text:
What increases the Anisanasa of Dāna (the rewards of giving)?
I have an unclear thing about Anisansa (Rewards). Is it more powerful giving something to more religious person (Buddhist monks) than giving it normal person?
Could you please tell me a Sutra which talks about this.
Thank you.
Theruwan Saranai,
Tharindu

One of the suttas is the subject of this topic: How accurate is AN 9.20 – Velāma Sutta?

See also Right understanding of Dāna which mentions AN 3.57 -- Vaccha Sutta.

Ananda, there are these 4 purifications of giving (catu dakkhiṇa,visuddhi). What are the four?
(1) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of the
giver, but not the recipients.
(2) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of the
recipients, but not the giver.
(3) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of neither
the giver nor the recipients.
(4) There is, Ānanda, the gift that is purified on account of both
the giver and the recipients.
(1) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the giver, but
not the recipients? Here, Ānanda, the giver is morally virtuous, good
by nature, but the recipients are immoral, bad by nature. Thus,
Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the giver, but not the
recipient.
(2) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the
recipients, but not the giver? Here, Ānanda, the giver is immoral, bad
by nature, the recipient is morally virtuous, good by nature. Thus,
Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of the recipients, but not the
giver.
(3) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of neither the giver nor the recipients? Here, Ānanda, the giver is
immoral, bad by nature, and the recipients are immoral, bad by nature.
Thus, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of neither the giver nor
the recipients.
(4) And how, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of both the giver
and the recipients? Here, Ānanda, the giver is morally virtuous, good
by nature, and the recipients, too, are morally virtuous, good by
nature. Thus, Ānanda, is the gift purified on account of both the
giver and the recipients.”
These, Ananda, are the 4 kinds of purification of giving
-Dakkhina Vibhanga Sutta

So, yes it is more meritorious to give to  someone more virtuous. The best scenario is if both the giver and recipient are virtuous.
Other factors that make the gift great:

Gift is given attentively
Gift is given respectfully, in person.
Gift is given with the view that it is good Karma.
Gift is useful to the recipient

It's a often asked an not so easy to penetrade topic, Tharindu Rajindra Piyasekara.
My person tried to give some help, some weeks ago, here: Dana (Generosity, Charity) "Abhidhamma in daily life", following an extended explaining on Dana and followed by a "living" discussion. Maybe of use. (There are also lot of links to Suttas)

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five.
"Which five has he abandoned? He has abandoned sensual desire... ill will... sloth & drowsiness... restlessness & anxiety... uncertainty. These are the five factors he has abandoned. And with which five is he endowed? He is endowed with the aggregate of virtue of one beyond training... the aggregate of concentration of one beyond training... the aggregate of discernment of one beyond training... the aggregate of release of one beyond training... the aggregate of knowledge & vision of release of one beyond training. These are the five factors with which he is endowed.
"I tell you: What is given to one who has abandoned these five factors and is endowed with these five, bears great fruit.
To Vaccha (on Giving)

To answer the OP's question "What increases the Anisanasa of Dāna (the rewards of giving)?":
By giving torward/for Nibbana, Unbinding. Not by giving into binding in/to the world. By giving into that heading for Unbinging. Not by giving into what is heading for binding in/to the world.
By giving into what is binging torward Nibbana, Unbinding.
D.h.: Sila, samadhi, panna, into the done, the deed, the teaching on doing, the doer(s).
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains my means of trade and exchange]


text:
Is ignorance eradicated after breakup of the physical body?
Suppose an ignorant person dies in a car accident. Has ignorance come to an end for that person?

If that's the case, committing suicide would be the 4th noble truth. :) From where you get these ideas? xD

@SankhaKulathantille Here http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/ .

Why not asking in regard of birth? Where does certain diversity of people, atributes, character, outlook, skill, tendncy... come from.

@beginner "secular-buddhism" is materialism sprinkled with cherry picked Buddhist elements

We don't know. The Buddha would in each case know if a person possible got rid of ignorance by death, would know the destiny of certain being.

Nope. Karma and rebirth are essential parts of Buddhism - one could have a long debate on it.
To put it (deceptively) simply: if nothing else does, ignorance surely does survive.

This question appears to believe there is a lasting "person" or "self". It is not Buddhist but, instead, 'Eternalism', as follows:

And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being,
delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back. Iti 49

In Buddhism, this question is considered the question of the Evil One Mara (Satan), as follows:

Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and
terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from
concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:
By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease?
SN 5.10

MN 2 says this question is inappropriate increasing suffering, as follows:

Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not
attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations
arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.
This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not
in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I
not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in
the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else
he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not?
What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it
bound?'
As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely
by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
stress.
MN 2

In Buddhism, "the person" ("puggalo") is merely a "name" (nāmo) that attaches itself conventionally to five aggregates. The Buddhist view is it is five aggregates that end in a fatal car accident rather than "a person".
"Death" ("marana") occurs not to those perished five aggregates but to the surviving loved ones (the "clan"; "gotto") of those perished five aggregates deceased in the accident because the survivors grieve over their loss to the idea of "a being" or "self" or "person" their minds have manufactured though ignorance.

