text:
What is Vibhava Tanha?
What is Vibhava Tanha?
What is the destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhaba Tanha?
Is the view non-existence considered Vibhava Tanha?
What is the Sutta reference relating to this teaching?
Why the desire for Nibbana is not considered Vibhava Tanha?

Vibhava Tanha is simply the craving for an experience to go away or end. Ex: When you are meditating, if pain arises in the legs or back and if you are unmindful(ignorant), disliking will arise. This results in wanting the pain to go away. This wanting is Vibhava Tanha.
On a broader scale,  craving for annihilation after death is also Vibhava Tanha. But the view that everything ends after death is not the craving itself. That comes under Micca Dhitti. This view can give rise to Vibhava Tanha.
Craving for Nibbana can be either Bhava Tanha or Vibhava Tanha depending on your false view of Nibbana. If you think of it as a status to achieve or a land/heaven to enter or a state of bliss, those false views can cause Bhava Tanha. If you think of it as nothingness or emptiness or end of a being, those false views can cause Vibhava Tanha.
But just like how the suffering of pain does not end by craving for it to end, Nibbana(end of all suffering) cannot be reached by craving for it. When pain arises in the body, if you practice mindfulness instead of wishing for it to go away, the suffering will stop regardless of if the pain is still there or not. This is a mild realization of the Four Noble Truths. When this realization becomes matured and all-encompassing, all suffering will cease.
Destination of Vibhava Tanha is obviously a lower realm of existence or a state of misery.

craving for annihilation after death is not Vibhava Tanha. In this context, Vibhava Tanha.is simply the self craving for the self to die or be annihilated. The teaching of annihilation in the suttas in unrelated to life after death. It is merely a self-view.

It is! Read the Satipatthana sutta I've linked in my answer

Whatever you post is wrong view about annihilationism. annihilationism is defined in DN 1 and Iti 49 as the view that a "self" ends at death. It is a self-view.

Right back at you :)

No. You are opposing the suttas and not me. DN1 and Iti 49 literally refute your personal ideas. It is "right back at the Buddha".

I'm not opposing the Suttas. I'm opposing your misinterpretations. I thought we've had this argument many times before. I guess you like going around in circles :)

Sorry but the suttas are literal. They say annihilationism is a "self".

You are doing it again :)

Bhava tanha (craving to become) -- we want  to  be something,
for example,
"fat person want to become thin person"
Vibhava tanha (craving to become not) -- we don't want to be something,
for example,
"skinny  person don't want be thin"

"Becoming craving" is self-denial, "not-becoming craving" is also self-denial --
both suffer in this craving.

The destination (rebirth) of a person with Vibhaba Tanha is anger, frustration, stress & unhappiness; such as, for example, wanting to not be exposed to reading SarathW's posts but not being able to avoid them. Vibhava Tanha is egoism; as described in Iti 49:

How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of)
  non-being, asserting: ‘In as much as this self, good sirs, when the
  body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not
  exist after death—this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is
  reality!’ Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.

Aspiration for Nibbana is not considered Vibhava Tanha because there is no egoism.


text:
How do I practise Vipassana and Samatha through Anapanasati?
After reading the answers to this question I understand that keeping the object of meditation  same, Samatha leads to calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana leads to insight into nature of reality.
If I focus on the breath or if my object of meditation is bearth while meditation, what is the exact technique for both Samatha and Vipassana.
Sorry, the answers to question does not mention the technique or what exactly to do. Also google search results are showing up magazine articles.
References to suttas appreciated.
Thanks.

keeping the object of meditation same, Samatha leads to calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana leads to insight into nature of
  reality.

The above is incorrect. Samatha & vipassana are not "techniques". I encourage you to free your mind from the wrong terminology you have previously learned. I will rephrase what you wrote, below:

keeping the object of meditation same, Samatha is calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana is insight into nature of reality.

Thus, by merely observing the breathing with equanimity, the breathing will calm (because the mind has equanimity and is no longer thinking). This feeling of calmness is called samatha.
Also,  by merely observing the breathing with equanimity, it will be automatically seen, if the mind is sensitive & clear enough, the breathing is impermanent and not-self. This clearly seeing of impermanence & not-self is vipassana.
Also, by merely observing the breathing with equanimity, if the mind is sensitive & clear enough, it will be clearly discerned wholesome states of mind cause the breathing to calm and unwholesome states of mind cause the breathing to become agitated & stressed. This clearly seeing of cause & effect regarding the relationship between the mind, breath & body is vipassana.

If I focus on the breath or if my object of meditation is bearth while meditation, what is the exact technique for both Samatha and
  Vipassana.

There is no technique, apart from keeping the mind clear and knowing the breathing. Samatha & vipassana are "fruits" of practise; wbich arise automatically. They are not a practise in themselves. To quote:

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path... for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight
MN 149

Again, AN 4.41 describes four fruits from developing concentration. To quote:

Monks, these are the four developments of concentration. Which four? There is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now (samatha). There is the
  development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to
  the attainment of knowing & seeing (psychic power). There is the development of
  concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness &
  clear comprehension (perfect clarity). There is the development of concentration that, when
  developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents (vipassana).
AN 4.41

The translator Bhikkhu Thanissaro comments about AN 4.41:

The Buddha explains how concentration, when fully developed, can bring about any one of four different desirable results.

Imagine growing fruit on a tree. The "technique" is digging soil, plant the tree, watering it, removing insects, adding fertilizer, etc. But the fruit grows by itself. You can do nothing to create the fruit. It is the tree that automatically brings forth fruit, when the tree is ready.

Sorry, the answers to question does not mention the technique or what exactly to do. Also google search results are showing up magazine articles.

Meditation is letting go & being quiet and still. It is not some type of manipulative exercise. I recommend to give up this idea of "technique".

References to suttas appreciated.

Already done.

Thank you very much for the answer. This clears a lot. So can I say that the technique is to 'be aware of the breath'? Also what is more helpful, to be aware of the in-and-out flow of breath or being aware of the sensation of breath on the upper lip. Also in regards to your previous answer about Jnana, am I right in saying, if my meditation leads to Vipassana i.e. insight I won't get into Jnana? Or I don't have to bother about developing Vipassana to get into Jnana? I think Samatha i.e. tranquillity will be necessary for Jnana.

No. Vipassana will lead to jhana and jhana will lead to vipassana and in jhana itself vipassana will occur. You should not concern yourself with these labels or concepts. Just let it happen. As for the breathing, you should be aware of it wherever it is naturally felt. Regards

If you are focusing on the breath sensation then it is vipassana and if you are focusing on in and out breath as a concept then it is samatha. There are many methods like mahasi, sunlun, goenka so I suggest you try it. I don't think you can reach jhana if you are just focusing on the in and out breath because it's not easy to stop thoughts from arising. That's why samatha and vipassana should be developed together. You should be aware of what you are doing all the time. Always be aware of sensation of touch.

Thank you for the answer. I just returned from Goenka retreat but I am now highly confused about Jnana, Vipassana, Samatha, Anapanasati and doubtful about body scanning and what exactly is leading to Nirvana. Goenka does notvmenation what and how will lead to Nirvana. He mentioned leading to insight into impermenance. Also my mind kicks in if I move my focus in body scan.

I don't know much about the goenka method because I can't seem to find it on the internet but I think goenka and sunlun method could be similar. In sunlun method, you have to be aware of the painful sensation till it cease. It may take more than an hour for it to cease so we just have to be mindful of it. Then your mindfulness will sink into the painful sensation and you will reach certain insight knowledge. It might be the same with goenka method.

Goenka method is to be aware of sensations unpleasant or pleasant with equanimity and watch the rise and fall. According to him, this will finally lead to being aware of sensations throughout the body which will lead to the insight of impermanence. But he did not mention at all about Jnana or getting Nirvana. As I read the Buddha advised Jnana as necessary for Nirvana.

Jhana is a pleasant abiding here and now. According to AN 4.163, there is a pleasant and painful practice. The pleasant practice is where a monk practice jhana and the painful practice could be the insight stages. So Jhana isn’t necessary but could make it faster to attain nirvana

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is the arising of Buddhas a cosmological evolutionary occurrence?
...if not, then who or what is governing these occurrences?
In the Diamond Sutta (see excerpt below) Buddha mentions the previous Buddha as being called Dīpankara Buddha possibly existing around ten thousand years ago. Then came Gautama Buddha and the next Buddha to occur could be Maitreya Buddha. Buddha also mentions here that there have been 84,000 multi-million Buddhas. I have no resistance about the existence of these Buddhas especially since losing the perception of chronological time, but when I observe sentient forms, there is - for the most part - some kind of growth or expansion of some sort happening with no real, tangible or perceivable force behind it.
With such a huge time span between the appearance of Buddhas it's perplexing to see this as either an evolutionary cosmological expansion of consciousness or... somebody somewhere sending in the forces in the same way that a declining school receives a new headmaster to try and rectify the mess.
Is anything regarding this mentioned in any of the major Buddhist schools of thought?

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if a son or daughter of good family, while reciting and practicing this sutra, is disdained or slandered, his or her misdeeds committed in past lives, including those that could bring about an evil destiny, will be eradicated, and he or she will attain the fruit of the most fulfilled, awakened mind. Subhuti, in ancient times before I met Buddha Dipankara, I had made offerings to and had been attendant of all 84,000 multi-millions of Buddhas. If someone is able to receive, recite, study, and practice this sutra in the last epoch, the happiness brought about by this virtuous act is hundreds of thousands times greater than that which I brought about in ancient times. In fact, such happiness cannot be conceived or compared with anything, even mathematically. Such happiness is immeasurable.

