text:
What does it mean when something has "no self-nature"?
I was reading on some later Buddhist and Mahayana sutras and kept seeing the principles along the lines of "all phenomenon have no nature of their own and are thus empty." I've studied on scriptures like this before, like the Heart Sutra, but I don't think the Pali Canon or Tripitaka mentions anything about this doctrine. I'm curious what exactly later Buddhists meant by this, and if the Buddha actually taught this doctrine or if Sunyata has basis in the original sutras. Thank you to all.

Given that "self-nature" is a translation of Svabhava, perhaps this question (about "no self-nature") is partially answered by the answers to this earlier question of yours. See also other answers on this site which mention Svabhava.

"It just does, OK?" (famous quote)

The Pali phrase in the Suñña Sutta is,

suññam idaṃ attena vā attaniyena vā

... which Wikipedia translates as,

this world is empty of self or anything pertaining to self

The word attena is a declension of Attan, which is Ātman in Sanskrit/Hinduism:

Ātman is a Sanskrit word that means inner self or soul. In Hindu philosophy, especially in the Vedanta school of Hinduism, Ātman is the first principle, the true self of an individual beyond identification with phenomena, the essence of an individual. In order to attain liberation, a human being must acquire self-knowledge (atma jnana), which is to realize that one's true self (Ātman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman.

... which is cognate to (or opposed to, to be contrasted with) the Buddhist Pali term Anatta:

In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings. It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism, and along with Dukkha (suffering) and Anicca (impermanence), it is one of three Right Understandings about the three marks of existence.
The concept of Anatta or Anatman in Buddhism, is a major difference from the Hindu concept of Atman (self, soul).

Maybe that helps to explain what "self-nature" might mean, or whence it's derived, in "the original sutras".
See also topics which are tagged anatman.

Furthermore, the term bhava appears a lot in "the original sutras" in that it's one of the 12 Nidanas and thus part of the theory of dependent origination.
In Svabhava (or the Pali sabhāva) there's the word Bhava plus the root Sa which means "own", a reflexive pronoun cognate to the Latin sui, suus.
In the Pali, "becoming" is dependently originated. The whole wheel of becoming is about how various things which shouldn't be considered 'self' sustain or feed each other, so I take it that (independent) self-becoming is a paradox, a contradiction, which explains the quote in the OP "all phenomenon have no nature of their own".
If this isn't clear, and/or this appears to contradict other answers, perhaps that's because there are (or there are posited) several categories of self-nature (see e.g. Tri-svabhava-nirdesa).
Wikipedia says,

In the Pāli canon, "sabhāva" is absent from what are generally considered to be the earliest texts.[a] When found in later texts (e.g., the paracanonical Milindapañha), it generically refers to state (of mind), character or truth.
In the post-canonical Abhidhamma literature, sabhāva is used to distinguish an irreducible, dependent, momentary phenomenon (dhamma) from a conventionally constructed object. Thus, a collection of visual and tactile phenomena might be mentally constructed into what is conventionally referred to as a "table"; but, beyond its constituent elements, a construct such as "table" lacks intrinsic existence (sabhāva).

I think that this example (of the non-self of a table) is analogous to the parable of the chariot from the Milinda Panha. Wikipedia dates the Milinda Panha to about 100 CE, which I contrast with the lifetime of the Buddha in about 400 BCE.
As you progress (forward in history) into the foundations of Mahayana you get to Nagarjuna (150 to 250 CE). The SEP says this about Emptiness and svabhāva,

The central concept around which all of Nāgārjuna's philosophy is built is the notion of emptiness (śūnyatā). Emptiness is of course always the emptiness of something, and the something Nāgārjuna has in mind here is svabhāva. Different terms have been used to translate this word into English: “inherent existence” and “intrinsic nature” appear etc.

Fwiw Wikipedia says of Svabhava,

In the Mahāyāna Buddhadharma tradition(s) it is one of a suite of terms employed to denote the Buddha-nature

Pali words can have multiple meanings. Thus, 'bhava' & 'bhāva' are used in different words, such as 'bhāvana' ('cultivation'). Also, some pre-Buddhist words get redefined in Buddhism. For example, "atta' is a pre-Buddhist word meaning "soul" because people believed they had or were a soul. But for Buddha, there was no soul therefore why would Buddha teach about "no-soul"? This would be like teaching about 'no god', which would make little difference to suffering. Buddha used 'atta" to refer to "self", since the mind's of people actually construct ideas of self that are intrinsic to suffering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava -- The Sanskrit word "bhāva" (भाव) means "emotion, sentiment, state of body or mind, disposition", while "bhava" (भव) means "being, worldly existence, becoming, birth, be, production, origin". The former term is rooted in latter, and in some context also means "becoming, being, existing, occurring, appearance" while connoting the condition thereof. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhava#In_Ramakrishna_Mission gives examples of various ...bhāva words as various kinds of mental attitude or emotion.

@Dhammadhatu By the way, thank you for pointing out that I made an error.

Sunnata is from the original Pali scriptures, such as the Suñña Sutta. The definition of 'sunnata' is contained therein, namely, void/empty of self & anything belonging/pertaining to self.
The Ani Sutta states discourses that are words of the Tathagata are deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness (suttantānaṃ).
However, from the perspective of the Pali suttas, the intellectual Mahayana quibble about 'sabhava', which also occupies the minds of many an intellectual Theravada, is an extreme view. This quibble is born from intellectual thinking rather than from the clear direct (non-thinking) observation of meditation.
My guess is word 'sabhava' comes from the Theravada commentaries rather than from the Pali suttas. That being said, in my opinion, it does not contradict the Pali teachings of anatta (not-self) & sunnata (emptiness) because as long as 'things' (such as the five aggregates) are clearly seen as 'anatta' (not containing a 'self'); those 'things' remain 'empty'. In other words, there is no need to negate the 'thingness' (or 'sabhava') of 'things' because the word 'sabhava' does not mean 'self', 'ego' or 'personality'.
The Pali scriptures describe form, feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness, earth, wind, fire, water, space, Nibbana, etc, as having intrinsic qualities, which is essentially the meaning of 'sabhava'. The word 'bhava' can mean 'produce' (rather than 'being') thus 'sabhava' can mean 'self-produced'.
Take, for example, the earth element. What produces/sustains the earth element? I suppose the only logical answer to that question is 'the earth element'. For example, for life forms to sustain the physical body, they must eat other physical life forms. If the earth element is physically broken down, all that is obtained is smaller particles of earth element (atoms, etc).
Therefore, there is no need to quibble over 'sabhava' since, in the experience of meditation, the five aggregates are seen as the 'five aggregates' (rather than as a 'self') and seeing form as 'form', feeling as 'feeling', earth as 'earth', etc, is exactly the same as seeing form as 'empty', feeling as 'empty', etc.
Some Pali quotes below:

