describing a historical/evolutionary event -- which happened over the course of centuries and more than 1000 years ago, in China.
So I wonder if maybe it's like, saying, "English = Germanic + Norman", and asking, "How do English-speakers combine Norse with Latin?" It's a legitimate question but not a practical one.

Getting out of the way is equally a Buddhist ideal. It means taking the ego out of the equation and rendering actions karmically-free non-actions. I'm of the school that sees no philosophical difference between Taoism and Buddhism. It would undermine the plausibility of both were there major differences.


text:
Source on the 4 types of ways to protect the 5 precepts
Recently I got to know that there are 4 types of ways to protect the 5 precepts.
Such as

You don't do it
You don't make others do it
You don't support others to do it
You don't praise and talk about it.

Where can I find the sutta source? Please provide the sutta link kindly

Actually there are 3 ways (of kamma), not four ("ultimatly" one incharge of the others, mind).
"Don't support others..." can be made in three ways as well, and the teachings are full of repeating about the kamma by own physical deeds (kaya-kamma), by verbal deeds (vicāra-, this included signs and gestures as well) and by mind/thoughts (citta-, approval, taking in account for ones own benefit, agreement, joy..., ignorance).
Kammapathapeyyālaṃ might possible give ways to approve.
To protect ones Sila, only one is required: either right view (than it would work out by itself), or strong faith into it, if not gained yet. Silas without the protection of right view are not really Silas but just better or more worse rituals, not penetrating till the mind.
If sensedoor are not guided one breaks the Silas (as factors of the path) actually all the time, steals/kills forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, thoughts. Having no silas, there will be no samma samadhi > no pañña > no right release: mostly just nurishing defilements. Without leaving home and become homeless (leaving the senses behind), it's not possible to develope the path, Silas, Samādhi, Pañña and gain release.
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for any worldly exchange and trade]

Although not exactly what you were asking for, this is related. The "four" in this case is four types of individuals, not four ways to protect. But the spirit of the sutta follows the general spirit of your inquiry. Your phrase "You don't praise and talk about it." would fall under the general category of lying and nonsense speech
Per AN4.99 Trainings from the Book of Fours discusses four types of individuals. This is the fourth:

“And how is one an individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of others? There is the case where a certain individual himself abstains from the taking of life and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from the taking of life. He himself abstains from stealing and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from stealing. He himself abstains from sexual misconduct and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from sexual misconduct. He himself abstains from lying and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from lying. He himself abstains from intoxicants that cause heedlessness and encourages others in undertaking abstinence from intoxicants that cause heedlessness. Such is the individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of others

Instead of the Sutta basket,The Vinaya basket of the Tipitaka gives a lot more detailed info. on all the conditions of what constitutes the breaking of the precepts. Ex: on the taking of life: https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-pj3/en/brahmali


text:
Can you kill yourself with meditation?
I have heard of sages being able to kill themselves with meditation. How do they do this?

I think you mean Rainbow Body, but that is not killing oneself.

Where did you hear this, or can you add a reference/quote/hyperlink to the question? It sounds to me like a misunderstanding, so I don't think this is answerable as-is.

During a sesshin I attended, Tanouye Tenshin Roshi did in fact mention the ability to pass away in meditation. He did not say "kill oneself". He did not detail how since it wasn't pertinent to ongoing meditation practice.

Do you mean 'kill yourself' or 'kill your self'? The last one would make sense to me.

By "kill yourself", do you mean your soul is out of your body?

If one is looking to kill oneself, why the hell use meditation?

There are countless stories of great masters choosing their time of departure. It's not a question being 'in meditation'. A master is never anywhere else. For example, one story tells of a sage living alone in the mountains in China at the time of the communist take over. He was rounded up by the police for execution. He was escorted back to the city on his donkey, a few days journey,.singing all the way. As soon as they passed through the city gates he dropped dead. .

You cannot kill yourself in meditation, but you can kill your (mental conceptualization of) self in meditation.

I don't know about killing yourself, but there can occur some neurological issues, the presence of which depends on many factors. I was going to write an answer with regard to this, which is sometimes termed Zen sickness, but then I found this question which has some interesting answers.

Many yogis have claimed to be able to do this - the scientific evidence is not convincing.
In a controlled study, it was found this was not based on meditative control, but on holding the breath and considerable tensing of the muscles in the abdomen and thorax. This resulted in reduced blood flow, but did not stop the heart. One subject was able to slow his heart for a maximum of 3 seconds using this method.

Theravada Buddhist Answer.
Samatha meditation is designed to focus the mind, to cultivate the Jhana states, thereby preparing the mind for the insight-portion of the Buddha's path.
Vipassana meditation is designed to allow the mind to cultivate a deep and liberating understanding of conditioned reality. Vipassana meditation is the only meditation type that can completely eradicate the 3 layered defilements, ie. the deepest layer of latent tendencies (anusaya).
With that in mind, meditation cannot kill you but it can "kill" (cut off the latent tendencies at the root) the three root defilements.

Look up Phowa, Mahasamadhi, Parinirvana. If a monk has practiced enough, they will reach a point in spiritual development where they can just drop the body at will, permanently. Explained in a very simplified way, they do this by severing the attachment to the body, though the specific methods used may vary between traditions.

As mentioned above with phowa. The 6 yogas of naropa has a method to "transfer the consciousness" i'e wilfully kill yourself. If you have seen the tibetan buddhist monks who put kusha grass in their heads from a gap they have made in their crown plates, this is part of the practice.
I do not know the methods as it seems this has never been written in text, unless anyone here has a textual guide to it (which I would like to see)

Ok...
Allegedly some of the Buddha's disciples would attain final extinguishment whilst self-cremating(?) and it is an extinguishment of life-force.
I've read that Ananda raised himself into the air through his supernormal powers and let his body be consumed by the fire element.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel273.html#section-10 (last paragraph)
We read about similar meditations in Vinaya, in particular the story of Ven. Sagata

The naga (living in the fire building) saw that Ven. Sagata had entered and, on seeing him, was upset, disgruntled, and emitted smoke. Ven. Sagata emitted smoke. The naga, unable to bear his anger, blazed up. Ven. Sagata, entering the fire element, blazed up. Then Ven. Sagata, having consumed the naga's fire with his own fire, left for Bhaddavatika. https://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Buddhism/lib/modern/bmc/ch8-6.html