Apparently, there are 'ages' that have been defined...

Degeneration
Traditionally, this age [degeneration] is supposed to begin 2000 years
after Gautama Buddha's passing and last for "10,000 years". The first
two ages are the Age of Right Dharma
followed by the Age of Semblance Dharma. During this degenerate
third age, it is believed that people will be unable to attain
enlightenment through the word of Sakyamuni Buddha, and society will
become morally corrupt. In Buddhist thought, during the Age of Dharma
Decline the teachings of the Buddha will still be correct, but people
will no longer be capable of following them.

I'm interested in a range of schools of thought about this.

I can’t answer your question but I’d like to give a personal view... I don’t think there is a somebody/force that generates Buddha’s over vast time spans but rather Buddha’s come about through eventual ultimate understanding. You and I are capable of becoming a Buddha but for me it may take eons compared to you. So I don’t think time spans of Buddha occurrences are quite relevant.

It seems like you have answered by using the words "eventual ultimate understanding" which equates to the 'consciousness' part of the question. Would you be able to expand on this please in an answer?

From the mark downs, it seems like some nerve endings have been rattled. I would be just as interested in the views of those who have marked down as I am in the ones who have attempted to answer the question.

It is said that the Buddha's enlightenment is a cosmic event, and given what it is then so it must be. .

...cosmological evolutionary occurrence?
By 'evolutionary' if you mean a random event as like a 'random mutation in biological evolution', then NO. It's definitely a cosmological event as in, the attainment of Nirvana by a would be Buddha is a Cosmological Phenomena it's not a trivial case of altered consciousness of a Human.
...if not, then who or what is governing these occurrences?
There is No-Self and definitely no higher being controlling anything according to Buddhist Cosmology and Philosophy in general.
The Occurrence of a Buddha
It has vastly to do with two things;

The Karma of the would be Buddha, we are all potential would be Buddhas, our individual Karma will determine who would end up being one. With each act of Kindness and each Unwholesome deed, we birth our future.

The conditions for the arrival of the Buddha should be adequate, for e.g. The Buddha would not have born in say for an e.g. ancient Egypt because people were not into meditation nor would He have found bhikkus to memorise his suttas and pass on, He would not have born in British India or the Islamic India, He will not be born in Antartic or Arctic, etc you get my point. For a Buddha to carry out His operation of teaching the Dhamma to the fellow Humans, the conditions of His arrivals have to meet a certain environment, a milieu.

Finally, ponder upon this simile,

The Buddha used a sea turtle to illustrate the precious rarity of opportunity afforded by our human birth.  The turtle example appears in the scripture called in Pali, the Chiggala Sutta that is classified as LVI.48 of the Samyutta Nikaya.
"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 turtle were there.  It would come to the surface
once every one hundred years.
Now what do you think - Would that blind 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 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 and rightly
self-awakened, arises in the world.
It's likewise a sheer coincidence that doctrine and discipline
expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.
Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy and
rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine and
discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation: `This is stress . . .  .
This is the origination of stress . . .  . This is the cessation of
stress . . .  . This is the path of practice leading to the cessation
of stress."

'karma' and 'conditions' - this perspective is very appealing. Thanks.

"With each act of Kindness and each Unwholesome deed, we birth our future." this reminds me of Cloud Atlas.

@user29568 caught...LOL... Karma is always watching.

Deepangkara Buddha was born before Kondangna Buddha but the aeons between the two births are uncountable.

Today I found this which seems to answer this question.

Chiggala Sutta: The Hole
"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. Now, this human state has been obtained. A
Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A
doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
the cessation of stress.'"

This translates that as "it's unlikely", and not "it would be a sheer coincidence". In other words, I read that as -- not, "The reason why the Buddha arises is sheer coincidence" -- instead, "It's unlikely that the turtle be reborn a human being at a time when the Buddha had Dhamma-Vinaya have arisen, therefore you should take this rare/fortunate opportunity to practice".

@Chris - they both read in the same way to me but 'sheer coincidence' is a more fitting translation. I haven't based this on a Pali translation but instead the astonishing occurrence that the turtle would make it through the hole.

I just think it's saying, "A turtle rarely has an opportunity to be born human and to hear the Dhamma: you should take advantage of this opportunity now that you can" -- not, "It was just by luck, random chance, that the Buddha became the Buddha." If you're talking about the (long) time between Buddhas, that's one thing, OK. If you're talking about what causes a Buddha to arrive, I don't think that's intending to say that it's a sheer coincidence or mere randomness (instead I think that the cause of the Buddha's arising was the Buddha's Noble Search for enlightenment and so on).

@ChrisW - I see now. So it only perhaps partially answers the question.

Thank you, yes, that's what I meant. It's not that the suttas don't mention past/future Buddhas at all, but, but, I think rare ... even added later, possibly. I imagine that discourse didn't tend towards, you know, past and future Buddhas, while /this/ sammasambuddha was alive and teaching (& re. the conditions for being or becoming a Buddha see also this and the text-analysis which I found when answering this, especially the end about whether people even can become a Buddha).

Thank you. The links were interesting! I should look at rephrasing the question or asking another based on this new information.

From an academic perspective, these Buddhas are mythical, arguably the universe did not exist yet multitudes of billions of lifetimes ago, and the most realistic approximations we have of all humans that ever lived is around 100 billion.
To some extent, the division in ages you describe mirrors the Hindu concept of Yuga, which also divides the history of the universe into different degrading states: perfect (Satya), diminished virtue (Treta), lethargic (Dvapara) & darkness & ignorance (Kali). This similarity is not surprising: Buddhism first evolved in a region where Hinduism was predominant, and many other (modified though recognizable) Hindu concepts can be found in Buddhist cosmology (like Samsara, Karma and Reincarnation).
The concepts of Samsara & Karma are essential to understanding the reasoning behind these mythical Buddhas. Samsara consists of six realms: Devas (gods), Humans, Animals, Demons (Asura), Hellish Beings (Naraka), and Hungry/Frustrated Beings (Preta).  In Buddhism, it is said that only from the human realm one can achieve Buddhahood, because the Devas are too happy, the Asuras too angry, the Pretas too frustrated, etc. Karmically speaking, if you're a Deva, you've gone too far "up the ladder" and must first be reborn as a human before you can attain Buddhahood, etc.
These mythical Buddhas can therefore be considered an expression of the attainability of Buddhahood by humans. Referring to these mythical Buddhas in the texts you quoted emphasizes this attainability, by making the historical Buddha state they came before him and others will follow him, so he is not the first nor the last.
So, in conclusion, the "prime mover" that governs the occurrence of Buddhas can first and foremost be equated to the human condition, subject to Karmic cause and effect.

I see. I try not to go too far into intellectualism and speculative fantasy but it seems my conceit may have gotten the better of me in this case. Thank you for your answer.

You're most welcome. It's a perfectly valid question to ask IMHO. I don't understand the downvote.

Your 1st paragraph is a hypothesis, ok well, an academic hypothesis. How can you use one hypothesis to refute another hypothesis - if the existence of previous Buddhas is a hypothesis to you though not all sharing your assumption. Is your assertion based on the above legitimate? Another, a knowledge acknowleged by an ancient civilization called India, and inherited by Buddhism, does it suffuse to discredit such knowledge? If so, by the same logic, shouldn't the science academia reject Pythagoras, Plato etc., since they were also belonged to an ancient civilization... how narrow is it

@Mishu - I don't understand why you see this as "rejection" or "discrediting". All I'm stating is that there are demonstrable similarities between Hindu and Buddhist cosmology. As for your analogy on Greek philosophies, why would the fact that Western philosophies and world view are based on Greek civilization warrant rejection? The fact that something is based on something older is ubiquitous in the human experience (including science, philosophy and religion) and does not diminish the inherited or the inheritor.

Speaking of "science academia", modern science does contradict or discard ancient science -- not because it's ancient -- but (only) when or if, only to the extent that, the modern understanding is more useful and more descriptive, better agrees with observation (see this "science"-related topic for example).

@ChrisW, but it is based on older knowledge and it only rejects those things that conflict with factual observations. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on Newton's Law of Gravity, but it does not discard it.