And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything
  internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid & sustained [by food]:
  head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones,
  bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large
  intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces or
  anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid and
  sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the
  internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth
  property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right
  discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.'
  When one sees it thus as it actually is present with right
  discernment, one becomes disenchanted with the earth property and
  makes [craving towards] the earth property fade from the mind.
Maha-Rahulovada Sutta

~~~

And why do you call it 'form' ('rupa')? Because it is 'afflicted' ('ruppati'), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger &
  thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles.
  Because it is afflicted, it is called form.
And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
  feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
  feeling.
And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it
  perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it
  perceives, it is called perception.
And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they
  fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they
  fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness,
  they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of
  perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of
  consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated
  thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
  fabrications.
And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is
  sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, &
  unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.
Khajjaniya Sutta

Of what I’ve read and heard of so far, in the scriptures (Sutta-Vinaya – but I’m not in a position to quote) the emphasis on impermanence, or becoming, is not a belief in nothingness. As per the scriptures existence is real, but it is transitory. In the later day Mahayana, it was the later philosopher Nagarjuna, who brought in the concept of sunyata.  He argued against the belief that somehow there were ultimate forces or things which had a permanent reality of their own or swabhava as @ChrisW has mentioned. He was not describing sunyata as a void per-se but the present meaning is a later day development. Today some even call Nirvâna as Sunyata, 'emptiness.'. But IMHO if someone or something is there in one place and at the next moment that something or someone is not there any longer, then that place is now ‘Sunyata’ of that person or thing.


text:
What we have to do for bad karma from a prior life?
If our present suffering is the result of bad karma from a prior life, what is the real present remedy for suffering in this life?

Don't philosophize about past lives. You were born a human being, that in itself is a condition for old age, sickness and death (and all other types of suffering).
As for the remedy the Buddha stated

This is the only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely, the four foundations of mindfulness.

Practicing sati (mindfulness) is in Buddhism seen as the way of purification and the basis of wisdom. You can find many help & instructions already posted in questions on this site. Also there is a quite popular and helpful practical booklet about this on the internet.

Practicing sati (mindfulness) does not remedy old age, sickness and death. The quote states practicing sati (mindfulness) is for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation.

"... for the attainment of Nibbana" Sometimes Nibbana is translated as 'The Deathless', so technically sati does lead to the end of old age & death and therefore is a remedy. But you're right that counteracting the mental quality of suffering is obviously the main practice with sati.

the 'Deathless' means there is no 'self' that experiences the angst, fear, suffering & grief of 'death' (refer to MN 140, near the end). 'Death' in the language of ultimate truth means the view or idea that 'a being', 'self' or 'person' will 'die' (definition of aging-&-death in SN 12.2). In enlightenment, there is no 'death'. Instead, all that happens is the five aggregates come to an end (refer to Yamaka Sutta). In summary, to use the 'conventional language' meaning of 'death', Satipatthana results in being unaffected by death because Satipatthana results in non-clinging to life or death.

I agree with you :)

warrants a smile  :)

See also, What does deathless mean?

your question falls into the 6th thing Buddha said we should know about Karma
1) what is Karma -   intention
2) stage where karma is played out.  (i dont know if my pali English text is correct, Nidhana-sam-Bhava)  the answer is Pasa or dection.  Karma can bare result in those who have detection.  This matches independent origination detection is a condition for feeling to arise, in this case feeling of unpleasantness.
3) levels of Karma; karma that results in beings to be in hell realms, in animal wombs, in hungry ghost realms, in human realms, in heavens.
4)Time of karma.  Immediate, further in the future, or even more further in the future.
5) the end of karma.  Karma ends when detection ends.
6)path/road to the end of karma.  That's 8 fold paths.
Please notice that the fundamental things to know about Karma matches well with OidaOudenEidos' answer.  Right mindfulness and concentration are 8 fold path.
This Demonstrates Buddha's great ability, no matter when and where he spoke of Dhamma, they all match well together.

We live in a befuddled world where one is born inferior and another superior. The inequalities among each other are numerous. How could one be born into a life of affluence, and another to abject poverty? How could one live long and another die young? How ill-luck could befalls the virtuous, and the wicked have all the luck? Why would one have to lead a sickly life when another is strong and healthy? How can there be a ravishing beauty and an ugly duckling in the same family. It is these kind of observations that made you ask the question…  If our present suffering is the result of bad karma from a prior life, what is the real present remedy for suffering in this life?
This is where the Buddha’s teachings come in help. The teaching on kamma, or intentional action, is perceived by most of us as the idea that what you experience now comes from what you did in the past. It is erroneous thinking.  What Budddha said was:

“Chēthanāhan Bhikkhavē kamman vadāmi. Chēthayithvā kamman karōthi kāyēna vāchāya manasā”
“Dear Bhikkhu, I see intention as the Kamma. One does Kamma by body, words, and mind based on an intention.”
Nibbēdhika Sutta
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html

The subject of outcomes of Karma is infinite. Only a Buddha has the ability to understand it. Buddha has said that our experience of the present moment consists of three things: pleasures and pains resulting from past intentions, present intentions, and pleasures and pains, resulting from present intentions.  This tells us that the present is not totally shaped by the past. Pleasures and pains come from intentions, which are actions. So in a sense, it means the meritorious and de-meritorious volition (Kusala Akusala Cetana)  or in other words  "action-influence.".
Buddhism does not assert that everything is due to Kamma.  If it is so, a man must ever be bad, for it is his Kamma to be bad. But as per Dhamma, there are five orders or processes (Niyamas) which operate in the physical and mental realms:

Kamma Niyama, order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results.
Utu Niyama, physical (inorganic) order, e.g., seasonal phenomena of winds and rains.
Bija Niyama, order of germs or seeds (physical organic order); e.g., rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar cane or honey etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
Citta Niyama, order of mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness (Citta vithi), power of mind etc.
Dhamma Niyama, order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Boddhisatta in his last birth, gravitation, etc.

Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Kamma is, therefore, only one of the five orders that prevail in the universe.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does Buddhist (supra-mundane) Happiness differ from ‘mundane’ happiness?
The happiness that can be found within our day to day life has to be sacrificed in the form of sense-restraint if one becomes a disciple of the Buddha. Our happiness’s ranging from the mundane to the supra-mundane, ranging from success, good fortune all the way up to skill in meditation, wisdom and Enlightenment comes at a price. So my question to you is, “What is the price?” Only if we can identify this, will we be able to create the proper foundation for us to succeed in treading the path.

What kind of answer are you looking for: are you asking for personal opinion, personal experience, reference? Does it tell you anything, that some people choose to become monks? That some monks choose to disrobe? The question in the title ("what's the difference between mundane and supra-mundane") might be less subjective/personal-opinion-based than the question in the body ("is the difference worth it"). The question is tagged [tag:pali-canon] so maybe you're asking for a reference to to literature, rather than personal opinion?

Yes, I agree... the answers can be subjective in nature, but what I look to is each individuals interpretation and understanding gained of the Suttas. Again, to come to think of it, it is not an appropriate question to ask. What is your take on this?

A "reference" question would be on-topic. A "polling" question (i.e. asking everyone "what's your opinion?" is one of the few reasons for a question being off-topic). But questions answered based on personal experience are also on-topic -- I suggest you read "Guidelines for Great Subjective Questions" in this blog post. Before I considered whether this is "not appropriate" I wanted to clarify what you were asking, what kind of information you were hoping to gain,...

... a bunch of answers/opinions that just say "Yeah it's worth it" and/or "No it's not worth it", and/or "Well some people think it is worth it and some people think it isn't worth it" wouldn't be useful, so I was wondering whether you could make the question more precise/demanding, to exclude that kind of answer.

Part of the question says, "But it seems to come at a price" -- but, you're not explicitly asking a question about that. Might it make it a better question to ask, "What is the price?" Would it be good to ask people to try to explain/identify what "the price" is, and thus let you decide for yourself whether that price seems "worth it"?

Now that I browsed through the blog post I find this question appropriate. The answers become subjective depending on the level of understanding gained. The three levels as per the scriptures are, understand each truth as satya-nana, krutya-nana and kruta-nana. I expect most answers form the first type. But each one sees dhamma differently - each for himself (one thing that I've come to realize in coming to this site). So I look forward to the responses. :)

Yes, I will rephrase the question.. thanks for the feedback @ChrisW.

Here is an extract from Me and Mine: Selected Essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa:

An equally close connection pertains between looking within and true "happiness." In the Buddhist texts there are two kinds of happiness. One of these is found in home life, called gehanissitasukka, the kind of happiness that derives from being a householder and raising a family. Contrasted with outward happiness is nekkhammanissitasukka, literally the "happiness that comes from forsaking home life." The reference is to a mental forsaking, a state of mind in which there is no longer the idea of "my home." This kind of happiness comes from looking within, observing things according to the dhamma.
The happiness of home life is called lokiya sukha or worldly happiness; and the happiness that goes beyond home life is called lokuttara sukkha or transcendent happiness. It all depends on the state of mind. If a person's mind is worldly, he can stay in a monastery or in the forest but will attain nothing more than the happiness of home life. Solitude in a monastery or any other place cannot guarantee lokuttara sukha. This happiness depends on the ability to look within.
No matter where we are, we have the power to transcend a preoccupation with the world, above and beyond the "home", simply by looking within. There is a large, guarantee return. Without any outlay of capital we obtain this special happiness which appreciates continuously. As the Buddha said, "Nibbana costs nothing; we pay nothing for it." All we have to do is "throw away". If we will just throw everything away then we will get nibbana. This means simply having a mind high enough not to get stuck in the world. That is all there is to it. We throw away the world completely and get nibbana in return. We do not have to invest anything. We only have to be empty, to live rightly, and nibanna will come of itself.

Note:

It says that the Buddha says, "Nibbana costs nothing; we pay nothing for it." -- I don't know which sutta the venerable is paraphrasing when he says that, but that agrees with Dhammadhatu's answer
Being required to "throw everything away" everything might seem like a cost; on the other hand the one example of what you have to throw away is "the idea of 'my home'" -- if all it costs you is an idea (e.g. "ego") that's maybe not a really tangible cost.
You wrote "supra-mundane" in the OP and I'm pretty sure that the Pali word for that is lokuttara (similarly, sukha is "happiness").

Lokuttara is used to refer to the four paths and four path-fruitions.
Apparently its etymology is,

Loka + Uttara = Lokuttara. Here Loka, means the five aggregates. Uttara means above, beyond or that which transcends. It is the supra mundane consciousness that enables one to transcend this world of mind body.

That meaning (i.e. "above") might be why Bhikkhu Buddhadasa wrote, "having a mind high enough not to get stuck in the world".
Bikkhu Buddhadasa expands on that in this lecture:

Even an old man who can hardly move about and must remain at home all the time, if he knows Dhamma at this level, while still living in the home, may attain the happiness that comes from forsaking the home life. This is because the term "forsaking the home life" refers to a mental forsaking to a state in which the mind transcends worldliness and goes beyond it. A person who is living at home may experience the happiness that comes from the home life. Or, he may experience the happiness that comes from forsaking the home life, provided he is capable of looking within using the technique and method of Dhamma.

Reading that, maybe you could say that another "cost" (or maybe "prerequisite") is "knowing Dhamma": i.e. time, effort, attention required to learn and to practice the Dhamma.

This answer doesn't directly address the sentence, "The happiness that can be found within our day to day life has to be sacrificed in the form of sense-restraint if one becomes a disciple of the Buddha" in the OP, but it does try to illuminate what was asked about i.e. supra-mundane happiness and cost.

What I meant by ‘Price’ is not money per se.  Eg: one could say, “Look at the price of trying to keep that sense of self-esteem shored up.”  Here by meaning ‘at what cost’ it refers to the effort that you have to put into it. What I disagree is that Dhamma is not free. It is ‘priceless’. The Sangha has a priceless gift to give, the gift of the Dhamma. When it’s given as a gift, people receive it as a gift. Check out the story of Sivali in the Dhammapada Commentary. The issue of Money is brought up here - about the great merit which even a small gift can yield when presented to the Sangha.

The Story – A man tried to pay a thousand pieces of money for a newly harvested honeycomb. The villager asked why so much money? It is far more than a single honeycomb was worth.  He was told that it is going to be an offering to the Buddha. The peasant spontaneously replied, "If that is the case, I will not sell it to you for a price; if I may receive the merit of the offering, I will give it to you." The citizens were impressed with the faith of this man who so readily gave up a windfall and enthusiastically agreed that he should receive the merit of the offering.

I suppose "priceless" means "I have it and I won't sell (I won't part with it) for any price" (or literally "I won't put a price on it") and "Nobody can buy it"; whereas "free" means various things including "anyone can afford it (can acquire it, have it) if they want it".

I guess it is a matter of interpretation. To me, an individual's sincere pursuit of Awakening is a priceless gift to a world that is given as a gift, with the knowledge that those who receive it will be generous, loving, compassionate, peaceful, and clear-headed members of society. Hence these qualities of good conduct, I will say, is priceless for this life and life after death. Free means to that there is not much value to it.

Nibbana (the only true reliable perfect happiness) does not come with a price. It is 100% free.
Therefore, the difference between the two forms of happiness is: (i) Nibbana is completely free; (ii) where as the worldly pleasure of sensuality, materiality & status is extremely financially expensive.
If there is the wrong view (miccha ditthi) that sensual & worldly pleasures are being 'sacrified' at a 'price', the hindrance of lust will be difficult to overcome.

Friend Ariṭṭha, do not say so. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One;
  it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would
  not speak thus. For in many ways the Blessed One has stated how
  obstructive things are obstructions, and how they are able to obstruct
  one who engages in them. The Blessed One has stated that sensual
  pleasures provide little gratification, much suffering and despair,
  and that the danger in them is still more. With the simile of the
  skeleton…with the simile of the piece of meat…with the simile of the
  grass torch…with the simile of the pit of coals…with the simile of the
  dream…with the simile of the borrowed goods…with the simile of fruits
  on a tree…with the simile of the butcher’s knife and block…with the
  simile of the sword stake…with the simile of the snake’s head, the
  Blessed One has stated that sensual pleasures provide little
  gratification, much suffering and despair, and that the danger in them
  is still more.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn22

~~

So too, Māgandiya, formerly when I lived the home life, I enjoyed myself, provided and endowed with the five cords of sensual pleasure:
  with forms cognizable by the eye…with tangibles cognizable by the body
  that are wished for, desired, agreeable, and likeable, connected with
  sensual desire and provocative of lust. On a later occasion, having
  understood as they actually are the gratification, the danger, and the
  escape in the case of sensual pleasures, I abandoned craving for
  sensual pleasures, I removed fever for sensual pleasures, and I abide
  without thirst, with a mind inwardly at peace. I see other beings who
  are not free from lust for sensual pleasures being devoured by craving
  for sensual pleasures, burning with fever for sensual pleasures,
  indulging in sensual pleasures, and I do not envy them nor do I
  delight therein.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn75