All I suggested is the world asking for real open-mindedness, Codosaur. The fact is we really possessed none the truth. What we called "truths" are just assumptions that seemingly can make things work - academia called theorems. But theorems can take many forms, like you said, Newton's replaced by Einstein's, but both work in different circumstances. Likewise, atomic theory can utterly be refuted by simple logic, an indivisible "object" cannot have "face" to join to form a compounded object. But academia assumed it does exist, all theories + discoveries are built upon such assumption @ChrisW

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


text:
Can I attain Vipassana without doing the body scan?
I returned from Goenka's Vipassana retreat. The technique of being aware of sensations with equanimity was very helpful and led me into deeper states of meditation.
But his technique includes scanning the body as you move deeper. What I found was if I am focused on sensations on my face then willfully changing the focus to shoulder disturbs meditation.
Also, I have to keep my mind active to control and move my focus with will, from say face to shoulder etc.
Else where as I read Ajahn Brahm, his whole technique comprise of 'letting-go' of 'doer' or 'will'. Main emphasis is about the attitude of not getting the 'doer' or 'craving' or 'will' involved.
Further to the answers to my last question as I now understand we reach to Vipassana i.e. insight. So my question is can I skip the body scan part. Can I attain Vipassana and Jnana without involving the body scan. Just being aware of sensations on face bring a great deal of Samatha. Keep the doer, controlling mind aside.
I am sorry I am mixing Ajahn Brahm and Goenka. What is happening is I am finding it difficult to attain ggod meditative mind through AB's method of focusing on breath but I am doing good progress in sense of calming my mind and reducing the thoughts by Goenkas method to watch sensations through equanimity.
So my plan is attain Samatha through Goenka's method of watching sensations and then as I attain meditative mind with no thoughts switch to AB's method to attain Jnana.
I checked other question-answers regarding body scan but they do not answer my question as their problem is not 'bringing in the doer' or 'will' their problems are different.
So my question is can I skip the body scan?

can I skip the body scan part. Can I attain Vipassana and Jnana without involving the body scan.

Yes.

Just being aware of sensations on face bring a great deal of Samatha. Keep the doer, controlling mind aside.

Yes. If it feels comfortable just  being aware of sensations on face then do it. In his instructions, the Buddha literally said: "Bring mindfulness in front of the face (parimukhaṃ)".

I am finding it difficult to attain ggod meditative mind through AB's method of focusing on breath but I am doing good progress in
  sense of calming my mind and reducing the thoughts by Goenkas method
  to watch sensations through equanimity.

What is important is equanimity and a sense of calming. If the body-scan is too busy & disturbing, skip it. If the breathing is too narrow & restrictive, also drop it. Try to be as natural as possible, with equanimity. If sensations around the face helps the mind stay grounded, then maintain it.

So my plan is attain Samatha through Goenka's method of watching sensations and then as I attain meditative mind with no thoughts switch to AB's method to attain Jnana.

Sounds complementary and OK.

So my question is can I skip the body scan?

Yes. If the deliberate body-scan is too busy & disturbing, skip it. It is important awareness remains fluid, flexible or "malleable" (mudubhūta); a quality of concentration the Buddha emphasized.

This is an old post, and I don’t even have an account here but I found this by googling to try to find out if there are other Vipassana centers or teachers practicing Vipassana the same way as the teacher in my town! (Jefferson City, MO, US, Vipassana Buddhist Church, Rev. Montee Dhammaruchi). I’ll talk about that a little and hopefully the info is helpful to someone!
It’s been years since I attended there, I traveled away for a long time and found other Buddhists doing different things in Portland Oregon. I practice shikantaza now, as a beginner, after finding that Dogen’s framework seems to click with my logic and also challenge me in a way that feels growthful.
But anyway, years ago, I practiced this form of Vipassana for about 3 years with Rev. Montee, and then continued in it independently until I switched to Zen. The instructions are to sit in a way that isn’t too straining. He encourages full lotus if possible, half lotus if you can’t do full, Burmese posture if you can’t do either. The point is ideally you are splitting your weight between two knees and your butt. Some people sat in chairs though, and he didn’t mind making those available. And then you try to isolate awareness in your breath, with all senses, focusing on your nostrils if possible. And then when sounds or sensations or thoughts happen, try not to be disturbed by them but be aware of their impermanence. That was basically my experience and understanding of it, and I haven’t learned or practiced any other form of Vipassana than what he instructed. Other Vipassana techniques sound pretty different when I read about them. The way Montee taught it, it never involved a body scan. Mindfulness of the whole body was encouraged but there wasn’t a systematic method like that. It may be that he was trying to streamline the essence of Vipassana. When I first began practicing Zazen I had a hard time differentiating between it and Montee’s Vipassana. I know that he had trained in Zen originally so maybe that’s why he taught this way.

Meditation is defined in Buddhism as "beneficial concentration", where "concentration" is synonymous to "relaxation".
Meditation is a way to let go of forceful, constraining habits.
So doing anything in meditation forcefully might be likely counter-productive. Unless, of course, that forceful action would help you to let something go, and after that you would meditate naturally, in unconstrained way.
So if going through some steps, like body scan, seems too forced, then don't force it.
I like to follow body sensations: if they attract attention to the face, then go there. But usually after following sensations to some body part they gradually fade or start to move to another part.
If you are attached to focusing on the face, it can mean attachment.
Why would moving to other parts — doing body scan — be a problem?
It shouldn't be a problem if you are truly relaxed and letting go.
Attachment to the sensations in the head is known as a symptom of "Zen sickness", which means meditating incorrectly. They say that the energy goes to the head, instead of being distributed through the body more evenly and naturally.
To counter that tendency, try methods like "microcosmic orbit". Hakuins' butter egg might be helpful too, as well as qigong and other ways to make the body more conscious and holistic.
The accumulation of energy in the head (or any other body part) can be accompanied with pleasant sensations, but in some other parts of the body which you leave outside of your focus the situation can be disharmonious. Also, consumed with pleasant sensations, you might not notice tensions in the head, leading to all kinds of health problems (poor sight, crumbling teeth, bad breath, hypertension etc).
More properly would be, at first, focusing at the place that attracts your attention, but then trying to spread the energy that you feel. As if that place gets relaxed, warmth is dispersing around, and then your attention gets liberated to move anywhere else.
Ultimately, it's advisable to widen the perception to all the body, as relaxed (that's what the body scan is for), and further to expand the perception to all the world, inside and outside, as relaxed, with no oppositions. With no place preferred or held to.
Otherwise it's probably moving in a wrong direction.

Body scanning isn't vipassana. It's still unification of sensations and witnessing. It could may be a useful preliminary practice for some people, but it simply is not unbinding. It doesn't lead to nibbana.
S.N. Goenka formed a cult and co-opted important terms like vipassana. If you even practice any other kind of buddhist meditation you are banned from his retreats for a long time, from what I've heard. You cannot question his wisdom. Totally opposite of Buddha's teaching.


text:
Is the buddhist concept of kamma supersticiously deterministic?
(Before asking my question, I'd like to make clear that all of my previous knowledge comes from sources other than the suttas).
Is the buddhist doctrine of kamma a superstitious explanation for what is happening in the present?
How do the suttas explain diseases, malformations, intelectual handicaps and random misfortunes?
Is there such a thing as random misfortunes for the Buddha (as exposed in the suttas)? Or can all of my present circumstances be explained and attributed to "my" past deeds?
I ask this because I read in lots of places that some teachers explain diseases as consequences of our own deeds, and I not sure of how much of that come from the suttas themselves.
Another question, somehow related to the last one:
As far as I know, the Theravada doctrine is not a non-dualistic one, and the suttas explicitly say that all conditioned phenomena are dukkha.
But for other schools, is there such a thing as "bad" and "good" external circumstances?
For those non-dualistic schools: do they accept that everything is dukkha? Or do they say that our minds are the ones interpreting things as good and bad, and as such, good and bad kamma is just and illusion?
Thanks in advance for your time!

I think the quick answer to "can all of my present circumstances be explained and attributed to 'my' past deeds" is "no" (e.g. as mentioned in another topic), so I'll close this as a duplicate, if that's alright. I also found this answer about kamma interesting, fyi.

One of the points given in Ven. Yuttadhammo's answers is confusing to me, to say the least. Isn't contrived and kind of convenient to say that only Buddhas can understand the mechanisms underlying kamma? That makes the figure of the Buddha a mesianic one, almost divine; also, that makes the Dhamma a practice of faith more than personal experience and testing. I think this is what makes kamma and rebirth confusing to most westerns.

I think it's canonical e.g. this sutta -- I interpret this as "don't worry about the details of how karma works, but accept the basics of it" and imvho "the basics" of it are, "it's good to do good, bad to do bad" (or "to intend" not just "to do") ... and that the way toward the ending of "[re]birth" (whatever that means), which is seen as dukkha (in the first noble truth), involves working toward the end of kamma (where a definition of kamma elsewhere, in another sutta, is translated as "intentional action").

You might want to ask an explicit question about that, though, I don't think that would be duplicate.

Noticed you use the word concept. And as in any concept, it deals with the mind. Karma serves to tame the mind, settles it so that it can move on to the actual dharma practice. It is suppose to be a quick mind fix for the first party, not so much for the third party.we as the third party can only guess and conceptual the effect of karma. Only the first party can fully feel the effect of karma.


text:
How does rebirth work for arahant and non-arahants?
I read in a sutta a few days ago (I can't remember the exactly where) that the question of rebirth after parinibbana is not a valid one, because there was no one to be reborn.
But if anatta is valid not just for arahants, but for all conditioned phenomena as well, does that mean that rebirth is also not applicable for non-arahants either?
Thanks for your time!

Indeed puthujjanas knows that it makes no sense to ask where a fire go once it is put out, unless those puthujjana managed to create a fantasy where they deify fire..., so the buddha says that It makes zero senses to ask where an arhant goes, or if an arhant exists after parinibbana, by creating a parallel between fire and craving (or fire and existence).
Same thing about the stupidity of trying to figure the non-existence of a buddha.
It is craving that is the path to vedana, the 5 aggregates, birth, dukkha and all that stuff, so once there is no craving, well there is nothing left and there cannot be birth again.

Thanks for your answer! What does it mean "craving is the path... to birth"? Is the "craving" of one being transfered to another (I mean, the "two" beings being causally conected)?

But if anatta is valid not just for arahants, but for all conditioned phenomena as well, does that mean that rebirth is also not applicable for non-arahants either?

Just an analogy, a novice martial arts student at the beginning was told to practice hard and adhere to all the strictest forms and moves in order to make progress on the path to become the best fighter. But once s/he's reached master level, then s/he'd be told to be fluid, adaptive, and NOT to adhere to the strictest forms and moves to become the best fighter! They're not contradicting as they sound. Similarly, we unenlightened worldlings have not been able to directly experience the non-self truth for ourselves. The arahants do. And that's why we worldlings still need to adhere to those strict "drills" to get to the next levels. Until we've directly experienced the level of "no one to be reborn", then we'll earned the right to proclaim that rebirth no longer applies to us.

Yes, there is ultimately no self in all phenomena, so there is no self that is reborn.
However, there is suffering. And suffering can only be ended by Nibbana. Suffering doesn't end with physical death. Suicide cannot end suffering.

"Re-birth" is the re-arising of self-view after the traumatic "death" of a previous self-identity. For arahants, there is no birth & no death therefore the question about what happens after "death" ("marana") is irrelevant. But for non-arahants, "death" ("marana") still occurs. When self-view is still capable of arising, then a new birth will happen after death. Whenever attachment arises, there will be both birth & death, as follows:

Seeing danger in clinging,   in the coming-into-play     of birth & death, they are released from lack of clinging,  in the ending   of
  birth & death. They, happy, arriving at safety, fully unbound in the
  here-&-now,
MN 130

In summary, the word "marana" ("death") does not refer to something "physical", as shown in the quotes below:

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

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

SN 12.66 say unambiguously the cause of "death" is "attachment" or "acquisition".

As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
  suffering has acquisition as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
  is born and produced from acquisition
SN 12.66

In Buddhism, "a being" ("satta") is merely an "idea" or "view", as follows:

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
SN 5.10

"Death" ("marana") refers to the death of "a being", which is merely an idea or "self-view", as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is aging-and-death? The aging of the various beings in the various orders of beings, their growing old, brokenness
  of teeth, greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, decline of vitality,
  degeneration of the faculties: this is called aging. The passing away
  of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their
  perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of
  time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass:
  this is called death. Thus this aging and this death are together
  called aging-and-death.
SN 12.2

In the last quote. The Buddha said that aging is greyness of hair, wrinkling of skin, brokenness of teeth so he is clearly talking about the real aging not metaphorical one. In Sn 5.10 The person was saying that there are only five aggregate and these things are not self. Where did it ever say that rebirth is the re arising of self view? I could say that there is real rebirth by saying that the aggregates are reborn not the person or self. I downvoted this answer for the reasons mention above.

No, Its the "greying" of "a being", such as "my hair is getting grey", "my wife's hair is getting grey". Its looking into the mirror and thinking: "I am getting old", which causes suffering. Please read SN 22.1 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html  Each time you mark my answer down, it is missing the Path.

You are wrong. I am not missing the path. Thinking “I am getting old causes suffering. But you wouldn’t think that if you never get old. I hope you don’t think it is the greying of a self view since Buddha is clearly talking about real aging.

@TheDBSGuy FYI comments are mostly/mainly for suggesting how to improve -- or for asking for a clarification to -- an answer. If the author (i.e. Dhammadhatu of this answer) then won't use the improvement you suggested in your comment... then, any further comments would probably be "extended discussion" or "chat". Also I think that the author of answer might be allowed to have the last word (when it's their answer that's the subject or topic of the comments).

DBS. I quoted the suttas. The Buddha said: "And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die". I recommend you stop fighting the Buddha. In MN 122, the Buddha said to be his friend and not his enemy. Take care.

There are some cold, hard facts in this answer.  Take 'em or leave 'em.  Downvoted into oblivion by people still living in the world.  +1 from me.


text:
How can we make compatible the 'ehipassiko' aspect of the Dhamma with the faith aspects of it?
In this sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html), it is explained that the power of Gotama Buddha as a sammasambuddha cannot or should not be conjecture about; the underlying mechanisms of kamma are not available to be investigated either.
However, also in the suttas it is emphazised that the teachings can be tested by ourselves through practice and investigation, being that the 'ehipassiko' ("come and see") aspect of the Dhamma.
How can we conciliate those aspects of the Dhamma?
We have teachers and bhikkhus teachings about rebirth, kamma, abhijjas, the nature of Buddhas and arahants, the nature of reality, and so on, but never reaching consensus about those themes. Even within the same schools, the teachings of those topics varies from teacher to teacher.
It seems to me that Buddhism, at least in those topics, becomes a religion as the many others existent.
Are we supposed to follow blindly this part of the Dhamma?
Thanks for your time!

Hence the importance of discrimination, contemplation, analysis, logic.and experience. It would be your responsibility to sort the wheat from the chaff and to avoid unnecessary beliefs in the meantime.

I (personally) hope it's acceptable to be "agnostic" (to whatever extent "being" anything is ok) -- i.e., if you or I don't know something, then ... :-)
And, The Four Great References might be helpful (perhaps I'm quoting it out of context, but still):

In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak ...
In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline.

If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it.
But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.'

And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve.

Take rebirth, which I think is difficult for a novice to grasp, and has been a topic of some controversy.
If someone says, "there is no rebirth", then I think that's "not traceable in the Discourses" (i.e. contradicted in the suttas).
But if (or while) you don't know what it means, maybe "agnostic" is the right way to proceed.
There may be hints (e.g. in a definition or summary of right view) of what topics are "fit for attention", and which not -- and so I hope I may avoid topics described as "a thicket of wrong views", to benefit from other aspects of dhamma.
And where it says that something is "unconjecturable" then maybe take heed of that.1
There's a famous and potentially useful warning against being sectarian, i.e. arguing about dhamma. I once read (in a non-Buddhist context) that to avoid arguing it's good to "offer your experience as your truth" -- instead of arguing, e.g. ...

"It is this!"
"No, it is that!

...  something like, "My experience is that... (etc.)"

1I found it was helpful to try to understand in what way that might be so, see e.g. Why is the Buddha described as trackless?

In this sutta (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html), it is explained that the power of Gotama Buddha as a sammasambuddha cannot or should not be conjecture about; the underlying mechanisms of kamma are not available to be investigated either. However, also in the suttas it is emphazised that the teachings can be tested by ourselves through practice and investigation, being that the 'ehipassiko' ("come and see") aspect of the Dhamma.

I don't see any contradiction in the suttas. Sorta like a college math professor telling 5th graders not to conjecture about the working of calculus, differential equations, etc. But once the students have made it thru high school and into college, taking more advanced math and they'll be able to "come and see" and find out for themselves. Similarly, there're many things in the Dhamma that can be verified, some can be verified in the here and now, some would require thorough training with much dedication and effort down the line.

I guess the OP may be wondering something like, "If I don't know calculus, then, if teachers disagree on that subject, how can I learn what I'm supposed to learn?"

When you are in the fourth jhana you can recollect your past lives and with the divine eye you can see devas and other realms. So it is not just blind faith. You can experience them here and now in this life. In DN 2, the Buddha explained the fruits of contemplative life.

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.
  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers. He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. Just as a skilled potter or his assistant could craft from well-prepared clay whatever kind of pottery vessel he likes, or as a skilled ivory-carver or his assistant could craft from well-prepared ivory any kind of ivory-work he likes, or as a skilled goldsmith or his assistant could craft from well-prepared gold any kind of gold article he likes; in the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to the modes of supranormal powers... He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.
  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives... in their modes and details.
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.
  "With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. Just as if there were a tall building in the central square [of a town], and a man with good eyesight standing on top of it were to see people entering a house, leaving it, walking along the street, and sitting in the central square. The thought would occur to him, 'These people are entering a house, leaving it, walking along the streets, and sitting in the central square.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma...
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

The last one is about karma so it’s possible to understand karma. It is one of the fruits of contemplative life. If you don’t believe in these things then meditate and master the fourth jhana.

I marked this post down because "ehipassiko" does not rely on psychic powers

You reconcile those two aspects of the dhamma by understanding that the dhamma is not about becoming a buddha, no matter what some intellectual puthujjanas claim, but about destroying dukkha, which turns out to have a condition for arising and a condition for cessation, so the goal is to trigger this condition for cessation.

This question is illogical because the term "ehipassiko" means the Dhamma is not blind faith.
In SN 12.2, "birth" is defined as the mental production the self-view of "beings" based on the manifestation of aggregates experienced via the sense bases. "Re-birth" is the re-arising of these self-views. This is the 'ehipassiko' aspect of Dhamma.
For example, words typed on this internet site are "aggregates" manifesting in different ways. When the mind get annoyed at words read and then produces self-views about the writer and reader of these mere words, such as: "You are a nasty person and you annoy me", this is "birth". Two views of "beings" have been "birthed" from mere words written on an internet page.
Ehipassiko, friends. Come & see, the real verifiable truth (of "re-birth") in the here-&-now.
For example, the suttas do not say the Buddha recollected his "past lives". The Pali word here is "nivasa", which means "abode", "dwelling", "settling-place", "adherence" or, literally, "homes". As explained unambiguously in SN 22.79, when the Buddha recollected his "past abodes", he recollected when in the past his mind ignorantly clung to an aggregate as "self".