~~~

As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of sensual desire arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of
  sensual desire has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to
  others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs
  wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I
  considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when
  I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me;
  when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided
  in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties,
  and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of
  sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with
  it.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn19

~~~

As a mighty flood sweeps away the sleeping village, so death carries away the person of distracted mind who only plucks the flowers (of
  pleasure). The Destroyer brings under his sway the person of
  distracted mind who, insatiate in sense desires, only plucks the
  flowers (of pleasure). The fool worries, thinking, “I have sons, I
  have wealth.” Indeed, when he himself is not his own, whence are sons,
  whence is wealth? A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to
  that extent, but a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed.
  Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more
  comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup. One
  is the quest for worldly gain, and quite another is the path to
  Nibbana. Clearly understanding this, let not the monk, the disciple of
  the Buddha, be carried away by worldly acclaim, but develop detachment
  instead. The good renounce (attachment for) everything. The virtuous
  do not prattle with a yearning for pleasures. The wise show no elation
  or depression when touched by happiness or sorrow. He is indeed
  virtuous, wise, and righteous who neither for his own sake nor for the
  sake of another (does any wrong), who does not crave for sons, wealth,
  or kingdom, and does not desire success by unjust means. Whoever is overcome by this wretched and sticky craving, his sorrows grow like grass after the rains.Beset by craving, people run about like an entrapped hare. Held fast by mental fetters, they come to suffering again and again for a long time.
https://suttacentral.net/en/dhp#2

It's not easy to go against the stream of the defilements. If you put a price to it, then the 'worldly pleasure of sensuality, materiality & status' that you mentioned is rather inexpensive and free in comparison.

Now you are getting to the point, but in showing the steep price that one has to pay if one does NOT get into the Dhamma path. What you are saying is... look for the drawbacks. Learn to compare the two sides. Is the gratification of the senses really worth the price?

I did not say what you are inferring. People do what they have a disposition to do. The Supreme Buddha did not teach there is a steep price to pay if one does NOT get into the Dhamma path. The Supreme Buddha taught supramundane dhamma for those with supramundane disposition & mundane dhamma for those with mundane disposition.

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


text:
Where do “new” humans come from?
If all of us are re-incarnations of prior human beings, how do we account for the growing population? Where do “new” humans come from?

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

Overpopulation is sure to become a dilemma of human existence in another couple of centuries. Even in the present day it is a major concern to us all. We would all love to escape this forever becoming samsara. But how? Only way out is through the practice and realization of Dhamma. Now, with more population, more desirous things out there, more things to rouse your desire, promote your greed, selfishness, worry, fear, etc. it is actually more difficult to practice the true dhamma. But your question is “where do new humans come from’ according to the scriptures.
When studying the discourses of the Supreme Buddha, there is one thing that is clear to us: it tells us that the beings in the Samsāra have the tendency to ‘reincarnate’ in the four low-level worlds. They tend to get a birth in great hell (Niraya), Animal, Preta (ghost), and Asura worlds. Only rarely would a few go to the higher planes of existence.
If one is to take Buddha’s word on this, only very rarely will a person will get to be born in the human world again. In the Chiggala Sutta: The Hole (SN 56.48) Buddha says:

Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"
"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole."
"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state.
It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy &
rightly self-awakened, arises in the world.
It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a doctrine & discipline
expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.048.than.html

There seems to be a contradiction in this post, which seems to claim that 'overpopulation is a major concern' yet physical human birth is a good thing. Why would the Buddha praise reincarnation into a physical world of population pressures, wars, starvation, murders for food, etc? There are 7 billion people on the planet therefore a physical human birth is certainly not something "rare". As physical human birth is not rare, the Supreme Buddha must have been supremely illogical for using the blind sea-turtle metaphor. Or is it our interpretation that  makes the Supreme Buddha look illogical?

The insect population in my backyard alone outnumber the 7 billion people on this planet.  It is estimated that there are double the number of unidentified insect species in the world than which are identified. Do you know that dust mites cannot be seen with the naked eye? So there is no contradiction in this post, and more importantly in the scriptures. But in it there's this quality of 'you get what you ask for'. If you go looking for contradictions, that is exactly what you will find.

We are not necessarily re-incarnations of prior human beings. There are 31 planes of existence in Buddhism. So the  present human beings could result from any of the 26 planes out of 31 planes of existence(except 5 non-returner Bhrama realms) which consist of unaccountably large number of beings. For example, imagine the number of beings living in  Animals realm (tiracchana yoni).

This did not cross my mind. Thanks for the insight!

There is no evidence all of us are re-incarnations of prior human beings. If we were, the Buddha would have explicitly explained this.
MN 38 explains how a new child comes to be:

Bhikkhus, the conception of an embryo in a womb takes place through the union of three things. Here, there is the union of the
mother and father...it is the mother’s season and the
gandhabba is present....

SN 31.1 gives the impression 'gandhabba' is similar to sperm, i.e., sexual seeds that create life:

Bhikkhus, I will teach you about the devas (gods) of the gandhabba order. Listen to that....
And what, bhikkhus, are the
devas of the gandhabba order? There are, bhikkhus, devas dwelling in
the fragrant roots, devas dwelling in the fragrant heartwood, devas
dwelling in the fragrant softwood, devas dwelling in fragrant leaves,
devas dwelling in fragrant flowers, devas dwelling in fragrant fruits,
devas dwelling in fragrant sap and devas dwelling in fragrant scents.
These bhikkhus are called the devas of the gandhabba order.

Commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

The gandhabbas are associated with fragrant substances, no doubt because the word is based on the stem gandha, meaning scent.

In the Pali language, the word for 'human' is 'manussa', which means 'high minded' or 'noble/good heart'. The word 'manussa' is not the same as 'puggala' ('people').
SN 56.102-131 explain 'animals', 'ghosts' & 'hell' beings are reborn 'human' & 'godly' by seeing the Four Noble Truths and also explain gods & humans pass away into hell, the animal realm & the animal kingdom by not seeing (adiṭṭhā) the Four Noble Truths.

There is zero connotation in the verses cited or anything else that would equate gandhabba with sperm. The gandhabba are spirits. Not sperm.

gandhabba thoughout the vedic & even pali literature appears equated with or related to sexual or reproductive potency

This question is born out of the misconception that Buddhism teaches reincarnation as in after death you can only become a human (I've seen this same question and criticism of reincarnation on many websites before), this portrayal in the media is completely wrong and inaccurate.
The Buddha says:

"Sariputta, there are these five destinations. What are the five? Hell, the animal realm, the realm of ghosts, human beings and devas" (Maha-sihanada Sutta, MN 12)

Those are the five possibilities for anyone's prior existence.
Modern day humans were not necessarily humans on Earth in their previous existence (actually quite unlikely), they could've been in a hellish world, an animal, a spirit, or in a heavenly world in their very last previous existence.
This means a growing human population does not contradict rebirth or re-existence (the world population was 3 billion in 1960, now it's more than 7 billion).
The Buddha for instance was not thought to have been a human on Earth in his last existence, but existing in the Tusita heaven before taking birth on Earth. He had a great childhood, good-natured parents, and lots of luxuries which few humans even in modern times have.
In short all "new" humans in their prior existence before taking birth as a human existed in a hellish world, as an animal, a ghost, a human, or in a heavenly world (and very unlikely to have been a human right before this existence).
It is just a popular misconception that Buddhism teaches that after death one is only born as a human on Earth again and again.
UPDATE: The Buddha seems to explain that the majority of humans and devas (heavenly beings) do not take birth as humans after passing away:

Then the Blessed One, picking up a little bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Which is greater: the little bit of dust I have picked up with the tip of my fingernail, or the great earth?"
"The great earth is far greater, lord. The little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail is next to nothing. It doesn't even count. It's no comparison. It's not even a fraction, this little bit of dust the Blessed One has picked up with the tip of his fingernail, when compared with the great earth.
"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
the human realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the