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
  to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
  feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
  recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
  perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
  volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
  that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
  the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
  not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.
“And what is it that he dismantles and does not build up? He dismantles form and does not build it up. He dismantles feeling …
  perception … volitional formations … consciousness and does not build
  it up.
SN 22.79

Ehipassiko, friends. Come & see, the real verifiable truth (of "re-birth") in the here-&-now.

I marked this answer down because ‘ehipassiko’ aspect of the Dhamma cannot be understood just the thinking intellectually. What ‘ehipassiko’ mean is that if you don’t believe then come and see for yourself. For example, if I say that exercise is good for you then you might not fully believe until you exercise and see for yourself that it is good for health. In the way, even though the Buddha said this or that is the fruits of contemplative life. We might not fully believe until we become a monk and meditate and see the fruits of contemplative life for ourself.

Marking this answer down means never penetrating the path. This answer is the heartwood of the Buddha-Dhamma. Mark it down at your own peril.

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


text:
Where is the most concrete exposition on the Buddhist ethics in the source material?
In the Bible a complex saga of the human experience is elaborated in a multitude of ways, and these nuances make the text hard to crack in a linear reading. However, there exists a very illuminating chapter (Sermon on the Mount) that provides a very well articulated elaboration on what could be considered the core Christian ethics. It ultimately grounds the metaphysical landscape or at least informs many passages (both before and after it) to be more easily interpretted.
I am interested in learning if there are any similar passages that could be pointed out in the Buddhist texts.
My entirety of exposure to Buddhist source text currently is the Zen sutra on the lotus flower, and this question is open to any sect.

The Buddha taught for 45 years therefore his teachings are infinitely larger than those of Jesus. Therefore, there are so many (reported) discourses on ethics. Below are merely a few examples:

Magga-vibhanga Sutta: Noble Eightfold Path (for monks)
Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta: Ten Wholesome Actions (for laypeople)
Veḷudvāreyya Sutta: The Golden Rule (for laypeople)
Sigalovada Sutta: The Layperson's Code of Discipline (in detail)
Vanijja Sutta: Right Livelihood (for laypeople)
Samajivina Sutta: Marriage (for laypeople)
Karaniya Metta Sutta: The Buddha's Words on Loving-Kindness

The above said, a fitting equivalent to the Sermon on the Mount, in terms of both content & style, is the Maha-mangala Sutta, which similarly is about "Blessings".
In addition, as the Sermon on the Mount was spoken 500 years after the Buddha, most of the topics in it would be found in the Buddha's teachings, such as:

Integrity & Dhamma having the taste of salt
Anger
Lust and sense control
Retaliation & Love Your Enemies
Spiritual treasure
Don't Judge Others
Crossing the floods with unshakable faith.

As for divorce, the Buddha taught life-long marriage is the ideal (Samajivina Sutta) yet it appears did not prohibit divorce when a wife is immoral.

The Dhammapada is a popular and famous summary (here in the West at least). It more or less opens with "non-hatred" (aka "loving-kindness") and has other "ethical" chapters. It's better for your purpose to read the verse[s] only, not the stories which accompany each verse.
I think the "most concrete" exposition of Christian ethics is the Great Commandment (in two parts) -- the Sermon on the Mount is ... longer, and maybe more fanciful. Anyway there's one verse in the Dhamapada which (for what it's worth) seems to me very close to the second part of that, i.e.,

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

(which may seem to conflict with the anatta doctrine; "but there you go" as is said colloquially).
Furthermore:

There's one sutta (which I remember as, "the sutta of the four directions") which contains a great deal of mundane practical advice for lay people1

There are the four "brahmaviharas", which these articles describe e.g. as follows ...

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind ...

The primary ethical 'laws' are the five precepts.

There's maybe a gradual training for laypeople -- virtues includes "harmlessness" and "giving (dana)".

There are three (sometimes two) root poisons.

There's a list of hindrances (a bit analogous to what some Christian theology calls "sins") -- but there are more less detailed lists of these (and from different schools), see also especially fetters for example.

It's hard to summarise in one place2 -- I'd be remiss not to add that it says a good friend is important (to some extent all-important) -- but then again there's "seclusion" (and so on).

1 There's at least one whole paperback of advice to laypeople, based on i.e. summarising suttas like this one -- almost all of which is about the "virtue" (perhaps aka "ethics") part of the threefold training -- e.g. if you count advice like this as part of "ethics".
2 possibly because Why isn't there a Buddhist Bible? to which the accepted answer doesn't even mention Mahayana.

So: you read something on Wikipedia, didn't like what you read there, and therefore marked down this answer? This answer, which doesn't talk about the Sermon on the Mount?

Was there something which you didn't like, in this answer or referenced by this answer?

Perhaps I see now -- i.e. I think you're saying you don't like me giving Wikipedia links or Google links when I want to reference a term like "five precepts" or "root poisons".

Thanks for the comment! It's been 'forever' since I read that Sermon. TBH I don't see Jesus and the Buddha as at all alike, so it didn't occur to me to try and draw a parallel. I think the Dhammapada (at least, the verses) are considered buddhavacana (also if the OP wants something poetic). I didn't quote suttas -- partly because concepts tend to be explained/repeated in several, so I'm not sure which one to pick. And I'm not sure whether the Fire Sermon even fits in to lay "ethics", though it has prominent place in another collection of suttas.

Buddhist objective is nibbāna, the safest.
It's like the science's, engineering's or computer programming's rule, we can't misunderstand at any level of the process. It's buggy, risk and unsafe.
Therefore, it's very hard to understand Tipitaka and Atthakatha as alike as science's, engineering's or computer programming's rule.
So, if you point your expectation in Buddhism only at the easy part, you will miss the safest part, which elaborated multi aspects of reasons. That missing is buggy, risk and unsafe.
So, concrete exposition of Buddhism is the conclusion like:

Vinaya is in VN Parivāra by upāli, the vinaya secretary of buddha.
Sutta is in KN Paṭisambhidāmagga by sāriputta, the stand-in teacher of buddha in   MN Mahāgosiṅgasālasutta (or alternative in translated Visuddhimagga but if you bias of the supernatural, it's not your choice).

Both above require these to understand:

Pāli skill from Kaccāyana.
Tipitaka analysis skill from Netti.
The discipline of everything from abhidhamma  by sāriputta, the stand-in teacher of buddha in   MN Mahāgosiṅgasālasutta. Or, saṅgaha by anuruddha, past laṅkā's pontiff.

But if you want to start in Buddhism, you need:

Qualified teacher to teach you step by step.
Easy sutta to recite and do follow, such as Maṅgalasutta (and all Khuddakapātha), Siṅgālakasutta, and dhammapatha.


text:
Why does SN 12.66 say aging-and-death has acquisition as its source?
SN 12.66 says:

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

Why does SN 12.66 say aging-and-death has acquisition (upadhi) as its source? Why doesn't SN 22.66 say aging-and-death has cancer or heart disease as its source?

This, of course, refers to Dependent Origination, with upadhi used synonymously with upādāna.
Pali Text Society's dictionary equates it with taṇhā:

Upadhi, (fr. upa + dhā, cp. upadahati & BSk. upadhi Divy 50, 224, 534) 1. putting down or under, foundation, basis, ground, substratum (of rebirth) S. I, 117, 124, 134, 186; A. II, 24 (°saṅkhaya); III, 382 (id.); IV, 150 (°kkhaya); It. 21, 69; Sn. 364, 728 (upadhī-nidānā dukkha = vaṭṭa-dukkhaṃ SnA 505), 789, 992; Nd1 27, 141; Nd2 157; Vbh. 338; Nett 29; DhA. IV, 33.—(2) clinging to rebirth (as impeding spiritual progress), attachment (almost syn. with kilesa or taṇhā, cp. nirupadhi & anupadhi); S A. = pañcakkhandhā, S. II, 108. At M I 162 (cp. Sn. 33 = S. I, 6 = I. 107) wife and children, flocks and herds, silver and gold are called upadhayo. upadhi is the root of sorrow ib. 454; S. II, 108; Sn. 728 = 1051 = Th. I, 152 and the rejection of all upadhis is Nibbāna D. II, 36. (cp. S. I, 136; III, 133; V, 226; A. I, 80; M. I, 107 = II. 93; Vin. I, 5, 36 = J. I, 83 = Mvst II. 444; It. 46, 62); D. III, 112 calls that which has upadhi ignoble (= non-Aryan). At S. I, 117 = Divy 224 upadhi is called a bond (saṃgo). Cp. opadhika.—The upadhis were later systematized into a set of 10, which are given at Nd2 157 as follows: 5 taṇh’upadhis (taṇhā, diṭṭhi, kilesa, kamma, duccarita), āhār-upadhi, paṭigh°, catasso upādinnā dhātuyo u. (viz. kāma, diṭṭhi, sīlabbata, attavāda; see D. III, 230), cha ajjhattikāni āyatanāni u. , cha viññāṇa-kāyā u. Another modified classification see at Brethren p. 398. (Page 142)

In my understanding, the idea here is that the pursuit of acquisitions has a semiotic effect of cementing the notion of self as an agent of action and enjoyer of its results. And so craving for an object, setting one's mind onto the object, making the object one's target, pursuing the object, acquiring the object, and then enjoying the contact with the object is exactly the semiotic sequence that leads to bhava - becoming (=identifying self as) a sentient being.
While experience of "contact" with an "object" marks the point when the spatial sense of self has fully matured, it is pursuit and acquisition is what helps the temporal sense of self to come to fruition.
Once self-identification as sentient being has fully matured both spatially and temporally, the self imputed  onto the aggregates becomes subject to change of the aggregates, hence "aging-and-death".