beings who, on passing away from the human realm, are reborn in
hell... in the animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts."
"In the same way, monks, few are the beings who, on passing away from
the deva realm, are reborn among human beings. Far more are the beings
who, on passing away from the deva realm, are reborn in hell... in the
animal womb... in the domain of the hungry ghosts." (Pansu Suttas, SN
56.102-113)

The stereotype portrayed in the media of Buddhist reincarnation (after death one is born as a human again) is here stated as extraordinarily rare by The Buddha himself.
The majority of humans and devas after death go to hell, the animal womb, or the realm of ghosts instead of being reborn as a human or a deva in a heavenly world.
So based on what The Buddha says I would expect that the majority of "new" humans came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts since The Buddha explains how extremely unlikely birth as a human is after death as a human or deva.
But the number of existences is countless so everyone existed in one the five realms many times before which may cause confusion.
The Buddha also explains in the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta (MN 135) how one can exhaust their good and bad kamma in a human state instead of in a heavenly or hellish world.
The Buddha also explains in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta (MN 136) how it's not true that all good people go to heaven or that all evil people go to hell and that some evil people go to heaven and some good people go to hell by explaining the different variables involved (one's past kamma, later kamma, views at the time of death).
I still don't know where the popular media portrayal view of rebirth only as a human comes from debunked by The Buddha himself.
Birth as human is really rare, usually more pleasant than many other destinations, and gives one many opportunities.

A down vote is supposed to mean that the answer isn't useful (not that you personally disagree)...why is this not considered useful? It answers the question and explains more.

People might downvote if they think an answer is incorrect. I didn't downvote this answer, it looks mostly orthodox to me (I thought the questionable paragraphs are those which correlate developed countries with a previous heavenly existence, and "bad areas" with a previous hellish world). My guess is that someone might have downvoted it because they think it's incorrect, because they take the view that doctrines about heaven, hell and birth should be interpreted as states of existence and/or becoming in this life.

Oh I see the reason for the down vote now but The Buddha seems to confirm what I said in suttas like Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta (MN 135). Of course conditions in countries change from time to time and a variation of good and bad beings would take birth in every country. There are only five possibilities if The Buddha is right, all humans in their previous existence right before this one were either in a hellish world, an animal, a spirit, human, or in a heavenly world. Of course everyone in one lifetime existed as one of these possibilities since there are a countless number of past existences.

+1 This answer is more correct than the chosen answer. If anyone truly wanted to learn correct Buddha's teachings by following the promoted ideologies of medias such as Bu SE is going to the pitchfall. Increased population for more beings from the lower realms get reborn as humans, so + because the quality of humans are declining (technological-wise termed "advancement"). Buddha described those characters of humans from lower realms; also said these beings would incline to be reborn back to the lower realms after finishing human lives for their residue Karmas of greed hatred etc. were strong.

As per My knowledge of Buddhism Lord Buddha said this is a Question That Time Wast's. Buddha said you cannot ever find end for where new Humans come from.. its like you cannot find End of the Universe..

I'm not an expert on this subject by any means, but based off of what buddhist texts/commentary I have read, I'll try to answer the question.
When you ask the question, you assume that whatever the "quantity" for human life is, that it is finite (e.g. 1 "unit-of-life per person) ( I know that's kind of a reduculous comparison, but I couldn't think of anything better).  However, life isn't finite and so, theoretically, so long as there are enough physical recourses, there never would come a time when life simply can't occur due to too much already existing life.
My next point is that there are two "entities" of our lives. The first is the one that we know, have experienced, and remember. It is our life according to out memories and basically what it is that makes us different on the surface from someone else. On the other hand, every living thing also posseses its "life force". It is from that that we derive karmic chains, karma from "past lives" and really just karma in general, as well as the ten worlds. This too is from where we derive, "the nature of our lives".
What is important to know is that our, "life force" is existant as a single entity in everything. Not only that, but, its existance is constant. Our life force is eternal in that it has existed since the infinite past and will forever exist into the future. (Sorry if right here I'm getting a bit confusing. I'm having a hard time explaining this, so please feel free to ask clarifying questions) What I'm trying to say is that, were the life force a concious being just as we are, it wouldn't precieve time nor space. The past is occuring right now, in its present, just as the future is. All of time and space exists within the "life force" that I'm trying to explain. Just as a photon, since it is going at the speed of light, "precieves" no time, the same is true of the "life force". To it, something that happened a countless number of years ago is, and forever will be, happening at the same time as you are reading this.
It is for this reason that in one of the first paragraphs I put "past lives" in quotations. We don't really have past lives in terms of past recolections. We do though in terms of our life force which has existed since the infinite past. This is what is meant by the fifth supernatural power that the Buddha has which is, "the ability to see past lives". Basically, what the Buddha really was able to do is precieve the nature of his life, and therefore "see" past lives (this is where the karmic chain stuff I said earlier becomes relevant). So we are, as living beings, more physical manifestations of our life force than we are our own singular entity, which would mean that there is no physical limitation of our life. And that therefore, the population could reach quadrillions and we still will have been "reincarnated".

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


text:
What is the appeal of not Re-incarnating?
I understand that after death, the mind may move to a different plane of existance to be re-incarnated, but what is the appeal of moving to a different plane after death? Is it wrong to say that I'm satisfied with where I'm currently at?

The Buddha clearly rebuked the idea of consciousness/mind that runs and wanders on [from birth to birth] in Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (MN 38).

"Exactly so, lord. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, it is just this consciousness that runs and wanders on, not another."
"Which consciousness, Sāti, is that?"
"This speaker, this knower, lord, that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & evil actions."
"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

Birth(Jati) is caused by becomming (bhava).

"Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property, would sensuality-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property. Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.

Bhava Sutta: Becoming (AN 3.76)

good answer. i guess you could say that a mind is recreated, tho?

what wrong with being satisfied with current situations is that current situations don't stay with way.  They deteriorate and will break apart with 100% certainty.
If there was no death, there would be no Buddhism.
Just to be clear, Buddhism is not about leaving current situation to be in a better one.

You may be satisfied with where you are currently at, but sooner or later you are going to want something better. That’s human nature. You may not want to die, but it is going to come your way sooner or later. That’s life, @tuskiomi.
But there is a deathless happiness out there if you are willing to work towards it. For that firstly you need to get skillful in how you go about things in the present moment. It calls for a different kind of skillset. The problem is that most people in the world don’t have a correct idea about their skills. They just do not know of their latent skills that are helpful in realizing life. That is why you and I are satisfied just by living their lives eating, drinking, and enjoying.
It never occur to us to see into these latent talents that can be developed in this very life. It is not our fault that things are such. The French would say “Ce La Vie” – such as the way life goes. That is why we are still in a journey of been born, getting sick, getting old, and dying again and again (Samsara).

"but what is the appeal of moving to a different plane after death?"
Reincarnation has a forced nature due to Twelve Nidanas.
I would recommend looking at the Tibetan Book of the Dead for further anecdotal information on how we are drawn to reincarnating into certain destinies and then get sucked into that life (pre-birth).
Buddhism has as its purpose to stop this forced birth-and-death and control the process like a Tibetan lama, Enlightened master, or bodhisattva is able to, going where he is most needed in the universe, not where his karma (attachments/fears) compels him.
"Is it wrong to say that I'm satisfied with where I'm currently at?"
It isn't wrong but don't think that it is possible to stay in an existence forever. Even if you live 100 thousand years as a golden immortal (one of the immortals that is discussed in Surangama Sutra) stretching out your existence for as long as possible through various health regimen, eventually it will end and when you reflect back on that time spent as an immortal, it will feel like a flash of lightning...
Do what you came here to do and be ready to go.
This is why it is best to become a Buddha... the end result is this: dwell in your dharmakaya nature and emanate a new body where you are needed for as long as needed, for the highest good of all... at this point you have no attachment to staying or going.


text:
How to Attain Peace?
Sometimes we feel nervous, afraid, or anxious while doing something. So, How can we attain peace in afraid mood or anxious mood?

By acknowledging your anxious mood as a truth (dhamma). Don't push it away, don't try to change anything, don't blame or criticize yourself. It is a truth and therefore has the 3 characteristics of reality, namely anicca (it has beginning, middle and end), dukkha (it obviously doesn't satisfy you), anatta (you cannot control it; it arises due to certain conditions/habits/situations). Why should it be different?
As for how to actually deal with fear/anxiety, you could listen to this talk from Ajahn Jayasaro. He describes how fear/anxiety works. It has both a physical and a mental aspect. Fear builds up using a feedback loop. If there is a fearful thought, a reaction in the body follows, you become worried about your bodily reaction with your mind, which then causes more tension in the body ... You can break that cycle by staying with the body and watching the feelings/sensations there (more detailed in the video).
Being at peace means to be at peace with whatever arises, not getting things or mind states that are peaceful and dependent on external causes. Peace means you're never at war with yourself :)

If I could I would give 10 upvotes to this answer

Ajahn Jayasaro is a very good teacher who is practical & accurate.

When anxiety arises, we should fully acknowledge its arising, by thinking or noting: "I feel anxious; I feel anxious" or simply: "Anxiety has arisen; anxiety has arisen".
Then start to investigate into the causes for why the mind is anxious; including why certain objects make the mind anxious .
Then wisely reflect (think) in ways to reduce the power of the anxiety, such as: "This anxiety is irrational & unnecessary; I am safe; I am not in danger; this anxiety is impermanent; it will pass; the Buddha, Sangha & other practitioners have overcome anxiety & found freedom from it;" etc.
If anxiety is arising towards a worldly task, such as study or work, think: "I can only do my best; being anxious will not help my endeavor; if I can, how can I improve".
Anxiety is an emotion that can be resolved by rational or wise thinking.
In addition, mindfulness with breathing meditation can also help resolve anxiety.

Following factors hinder peace.

Sensual desire (kamacchanda)
Ill-will (byapada)
Sloth and torpor(thina-middha)
Restlessness and remorse (uddhacca-kukkucca)
Skeptical doubt (vicikiccha)

Anxiety is caused mainly by Uddhacca-kukkucca. And it can be abandoned by developing tranquility, concentration and equanimity of the mind.

If there is water in a pot, stirred by the wind, agitated, swaying and producing waves, a man with a normal faculty of sight could not properly recognize and see the image of his own face. In the same way, when one's mind is possessed by restlessness and remorse, overpowered by restlessness and remorse, one cannot properly see the escape from restlessness and remorse that have arisen; then one does not properly understand one's own welfare, nor that of another, nor that of both; and also texts memorized a long time ago do not come into one's mind, not to speak of those not memorized.
— Sangaravo Sutta SN 46:55

It is natural for people get into situations where they feel nervous, afraid, or anxious amidst the hustle and bustle of Life today with so many commitments and stresses. A way out of this is to somehow create some free time, to have a space to grow, to improve your spiritual practice. An answer lies in reducing your activities. When you have few duties, you have time to practice, because the answer lies in the Dhamma.
For this you need mindfulness and the stillness. With the stillness, you’re in a position to let go of nervous activity, to let go of unskilful things in the mind. With mindfulness and  letting‐ go of the unwanted, you get to see things clearly. In Dhamma—kayagatasati—is mindfulness immersed in the body. It is a whole‐body awareness, that helps you feel more and more settled and at ease.  Then your nervousness will begin to fade away. You will become calm.
In the back of our minds there’s always the fear of pain, fear of suffering.  To be at peace we have to get past that fear. If you’re afraid to face up to pain, the mind can never be in control over itself because it’s afraid. Then even your own mind is not a friend.
We’re afraid of many things. There are fears associated with greed, with anger, with delusion.  That is where you have to focus to understand your fears. You have to understand the emotions behind them. Then you will get to know which part of fear is dependent on greed / passion, / on the aversion, and on delusion. Then, when you address the underlying emotions, the fear will subside.  So learn to separate the physical from the mental side.  Remember that wherever there’s clinging there’s weakness and that’s what constitutes fear. Then you will get to know whether it is a realistic fear or not.  This will help you find ways to overcome fear. If you practice proper the Dhamma... there is nothing to fear.

Simple answer is to your Question is Try to Meditate. if you can do that your mind will be Still..if your mind still you can control other feelings very well..

It depends on whether one follows sutrayana or tantryana. Sutrayana finds peace in understanding there's a cause to everything. Tantrayana finds peace through thought transformations.

Can I ask you to expand on that, or should I post that as a new question? Especially the latter (Tantrayana): personal experience (perhaps an example to illustrate what you're saying), and/or a reference. What are "thought transformations"? How are they transformed (if that's not too much of a "there's a cause to everything" question)?

Tibetan Buddhism practice (tantrayana)needs you to find a genuine tantrayana teacher. You need to have connection with the teacher and he must be willing to teach you. Best Wishes!


text:
Knowledge as a bad thing
In the Dhammapada there is a verse that says "To his own ruin the fool seeks knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness". Is there a distinction between wisdom and knowledge? It seems to me that seeking knowledge would be a good thing unless maybe you didn't do anything good with that knowledge. Please elucidate. Thank you.

I have attempted to examine the Pali in this verse. The key word appears to be 'ñattaṃ', which is said to mean 'intellectual faculty' rather than good knowledge (Ñāṇa).

Ñatta
  (nt.) [nomen agentis from jānāti] the intellectual faculty,
  intelligence .

Therefore, this foolishness would not only apply to religion (such as religious people that seek worldly fame & material benefits from religion) but also to the worldly intellect in general (such as scientists, politicians & criminals that use their intellectual faculty to create harmful & destructive things & schemes).

There's a slightly different translation here which says "skill" instead of "knowledge":

The skill of a fool can only harm him; it destroys his merit and his wisdom (lit., it severs his head).

In the background story, the example of "skill" is of someone who "was very skilful in throwing stones at things".
Also, "cleaves his head" is a literal translation, the translator says that means "destroys his wisdom".

In case you were wondering about the story, I think it's true to say that the verses in the Dhammapada are "considered to be canonical", but that the stories are not. The Dhammapada Atthakatha (see also Wikipedia) is classified here as "paracanonical" or "noncanonical". I think that means that the stories illustrate the verses (or comment on the meaning of a word in the verse), however that the content of the stories are not considered to be Buddhavacana. The verses (not the stories) are canonical.

I think that this article (for example) quotes (from the suttas, which are canonical) other examples of potentially-foolish knowledge.

Generally in talking to bhikkhu one should try to avoid unsuitable subjects of discussion. Bhikkhus were several times rebuked by Lord Buddha for engaging in "animal-talk," which is defined by this quite common passage in the discourses: "Talk about kings and robbers, ministers and armies, danger and war, eating and drinking, clothes and dwellings, garlands and scents, relations, vehicles, villages and markets, towns and districts, women and heroes, street talk, talk by the well, talk about those departed in days gone by, idle chatter, talk upon the world and the sea, and also on gain and loss" (AN 10.69). When one comes to think about it, this list covers most of the subjects to be found in our newspapers! A layman may also remember that right speech, the third constituent of the Eightfold path, is defined as: restraint from lying, slander, rough speech, and chatter. Nor is it suitable to ask a bhikkhu what food and drink he likes, unless he is ill. Again, it is not proper to ask about the attainments which he has won through his Dhamma-practice. It is an offense of expiation for a bhikkhu to tell a layman even the truth regarding his own attainments, and an offense of Defeat should he be tempted to lie, saying that he has won what has not been won by him. Also among requests which are improper, as they could embroil a bhikkhu in what is not-Dhamma, are questions upon luck, signs, stars, and palms. All this is called animal-knowledge by Lord Buddha and he has made it an offense of wrong-doing for a bhikkhu to learn or to teach it.

An example of a sutta which contains this mention of "kings and robbers" is Kathavatthu Sutta (AN 10.70) and other suttas mentioned in a footnote on that page.
I think the reasoning is that not all topics (certainly topics of conversation, and I'd guess "topics/subjects/types of knowledge" as well) are worthwhile. In various suttas (e.g. Simsapa Sutta (SN 56.31) the Buddha emphasizes that he does not teach things which

are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.

Wisdom, in the context of Dhamma, is the knowledge of how things change, rise and fall. This insight will in the course of one’s practice, lead to the extinction of sorrow and unhappiness. In the Dhammapada you will find little nuggets of wisdom that you can wrap up and take home.  The thing is, if you take what was said, out of its context, it may not convey the proper meaning.  If you read the  Story of Satthikutapeta – the story behind this utterance… ( To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness. ) you will better understand what Buddha meant by it.

The Story of Satthikutapeta