Pali context doesn't allow upadhi to refer to upādāna, that's why the tipitaka memorizer wrote in aṭṭhakathā as " Khandhapañcakaṃ hettha upadhīti adhippetaṃ.". If the context allows both of them, the tipitaka memorizer must mention both, upādāna and khandha. That's why my answer seriously focusing on the context and compare them to the others sutta, especially saccapabba.

Upādhi means clinging aggregates.
The context of sammasasutta is the four noble truth, ariyasacca. See the highlight, and compare with saccapabba of DN mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta.
See atthakathā of this sutta for more information.
Another, paṭiccasamuppāda is an alternative of Ariyasacca. They are difference in literal, but same in meaning.
sammasasutta

     [256]   Bhagavā   etadavoca   idha   bhikkhave  bhikkhu  sammasamāno
sammasati    antaraṃ   sammasaṃ   yaṃ   kho   idaṃ   anekavidhaṃ   nānappakārakaṃ
dukkhaṃ   loke   uppajjati   jarāmaraṇaṃ  idaṃ  nu  1-  kho  dukkhaṃ  kiṃnidānaṃ
kiṃsamudayaṃ   kiṃjātikaṃ   kiṃpabhavaṃ   kismiṃ   sati   jarāmaraṇaṃ   hotīti   .  so
sammasamāno   evaṃ   jānāti   yaṃ   kho   idaṃ  anekavidhaṃ  nānappakārakaṃ

Dukkhaṃ    loke   uppajjati   jarāmaraṇaṃ   idaṃ   kho   dukkhaṃ   upadhinidānaṃ
upadhisamudayaṃ   upadhijātikaṃ   upadhippabhavaṃ   upadhismiṃ   sati   jarāmaraṇaṃ   hoti
upadhismiṃ   asati   jarāmaraṇaṃ   na  hotīti  .  so  jarāmaraṇañca  pajānāti
jarāmaraṇasamudayañca     pajānāti    jarāmaraṇanirodhañca    pajānāti    yā
ca    jarāmaraṇanirodhasāruppagāminī    paṭipadā    tañca   pajānāti   tathā
paṭipanno   ca   hoti   anudhammacārī   .   ayaṃ   vuccati  bhikkhave  bhikkhu
sabbaso sammā dukkhakkhayāya paṭipanno jarāmaraṇanirodhāya.
     [257]   Athāparaṃ   sammasamāno   sammasati   antaraṃ  sammasaṃ  upadhi
panāyaṃ   kiṃnidāno   kiṃsamudayo   kiṃjātiko   kiṃpabhavo   kiṃsmiṃ   sati  upadhi
hoti   kismiṃ   asati   upadhi   na   hotīti   .  so  sammasamāno  evaṃ
jānāti     upadhi     taṇhānidāno     taṇhāsamudayo     taṇhājātiko
taṇhāpabhavo   taṇhāya   sati   upadhi   hoti   taṇhāya   asati  upadhi  na
hotīti    .    so    upadhiñca    pajānāti   upadhisamudayañca   pajānāti
upadhinirodhañca    pajānāti   yā   ca   upadhinirodhasāruppagāminī   paṭipadā
tañca  pajānāti  tathā  paṭipanno  ca  hoti  anudhammacārī  .  ayaṃ  vuccati
bhikkhave bhikkhu sabbaso sammā dukkhakkhayāya paṭipanno upadhinirodhāya.
     [258]   Athāparaṃ   sammasamāno   sammasati  antaraṃ  sammasaṃ  taṇhā
panāyaṃ  kattha  uppajjamānā  uppajjati  kattha  nivīsamānā  nivīsatīti  1-.
So   sammasamāno   evaṃ   jānāti   yaṃ   kho  loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ
etthesā    taṇhā    uppajjamānā    uppajjati   ettha   nivīsamānā
@Footnote: 1 Ma. Yu. nivisamānā nivisatīti. evamuparipi.
Nivīsati   .   kiñci   loke   piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  .  cakkhuṃ  loke  piyarūpaṃ
sātarūpaṃ   .pe.   sotaṃ   loke   piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  ...  ghānaṃ  loke
piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  ...  jivhā  loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ ... Kāyo loke
piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  ...  mano  loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā
uppajjamānā uppajjati ettha nivīsamānā nivīsati.

mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta
     [294]   Puna  caparaṃ  bhikkhave  bhikkhu  dhammesu  dhammānupassī  viharati
catūsu     ariyasaccesu     .    kathañca    bhikkhave    bhikkhu    dhammesu
dhammānupassī   viharati   catūsu   ariyasaccesu  .  idha  bhikkhave  bhikkhu  idaṃ
dukkhanti   yathābhūtaṃ   pajānāti   ayaṃ   dukkhasamudayoti   yathābhūtaṃ  pajānāti
ayaṃ    dukkhanirodhoti    yathābhūtaṃ    pajānāti    ayaṃ    dukkhanirodhagāminī
paṭipadāti yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti [1]-.
     {294.1}  Katamañca  bhikkhave  dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ. Jātipi dukkhā jarāpi
dukkhā       maraṇampi      dukkhaṃ      sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsāpi
@Footnote: 1 Ma. paṭhamabhāṇavāro niṭṭhito.
Dukkhā   appiyehi   sampayogopi   dukkho   piyehi   vippayogopi  dukkho
yampicchaṃ    na    labhati   tampi   dukkhaṃ   saṅkhittena   pañcupādānakkhandhā
dukkhā.
     [295]  Katamā  ca  bhikkhave  jāti  .  yā  tesaṃ  tesaṃ  sattānaṃ
tamhi    tamhi   sattanikāye   jāti   sañjāti   okkanti  nibbatti  1-
abhinibbatti   khandhānaṃ   pātubhāvo   āyatanānaṃ   paṭilābho   ayaṃ  vuccati
bhikkhave jāti.
     {295.1}  Katamā  ca  bhikkhave  jarā  .  yā  tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ
tamhi  tamhi  sattanikāye  jarā  jīraṇatā  khaṇḍiccaṃ  pāliccaṃ  valitacatā 2-
āyuno saṃhāni indriyānaṃ paripāko ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave jarā.
     {295.2}  Katamañca  bhikkhave  maraṇaṃ  .  yā 3- tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ
tamhā  tamhā  sattanikāyā  cuti  cavanatā  bhedo  antaradhānaṃ  maccu maraṇaṃ
kālakiriyā  khandhānaṃ  bhedo  kaḷevarassa  nikkhepo jīvitindriyassa upacchedo
idaṃ vuccati bhikkhave maraṇaṃ.
     {295.3} Katamo ca bhikkhave soko. Yo kho bhikkhave aññataraññatarena
byasanena    samannāgatassa    aññataraññatarena    dukkhadhammena    phuṭṭhassa
soko  socanā  socitattaṃ  antosoko  antoparisoko ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave
soko.
     {295.4} Katamo ca bhikkhave paridevo. Yo kho bhikkhave aññataraññatarena
byasanena    samannāgatassa    aññataraññatarena    dukkhadhammena    phuṭṭhassa
ādevo  paridevo  ādevanā  paridevanā  ādevitattaṃ  paridevitattaṃ ayaṃ
vuccati bhikkhave paridevo.
@Footnote: 1 Ma. ayaṃ pāṭho natthi. 2 valittacatātipi pāṭho. 3 Ma. yaṃ.
Katamañca   bhikkhave   dukkhaṃ   .   yaṃ  kho  bhikkhave  kāyikaṃ  dukkhaṃ  kāyikaṃ
asātaṃ   kāyasamphassajaṃ   dukkhaṃ   asātaṃ   vedayitaṃ   idaṃ  vuccati  bhikkhave
dukkhaṃ.
     {295.5}  Katamañca  bhikkhave  domanassaṃ  .  yaṃ kho bhikkhave cetasikaṃ
dukkhaṃ   cetasikaṃ   asātaṃ  manosamphassajaṃ  1-  dukkhaṃ  asātaṃ  vedayitaṃ  idaṃ
vuccati bhikkhave domanassaṃ.
     {295.6}  Katamo  ca  bhikkhave  upāyāso  .  yo  kho  bhikkhave
aññataraññatarena      byasanena      samannāgatassa      aññataraññatarena
dukkhadhammena      phuṭṭhassa     āyāso     upāyāso     āyāsitattaṃ
upāyāsitattaṃ ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave upāyāso.
     {295.7}  Katamo  2-  ca  bhikkhave  appiyehi sampayogo dukkho.
Idha  yassa  te  honti  aniṭṭhā  akantā  amanāpā  rūpā  saddā gandhā
rasā  phoṭṭhabbā  [3]-  ye  vā  panassa  honti anatthakāmā ahitakāmā
aphāsukakāmā   ayogakkhemakāmā  tesaṃ  4-  saṅgati  samāgamo  samodhānaṃ
missībhāvo ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave appiyehi sampayogo dukkho.
     {295.8} Katamo ca bhikkhave piyehi vippayogo dukkho. Idha yassa te
honti   iṭṭhā  kantā  manāpā  rūpā  saddā  gandhā  rasā  phoṭṭhabbā
ye  vā  panassa  honti  atthakāmā hitakāmā phāsukakāmā yogakkhemakāmā
mātā   vā   pitā  vā  bhātā  vā  bhaginī  vā  mittā  vā  amaccā
vā    ñātisālohitā   vā   tesaṃ   asaṅgati   asamāgamo   asamodhānaṃ
amissībhāvo ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave piyehi vippayogo dukkho 2-.
@Footnote: 1 cetosamphassajanti vā pāṭho. 2-2 Yu. ime pāṭhā natthi. 3 Ma. dhammā.
@ito paraṃ īdisameva. 4 Ma. yā tehi saddhiṃ saṅgati ... ito paraṃ īdisameva.
     {295.9}   Katamañca  bhikkhave  yampicchaṃ  na  labhati  tampi  dukkhaṃ .
Jātidhammānaṃ   bhikkhave  sattānaṃ  evaṃ  icchā  uppajjati  aho  vata  mayaṃ
na   jātidhammā   assāma   na   ca  vata  no  jāti  āgaccheyyāti  na
kho   panetaṃ   icchāya   pattabbaṃ   idampi   yampicchaṃ   na   labhati  tampi
dukkhaṃ   .   jarādhammānaṃ   bhikkhave   sattānaṃ  .  byādhidhammānaṃ  bhikkhave
sattānaṃ   .   maraṇadhammānaṃ   bhikkhave   sattānaṃ   .   sokaparidevadukkha-
domanassupāyāsadhammānaṃ   bhikkhave   sattānaṃ   evaṃ   icchā   uppajjati
aho    vata   mayaṃ   na   sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsadhammā   assāma
na    ca   vata   no   sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā   āgaccheyyunti
na    kho   panetaṃ   icchāya   pattabbaṃ   idampi   yampicchaṃ   na   labhati
tampi   dukkhaṃ   .   katame   ca  bhikkhave  saṅkhittena  pañcupādānakkhandhā
dukkhā    .   seyyathīdaṃ   rūpūpādānakkhandho   1-   vedanūpādānakkhandho
saññūpādānakkhandho      saṅkhārūpādānakkhandho      viññāṇūpādānakkhandho
ime   vuccanti   bhikkhave   saṅkhittena   pañcupādānakkhandhā   dukkhā .
Idaṃ vuccati bhikkhave dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ.
     [296]  Katamañca  bhikkhave  dukkhasamudayo 2- ariyasaccaṃ. Yāyaṃ taṇhā
ponobbhavikā    3-    nandirāgasahagatā    tatratatrābhinandinī   seyyathīdaṃ
kāmataṇhā bhavataṇhā vibhavataṇhā.
     [297]   Sā  kho  panesā  bhikkhave  taṇhā  kattha  uppajjamānā
uppajjati   kattha   nivisamānā   nivisati   .  yaṃ  loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ
@Footnote: 1 Ma. rūpupādānakkhandho ... viññāṇupā .... 2 Ma. dukkhasamudayaṃ.
@3 Sī. Yu. ponobhavikā.
Etthesā    taṇhā    uppajjamānā    uppajjati   ettha   nivisamānā
nivisati.
     {297.1}  Kiñca  loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  .  cakkhuṃ  loke piyarūpaṃ
sātarūpaṃ    etthesā    taṇhā    uppajjamānā    uppajjati    ettha
nivisamānā   nivisati   .   sotaṃ   loke   .  ghānaṃ  loke  .  jivhā
loke  .  kāyo  loke  .  mano  loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā
taṇhā uppajjamānā uppajjati ettha nivisamānā nivisati.
     {297.2} Rūpā loke. Saddā loke. Gandhā loke. Rasā loke.
Phoṭṭhabbā   loke   .   dhammā   loke   piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā
taṇhā uppajjamānā uppajjati ettha nivisamānā nivisati.
     {297.3}   Cakkhuviññāṇaṃ   loke   .   sotaviññāṇaṃ   loke .
Ghānaviññāṇaṃ  loke  .  jivhāviññāṇaṃ  loke  .  kāyaviññāṇaṃ  loke.
Manoviññāṇaṃ   loke   piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā  uppajjamānā
uppajjati ettha nivisamānā nivisati.
     {297.4} Cakkhusamphasso loke. Sotasamphasso loke. Ghānasamphasso
loke  .  jivhāsamphasso  loke . Kāyasamphasso loke. Manosamphasso
loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā  uppajjamānā uppajjati ettha
nivisamānā nivisati.
     {297.5}  Cakkhusamphassajā  vedanā loke. Sotasamphassajā vedanā
loke  .  ghānasamphassajā  vedanā  loke  .  jivhāsamphassajā  vedanā
loke   .  kāyasamphassajā  vedanā  loke  .  manosamphassajā  vedanā
loke   piyarūpaṃ   sātarūpaṃ   etthesā   taṇhā  uppajjamānā  uppajjati
Ettha nivisamānā nivisati.
     {297.6}  Rūpasaññā  loke  .  saddasaññā  loke . Gandhasaññā
loke   .  rasasaññā  loke  .  phoṭṭhabbasaññā  loke  .  dhammasaññā
loke   piyarūpaṃ   sātarūpaṃ   etthesā   taṇhā  uppajjamānā  uppajjati
ettha nivisamānā nivisati.
     {297.7}   Rūpasañcetanā   loke  .  saddasañcetanā  loke .
Gandhasañcetanā   loke  .  rasasañcetanā  loke  .  phoṭṭhabbasañcetanā
loke   .   dhammasañcetanā  loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā
uppajjamānā uppajjati ettha nivisamānā nivisati.
     {297.8}  Rūpataṇhā  loke  .  saddataṇhā  loke . Gandhataṇhā
loke  .  rasataṇhā  loke . Phoṭṭhabbataṇhā loke. Dhammataṇhā loke
piyarūpaṃ   sātarūpaṃ   etthesā   taṇhā   uppajjamānā  uppajjati  ettha
nivisamānā nivisati.
     {297.9}  Rūpavitakko  loke . Saddavitakko loke. Gandhavitakko
loke    .   rasavitakko   loke   .   phoṭṭhabbavitakko   loke  .
Dhammavitakko   loke   piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā  uppajjamānā
uppajjati ettha nivisamānā nivisati.
     {297.10}  Rūpavicāro  loke. Saddavicāro loke. Gandhavicāro
loke . Rasavicāro loke. Phoṭṭhabbavicāro loke. Dhammavicāro loke
piyarūpaṃ   sātarūpaṃ   etthesā   taṇhā   uppajjamānā  uppajjati  ettha
nivisamānā nivisati. Idaṃ vuccati bhikkhave dukkhasamudayo ariyasaccaṃ.
     [298]   Katamañca   bhikkhave  dukkhanirodho  1-  ariyasaccaṃ  .  yo
@Footnote: 1 Ma. dukkhanirodhaṃ.
Tassāyeva   taṇhāya   asesavirāganirodho   cāgo   paṭinissaggo   mutti
anālayo.
     {298.1}   Sā  kho  panesā  bhikkhave  taṇhā  kattha  pahīyamānā
pahīyati    kattha    nirujjhamānā    nirujjhati    .   yaṃ   loke   piyarūpaṃ
sātarūpaṃ   etthesā   taṇhā   pahīyamānā   pahīyati  ettha  nirujjhamānā
nirujjhati.
     {298.2}   Kiñca   loke   piyarūpaṃ   sātarūpaṃ   .  cakkhuṃ  loke
piyarūpaṃ    sātarūpaṃ    etthesā   taṇhā   pahīyamānā   pahīyati   ettha
nirujjhamānā   nirujjhati   .   sotaṃ  loke  .  ghānaṃ  loke  .  jivhā
loke  .  kāyo  loke  .  mano  loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā
taṇhā pahīyamānā pahīyati ettha nirujjhamānā nirujjhati.
     {298.3}  Rūpā  loke  .  saddā loke. Gandhā loke. Rasā
loke  .  phoṭṭhabbā  loke  .  dhammā loke piyarūpaṃ sātarūpaṃ etthesā
taṇhā pahīyamānā pahīyati ettha nirujjhamānā nirujjhati.
     {298.4}   Cakkhuviññāṇaṃ   loke   .   sotaviññāṇaṃ   loke .
Ghānaviññāṇaṃ  loke  .  jivhāviññāṇaṃ  loke  .  kāyaviññāṇaṃ  loke.
Manoviññāṇaṃ   loke   piyarūpaṃ   sātarūpaṃ   etthesā  taṇhā  pahīyamānā
pahīyati ettha nirujjhamānā nirujjhati.
     {298.5} Cakkhusamphasso loke. Sotasamphasso loke. Ghānasamphasso
loke. Jivhāsamphasso loke. Kāyasamphasso loke. Manosamphasso loke
piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā  pahīyamānā  pahīyati ettha nirujjhamānā
nirujjhati.
     {298.6}  Cakkhusamphassajā  vedanā loke. Sotasamphassajā vedanā
Loke  .  ghānasamphassajā  vedanā  loke  .  jivhāsamphassajā  vedanā
loke   .  kāyasamphassajā  vedanā  loke  .  manosamphassajā  vedanā
loke    piyarūpaṃ    sātarūpaṃ   etthesā   taṇhā   pahīyamānā   pahīyati
ettha nirujjhamānā nirujjhati.
     {298.7}  Rūpasaññā  loke  .  saddasaññā  loke . Gandhasaññā
loke  .  rasasaññā  loke . Phoṭṭhabbasaññā loke. Dhammasaññā loke
piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā  pahīyamānā  pahīyati ettha nirujjhamānā
nirujjhati.
     {298.8}   Rūpasaññacetanā  loke  .  saddasañcetanā  loke .
Gandhasañcetanā   loke  .  rasasañcetanā  loke  .  phoṭṭhabbasañcetanā
loke   .  dhammasaññacetanā  loke  piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā
pahīyamānā pahīyati ettha nirujjhamānā nirujjhati.
     {298.9}  Rūpataṇhā  loke  .  saddataṇhā  loke . Gandhataṇhā
loke  .  rasataṇhā  loke . Phoṭṭhabbataṇhā loke. Dhammataṇhā loke
piyarūpaṃ  sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā  pahīyamānā  pahīyati ettha nirujjhamānā
nirujjhati.
     {298.10}  Rūpavitakko  loke. Saddavitakko loke. Gandhavitakko
loke  .  rasavitakko  loke  .  phoṭṭhabbavitakko  loke. Dhammavitakko
loke   piyarūpaṃ   sātarūpaṃ  etthesā  taṇhā  pahīyamānā  pahīyati  ettha
nirujjhamānā nirujjhati.
     {298.11} Rūpavicāro loke. Saddavicāro loke. Gandhavicāro loke.
Rasavicāro  loke  .  phoṭṭhabbavicāro loke. Dhammavicāro loke piyarūpaṃ
Sātarūpaṃ   etthesā   taṇhā   pahīyamānā   pahīyati  ettha  nirujjhamānā
nirujjhati. Idaṃ vuccati bhikkhave dukkhanirodho ariyasaccaṃ.
     [299]  Katamañca  bhikkhave  dukkhanirodhagāminī  paṭipadā  ariyasaccaṃ .
Ayameva  ariyo  aṭṭhaṅgiko  maggo  seyyathīdaṃ  sammādiṭṭhi  sammāsaṅkappo
sammāvācā   sammākammanto   sammāājīvo   sammāvāyāmo   sammāsati
sammāsamādhi.
     {299.1}  Katamā  ca  bhikkhave  sammādiṭṭhi. Yaṃ kho bhikkhave dukkhe
ñāṇaṃ    dukkhasamudaye    ñāṇaṃ   dukkhanirodhe   ñāṇaṃ   dukkhanirodhagāminiyā
paṭipadāya ñāṇaṃ ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave sammādiṭṭhi.
     {299.2}  Katamo  ca  bhikkhave  sammāsaṅkappo. Nekkhammasaṅkappo
abyāpādasaṅkappo avihiṃsāsaṅkappo ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave sammāsaṅkappo.
     {299.3}  Katamā  ca  bhikkhave  sammāvācā . Musāvādā veramaṇī
pisuṇāya   vācāya   veramaṇī   pharusāya   vācāya  veramaṇī  samphappalāpā
veramaṇī ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave sammāvācā.
     {299.4}   Katamo  ca  bhikkhave  sammākammanto  .  pāṇātipātā
veramaṇī   adinnādānā   veramaṇī   kāmesu   micchācārā  veramaṇī  ayaṃ
vuccati bhikkhave sammākammanto.
     {299.5} Katamo ca bhikkhave sammāājīvo. Idha bhikkhave ariyasāvako
micchāājīvaṃ  pahāya  sammāājīvena  jīvikaṃ  kappeti  ayaṃ  vuccati  bhikkhave
sammāājīvo.
     {299.6}  Katamo  ca  bhikkhave  sammāvāyāmo. Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu
anuppannānaṃ  pāpakānaṃ  akusalānaṃ  dhammānaṃ anuppādāya chandaṃ janeti vāyamati
Viriyaṃ    ārabhati    cittaṃ   paggaṇhāti   padahati   uppannānaṃ   pāpakānaṃ
akusalānaṃ   dhammānaṃ   pahānāya   chandaṃ   janeti  vāyamati  viriyaṃ  ārabhati
cittaṃ     paggaṇhāti     padahati     anuppannānaṃ    kusalānaṃ    dhammānaṃ
uppādāya   chandaṃ   janeti   vāyamati   viriyaṃ  ārabhati  cittaṃ  paggaṇhāti
padahati     uppannānaṃ     kusalānaṃ    dhammānaṃ    ṭhitiyā    asammosāya
bhiyyobhāvāya   vepullāya   bhāvanāya  pāripūriyā  chandaṃ  janeti  vāyamati
viriyaṃ   ārabhati   cittaṃ   paggaṇhāti   padahati   .  ayaṃ  vuccati  bhikkhave
sammāvāyāmo.
     {299.7}  Katamā  ca  bhikkhave  sammāsati  .  idha  bhikkhave  bhikkhu
kāye   kāyānupassī   viharati   ātāpī   sampajāno   satimā   vineyya
loke    abhijjhādomanassaṃ    vedanāsu   vedanānupassī   viharati   .pe.
Citte   .pe.   dhammesu   dhammānupassī   viharati   ātāpī   sampajāno
satimā   vineyya   loke   abhijjhādomanassaṃ   .   ayaṃ  vuccati  bhikkhave
sammāsati.
     {299.8} Katamo ca bhikkhave sammāsamādhi . Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu vivicceva
kāmehi  vivicca  akusalehi  dhammehi  savitakkaṃ  savicāraṃ vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ paṭhamaṃ
jhānaṃ   upasampajja   viharati  vitakkavicārānaṃ  vūpasamā  ajjhattaṃ  sampasādanaṃ
cetaso   ekodibhāvaṃ   avitakkaṃ   avicāraṃ  samādhijaṃ  pītisukhaṃ  dutiyaṃ  jhānaṃ
.pe.  tatiyaṃ  jhānaṃ  upasampajja  viharati  sukhassa  ca  pahānā  dukkhassa  ca
pahānā    pubbe    va   somanassadomanassānaṃ   atthaṅgamā   adukkhamasukhaṃ
upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ   catutthaṃ   jhānaṃ  upasampajja  viharati  .  ayaṃ  vuccati
Bhikkhave  sammāsamādhi  .  idaṃ  vuccati  bhikkhave  dukkhanirodhagāminī  paṭipadā
ariyasaccaṃ.
     {299.9}   Iti   ajjhattaṃ   vā   dhammesu   dhammānupassī  viharati
bahiddhā    vā   dhammesu   dhammānupassī   viharati   ajjhattabahiddhā   vā
dhammesu   dhammānupassī   viharati   samudayadhammānupassī  vā  dhammesu  viharati
vayadhammānupassī    vā    dhammesu    viharati   samudayavayadhammānupassī   vā
dhammesu   viharati   .   atthi   dhammāti   vā  panassa  sati  paccupaṭṭhitā
hoti   yāvadeva   ñāṇamattāya  paṭissatimattāya  .  anissito  ca  viharati
na  ca  kiñci  loke  upādiyati  .  evampi  kho  bhikkhave  bhikkhu dhammesu
dhammānupassī viharati catūsu ariyasaccesu.
                     Saccapabbaṃ niṭṭhitaṃ.