While residing at the Veluvana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (72) of this book with reference to a peta-ghost named Satthikutapeta.
The Chief Disciple Maha Moggallana saw this enormous peta-ghost while going on an alms-round with Thera Lakkhana. In this connection, the Buddha explained that Satthikutapeta, in one of his previous existences, was very skilful in throwing stones at things. One day, he asked permissions from his teacher to try out his skill. His teacher told him not to hit a cow, or a human being as he would have to pay compensation to the owner or to the relative, but to find a target which was ownerless or guardianless.
On seeing the paccekabuddha, the idiots lacking in intelligence, thought the paccekabuddha, having no relative or guardian, would be an ideal target. So he threw a stone at the paccekabuddha who was on an alms-round. The stone entered from one ear and came out of the other. The paccekabuddha expired when he reached the monastery. The stone-thrower was killed by the disciples of the paccekabuddha and he was reborn in Avici Niraya. Afterwards, he was reborn as a peta-ghost and had since been serving the remaining term of the evil consequences (kamma) of his evil deed. As apeta-ghost his enormous head was being continuously hit with red-hot hammers.
In conclusion, the Buddha said, "To a fool, his skill or knowledge is of no use; it can only harm him."
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
Verse 72: The skill of a fool can only harm him; it destroys his merit and his wisdom (lit., it severs his head).


text:
Which is the Buddhist holy book? Where can it be read?
Is there a holy book for buddhists as the Bible is for Jews and Christians and Quran for Muslims? Is that the Tipitaka?
A book where you can find all the teachings of Buddhism, and how to behave, rules, etc.
Where can I read it translated to English or Spanish? In the same way I can read the Bible and the Quran online.

There isn't exactly one short Buddhist bible (see Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible?).
The Tripitaka is the Pali canon, possibly the earliest (or at least, among the earliest) of the surviving Buddhist literature. It has three parts, and of these three the Sutta Pitaka is the most relevant (to us).
You can read it (or at least begin to read it) online. Web sites with the Pali suttas translated include:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ -- popular, accessible, maybe a minimum of commentary
http://dharmafarer.org/ -- suttas are introduced with a lot of commentary by the translator
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/ -- not so many of the suttas are translated, but those which are here are given with word-by-word Pali-to-English translations
https://suttacentral.net/ (click on "Sutta" in the heading of the page) -- perhaps the most extensive collection (for example if eventually you're looking for a specific sutta, and find that it's not one of the suttas translated on Access to Insight, then look for it here)

See also the answers to these topics:

English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon
Chronological or other sequence for beginners

Note that although the Pali canon (which is the associated with the Theravada tradition) is among the oldest literature, there are also newer (or later) Buddhist schools with their own canonical literature -- so if you want to find "all the teachings of Buddhism" you might also investigate Mahayana literature (including Chinese, Japanese, and Tibetan) as well as modern/contemporary literature.
The simplest answer to "how to behave, rules" might be to say "the five precepts".
I also liked, The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, in the World because it selects from the Pali canon the suttas which contain behaviour recommendations for lay-people. For example this answer is my summary of one its chapters (the book references specific suttas, which my summary doesn't).
Buddhism seems to me to be rather a large topic, so almost any introduction to it will give a somewhat distorted or one-sided view of it. In my answer to the topic New to Buddhism I tried to give an overview, and also said that people recommend In the Buddha’s Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Another answer wrote that "Buddhism is not a religion based on a Holy Book" which is more or less true:

If you are one of the so-called People of the Book, perhaps you could over-estimate the importance of a "book" or Bible.
Even so, some words that I guess may be equally important in Buddhism include Buddhavacana, Sangha, Dhamma, (not to mention "lineage"), and various (practical) practices.

So instead of or as well as a Bible, people might recommend you look for (one or more) Buddhist teachers and/or communities.

An historical answer might also be that, for Buddhism, there was never an equivalent to the Christian Council of Nicaea (~325 ACE) where the different sects and texts which existed were brought together by the Emperor Constantine to forcefully broker a single 'approved' version of beliefs and texts. If that had not occurred, the concept of 'The Bible' would probably not exist. If a similar event had occurred for Buddhism, perhaps we would have a more unified canonical text equivalent. Best, Jim

What about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_councils then?

Good point. However, 2 potential issues may pertain:

The article questioned the ‘historicity’ of the early councils. The Nicaea was a historical certainty.
Nicaea, had 1 ruler with the power to totally stamp out the sects and texts which disagreed with the resulting decree. Even when a king was involved with a Buddhist Council, he lacked that power. In fact, many  ended in schism rather than unification.
Interesting subject! As I lack knowledge of historical / liturgical details of Nicaea and the Buddhist Councils, I can't add to this. But I'd be interested to learn.

The main Buddhist holy book - The Sutta Pitaka - is many times larger than the Bible, consisting of more than 10,000 discourses.
However, the essential teachings the Buddha compared to a 'handful of leaves'.
The following teachings from the holy book cover the essentials:
On Higher Truth
Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha
The Dhammapada
For laypeople
Maha-Mangala Sutta: Blessings
Sigalovada Sutta: The Layperson's Code of Discipline

Note: In the link Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha, the following teachings are translated incorrectly:

"in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects", which should be translated as "in summary, [all] suffering is clinging to the five aggregates (body, feelings, perception, mental formations & consciousness)", as explained in SN 22.1 .
"It is the craving that produces renewal of being", which should be translated as: "It is the craving that produces new becoming" (since the word "being" may give the impression of a new life where as "becoming" is the process of the mental development of egoism).
“Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?”, which should be translated as: “Now is what is impermanent unsatisfactory or satisfactory?”

The word 'unsatisfactory' means 'incapable of bringing true lasting happiness' (as found here in an alternate translation and in Dhammapada verse 278).

Can you explain to me why you choose to, and/or who else has chosen to, put the Maha-mangala Sutta among the first of the suttas?

I have put the Maha-mangala Sutta as an example of a teaching for laypeople (rather than representative of an early sutta).  For a beginner or non-Buddhist, the Maha-Mangala Sutta gives a simple to understand overview of the gradual nature of the Buddhist teachings. It is easy to understand. Where as the 3 cardinal discourses are technical in nature, the Dhammapada is very serious & stern and the Sigalovada Sutta is long & wordy.

What happened to other two pitakas in the Pali Thripitaka? Why only Sutta Pitaka?

I only mentioned the Sutta Pitaka because they are the reported words of the Buddha. However, the Pali Tripitaka is also a valid answer. Regards.

The word for the Buddhist Pali (i.e,. Theravada) canon (and it is huge, too big to be put in one book) is the Tripitaka, the three baskets.
Somewhat unsurprisingly, it has three sections:

Vinaya, rules for monks
Abhidhamma, 7 sorts of commentary by monks on the suttas.
Sutta, a record of the sermons the Buddha gave.

These three complete the Triptaka and can't be added to. However, there are important books which don't belong to Tripitaka but are assumed to be authentic. E.g. Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga, which is similar to the Abhidhamma.
Other early Buddhist schools had their own Tripitaka, similar to Theravada but with different abhidhamma authors, a different vinaya, and with a slightly altered set of suttas.

The Mahayana accepts the Tripitaka (I believe that in the Taisho, the 20th century record of every canonical text in Chinese Buddhism, they use the Sarvastavadin Tripitaka, not the Theravadin) but adds:

Sutras (the sanskrit word for sutta), sermons of the Buddha for Bodhisattvas
Sastras, which are commentaries on the sutras.

While the sutras are, like the Tripitaka, complete (despite having slowly been recovered after the Buddha's death), anyone can write a sastra, though that wouldn't make it canonical.

Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga contains many views that contradict the suttas. Buddhaghosa dedicated his Visuddhimagga to his personal reincarnation in a Brahmanistic heaven.

@Dhammadhatu It is a comprehensive manual condensing and systematizing the theoretical and practical teachings of the Buddha as they were understood by the elders of the Mahavihara Monastery in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. It is described as "the hub of a complete and coherent method of exegesis of the Tipitaka, using the ‘Abhidhamma method' as it is called. And it sets out detailed practical instructions for developing purification of mind." (Bhikkhu Nyanamoli 2011 p. xxvii.) I

@Dhammadhatu i like some dogmas

There are at least three Tripitakas: the Pali Canon is the oldest and the only surviving complete canon of a somewhat early school. In addition, there are the Tibetan Kanjur and the Chinese canon, Tantric and Mahayana respectively. Finally, the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism has the inspired terma texts of Dzogchen. I think the consensus is that the Four Great Nikayas of the Pali Canon represent the closest thing to a common ground accepted by all schools, and in fact if one studies the nikayas closely one can see the seeds and even the roots of the tree that became Buddhism there. The Four Great Nikayas, in rough chronological order, are the Digha, Majjhima, Samyutta, and Anguttara, and have all been translated into modern English. In some ways they correspond to the gospels of the Christian New Testament (so-called).

Sorry to ask but is there any specific translation of the Nikayas you would recommend, in book form and/or online? Or maybe they're all good enough. But the OP did ask, as well, "Where can I read it translated to English or Spanish?"

M. Walshe, trans. Long Discourses of the Buddha: Translation of the Digha Nikaya. 1987; rpt. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
Nanamoli, trans. Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1995.
Bodhi, trans. Connected Discourses of the Buddha: New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2000.
Bodhi, trans. Numerical Discourses of the Buddha: Translation of the Anguttara Nikaya. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2012.

You can also find the Burmese edition of the Pali Canon in multiple scripts here: http://www.tipitaka.org.

Any Buddhist canon is huge. If you want to get a taste of it, I would suggest the following:

the Dhammapada for Theravada Buddhism
the Diamond Sutra for Mahayana Buddhism

Actually Buddha didn't wrote any holly Books. All of the books written by Buddhist monks wrote after many years later of Buddha's Nirvana. Buddhism is not religion Based on a Holy book. It's a practical religion. It's basic Followings are:

Do not take life.
Do not take what is not given.
Do not distort facts.
Refrain from misuse of the senses.
Refrain from self-intoxication through alcohol or drugs.

Learn about them first and after go for the Higher things. Search on the Internet. You will find so many books about Buddhism.

For beginners and enthusiasts, "Budhha and His Dhamma", by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar is a highly recommended book.
It contains English translations of some very important sermons delivered by Budhha and also has content of Tipitika. It gives a complete overview of the Buddha's life, right from His birth to His journey from a layman to The Enlightened One.


text:
Is space impermanent?
I know that space is often said to be unconditioned, and it seems right to say that it is empty of svabhava.

But, is it impermanent?

See also Two unconditioned dhammas? (schools differ on whether space is unconditioned).

FYI if in future you would like to avoid Theravada answers (because they don't answer your question) you can 'tag' the question with a non-Theravada tag, e.g. [tag:mahayana], and/or explicitly reference a non-Theravada doctrine in the question. Without such a tag the question is open to answers from any/all traditions.

@ChrisW if i'm asking a mahayana question i'd say. no problem with theravada answers which are properly sourced

To short for an answer: SN 25.9: Dhatu Sutta — Properties "...Monks, the space property is inconstant, changeable, alterable..."

Space is not unconditioned. For example, there is space in the nostrils & ears. But if that space is filled up, with wax, snot or earplugs, the space disappears. This shows space is not unconditioned. The space is dependent & impermanent. To quote:

And what is the space property? The space property may be either
  internal or external. What is the internal space property? Anything
  internal, belonging to oneself, that's space, spatial & sustained:
  the holes of the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the [passage] whereby
  what is eaten, drunk, consumed, & tasted gets swallowed, and where it
  collects, and whereby it is excreted from below, or anything else
  internal, within oneself, that's space, spatial, & sustained: This is
  called the internal space property.
MN 62

In Buddhism is explained immaterial meditative absorptions (arupa jhana), such as the dimensions of space, infinite consciousness & nothingness. Many 'Buddhists' (particularly Mahayana fixated on non-conceptuality/non-thinking) mistake these for the unconditioned Nirvana.
Nirvana, the Unconditioned, is the destruction of greed, hatred & delusion and is permanent for the arahant. Therefore, if an arahant thinks or speaks, the mind can no longer abide in the arupa jhana of the dimension of space however the mind continues to abide in Nirvana because an arahant can think & speak without greed, hatred & delusion.
This simple fact shows why space is not the unconditioned & why non-thinking is not Nirvana.

your quotation as usual does not prove your point, tho as is usual you are right about theravada despite dismissing anything else as not buddhism

Do theravada buddhists not think that the mahayana is buddhism?

@user3293056 That emphasis on "space" as meaning "empty space" reminds me a bit of the Tao Te ching. But I suppose you were asking about some other/different definition/understanding of what "space" is?

According to Buddhism, everything(except nibbana) is subject to causality(Sankatha) and everything arises dependently (Paticcasamuppanna) and there is no exception to space and time!
In the Pali Canon, the term Aggregate(Skandha) is defined as follows;

"To what extent does the designation 'aggregate' apply to the aggregates?"
"Monk, whatever form is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of form. Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of feeling. Whatever perception is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of perception. Whatever fabrications are past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrication. Whatever consciousness is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: that is called the aggregate of consciousness. This is the extent to which the term 'aggregate' applies to the aggregates."
  Maha-punnama Sutta (MN 109)

So in a nutshell; aggravate means the delusion of existence(of Rupa, Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara and Vinnana) in time and space.
In Seela Sutta (SN 22.122) Ven. Maha Kotthita asks from Ven. Sariputta

"Sariputta my friend, which things should a virtuous monk attend to in an appropriate way?"

Ven. Sariputta replies;

"A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate way to the five clinging-aggregates as

Inconstant(Aniccato)
Stressful(Dukkhato)
A disease(Roghato)
A cancer(Gandato)
An arrow(Sallato)
Painful(Aghato)
An affliction(Abadato)
Alien (Parato)
A dissolution(Palokato)
An emptiness(Sunnato)
Not-self (Anattato)

Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a virtuous monk, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit of stream-entry."

No one done a physics answer yet?
Here it is.
Space is impermanent. General relativity shows that space and time are linked together and they change with mass. Mass tells spacetime how to bend, spacetime tells mass how to move.
The whole field of cosmology studies how the  space of universes changes.

This is a fine answer, however I will note that “space” as defined by general relativity is not necessarily the same thing as “space” as used by the OP or the Buddha for that matter... hence the difficulty with most of these questions :)

What other kind of definition is there? GR is just a realization that space is not a backdrop, but a dynamic player. If one doesn't take this into account, one creates a fictional space, not existing in the world, but only in one's mind.

See this https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26051/13375 I was a physics major and have great respect for GR, but it is not the only notion of space that is useful. It is also a construct of the mind btw. And we know it is at best approximate as it does not take quantum effects into account.

According to the Scriptures the universe is infinite in time and space. By infinite what is meant is the length, width or number of solar systems (lokadhātu) in the universe are infinite. Within that infinite space there are sections that consist of one billion solar systems are called “Thri Sahashri Loka Datu” (equivalent to a galaxy). Such unfathomable spaces are always explained by similes. One such is -  If someone takes mustard seeds amount equal to the volume of Thri Sahashri Loka Datu (equivalent to a galaxy) and travel in one direction placing one seed on one solar system, the seeds will come to an end but not the universe.
Buddha has not refereed to space as impermanent or not, but all things within it are. All the worlds of the devas, and the Brahma worlds are found within this time and space. For instance the scriptures talk about realms of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of space... realms of the gods of the base consisting of the infinity of consciousness... realms of the gods of the base consisting of nothingness...
All of us beings of all these diverse worlds, whatever we do in time and space is going to come to pass sooner or later, like a picture you draw with a stick in flowing water.  But there is one realm outside of time and space, Nibbhana, that Buddha wants us to reach, where we find the deathless. Once you’ve found the Deathless it’s always there as it is beyond time and space.
A collection of 1000 solar systems are called “Sahashri Loka Dhatu” in the scriptures. A collection of 1,000,000 solar systems are called “Divi Sahashri Loka Dhatu”.  The universe may not be impermanent (as there is no mention of it).  Within it, the solar systems are born, gets destroyed and it will be made again. Such cycles are called “Maha Kalpa(great kalpa)”.
Maha Kalpa are further divided:  time of solar system formation ( Sanwatta Kalpa), time of existence (Sanwatta Sthayi Kalpa), time of destruction (Wiwatta kalpa) and time of emptiness (Wiwatta Sthayi Kalpa). The time intervals are termed “Asankya Kalpa”.
For further reading:
http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/eng/Buddhist_cosmology

Consider that for something to be impermanent it must have some sort of arising.
Arising implies Cessation.  Without arising, there can be no cessation.
So you tell me, does space arise?  Or is it simply the unawareness of space that ceases?
At any rate, compassion is a much more profound topic to put your efforts toward, for "the view of emptiness without compassion shall not lead you onto the sublime path" ~ Saraha

Of course space is impermanent! Just put an object in it and the space is gone!

you need a reference for this insightful claim

that is hilarious, but space pervades the object as well!

Space is an impermanent thing, but uncompounded space is a permanent thing.
See here for the definition of uncompounded space and how it differs from the regular notion of space.

shame you don't have a quote!

A quote from whom?