paṭiccasamuppāda
     [2]   Bhagavā   etadavoca   katamo  ca  bhikkhave  paṭiccasamuppādo
avijjāpaccayā     bhikkhave     saṅkhārā     saṅkhārapaccayā    viññāṇaṃ
viññāṇapaccayā    nāmarūpaṃ   nāmarūpapaccayā   saḷāyatanaṃ   saḷāyatanapaccayā
phasso      phassapaccayā      vedanā      vedanāpaccayā      taṇhā
taṇhāpaccayā     upādānaṃ     upādānapaccayā     bhavo    bhavapaccayā
Jāti     jātipaccayā     jarāmaraṇaṃ     sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā
sambhavanti   .   evametassa  kevalassa  dukkhakkhandhassa  samudayo  hoti .
Ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave paṭiccasamuppādo.
     [3]    Avijjāya    tveva   asesavirāganirodhā   saṅkhāranirodho
saṅkhāranirodhā     viññāṇanirodho     viññāṇanirodhā     nāmarūpanirodho
nāmarūpanirodhā      saḷāyatananirodho     saḷāyatananirodhā    phassanirodho
phassanirodhā   vedanānirodho  vedanānirodhā  taṇhānirodho  taṇhānirodhā
upādānanirodho   upādānanirodhā   bhavanirodho   bhavanirodhā  jātinirodho
jātinirodhā   jarāmaraṇaṃ   sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā   nirujjhanti .
Evametassa   kevalassa   dukkhakkhandhassa   nirodho   hotīti  .  idamavoca
bhagavā    attamanā    te   bhikkhū   bhagavato   bhāsitaṃ   abhinandunti  .

I marked this answer down because it is just links . If it was improved by providing a complete readable answer, I would mark it up.

I wasted half an hour for format it. Although, I wasted my time to ask for highlight function to the webmaster and looking for the highlight script to him, but now I still have to waste the time to format it. Why the asker just asked?

Becoming alive is equivalent to acquiring a self-view - objectification, inner/outer first (unlike viruses), all other dimensions second. This aquisition brings about the fear of the end of that self-view. Without self-view, birth is not possible.