At Savatthi…. There the Blessed One said this:
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the
taking up of the burden, and the laying down of the burden. Listen to
that….
And what, bhikkhus, is the burden? It should be said: the five
aggregates subject to clinging. What five? The form aggregate subject
to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception
aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate
subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging.
This is called the burden.
And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said:
the person (puggalo), this venerable one of such a name (nāmo) and clan (gotto). This is called the carrier of the burden.
And what, bhikkhus, is the taking up of the burden? It is this craving
that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust,
seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual
pleasures, craving the be, craving not to be. This is called the
taking up of the burden.
And what, bhikkhus, is the laying down of the burden? It is the
remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the
giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on
it. This is called the laying down of the burden.
SN 22.22

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

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Did the Buddha narcistically judge people unfairly with self-conceit?
After enlightenment, the Buddha spoke:

This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to
  realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle,
  to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in
  attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a
  generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying
  attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard
  to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all
  fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
  craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the
  Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome
  for me, troublesome for me.
Enough now with teaching  what    only with difficulty    I reached. This
  Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion &
  passion.
What is abstruse, subtle,     deep,   hard to see, going against the flow
  — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness,   won't
  see.

Was the Buddha judging people unfairly here because his mind was defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)?

Usually an answer is based on references or personal experience. If you're asking whether the Buddha's judgement/testimony is unreliable, what kind of evidence (references or personal experience) could an answer provide that would satisfy you? For example I could quote a statement by Mahasi Sayadaw which implies that the answer is "no", but I'm not sure you'd find that satisfactory?

How would an answer to this question look like and how would it be verified or falsified? You might also want to explain why you believe the fetters are not broken when enlightenment is attained.

Beside of possible good or bad intentions behind the asking (that's the doers food, no need to pic there something out), it's actually a valid question, this seemingly paradox. So it would be good to open it again, maybe nicer rephrased.

Is it true that the Buddha said "If you offend someone then you  are not following my teaching"? Didn't' he say something like, "Scrutinize even me, The Buddha"?

This is a very good question, because thai tradition people always confuse between attā-anudiṭṭhi (not available in all ariya), māna (not available in just arahanta), and upanidhāpaññatti (available at all state, except just anupādisesanibbāna-dhatu). It is one of the reason that why abhidhamma have to describe very deep in dhamma's detail.

This answer says there are 9 types of conceit (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is not"), of which only 3 types are true (including e.g. "thinking one is superior when one is").
It says that a sotapanna is only capable of "true conceit".
To say "judge people unfairly with self-conceit" would therefore imply that the Buddha is more deluded than a sotapanna.

This doctrine (about "true conceit") can also be found in this paper, “Me”: The nature of conceit, by Piya Tan (on page 50):

Here, the Vibhaṅga Commentary goes on to state that only the following three are types of true
  conceit (yāthāva,māna), that is, founded pride, namely:

the superiority complex of the superior;
the equality complex of the equal; and
the inferiority complex of the inferior.

The rest are types of false conceit [unfounded pride].
While false conceit is abandoned by the path of stream-winning, true conceit is abandoned only by
  the path of arhathood. (VbhA 486 f)

It's based on the Vibhaṅga Commentary.

Actually this case has to be viewed better on "Attukkamsana + Paravambhana", of which there are cases that it just seems like that:  Timely Proclamation However, there are opportune occasions when you should proclaim your ability and virtue, with a view to gain due respect for the work you are occupied with, for your words and your ideas. Otherwise, people may look down upon you for not grasping the true situation. This is not conceit (mana), but a timely plan that befits the occasion. Issa is here a big matter. Add?

This question is strange especially if it's from those who have studied Buddhism and are inside this doctrine.  Unshakable confidence in Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha is required to make progress in this doctrine.  No matter how one slices it, faith is required in Buddhism to make that first step.  Example, before I start practice how do I know Nirvana exist?  If faith is not required, then someone should be able to demonstrate to me that is does.  If you are not Buddhist and make a critical inquiries about Buddha's characteristic, then best answer would probably come from a scholar who isn't a Buddhist.  I doubt that a Buddhist would give an answer that border line disrespectful to the "triple gems".
My answer is "no".  Buddha is perfect in every way.

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


text:
The Bane of Social Media
I looked up 'social media' in the questions, but didn't find an answer precise enough for my inquiry. Basically, I came to the conclusion that 1) social media fragments attention drastically by multitasking and unawareness, and 2) it is extremely addictive, perhaps for that precise reason.
Thus, I ask what is likely cause, effect, and remedy linked with social media. What fuels social media use? What effects does its use have? What are the best ways to deal with this addictive medium? And finally, is it possible to tackle this addiction without alleviating it with the natural drive to socialize?
Thank you.

What fuels social media use? What effects does its use have?
I suppose it's fairly benign or minor to start with.

Curiosity: "What is this 'Facebook' which other people talk about?"
Utility: "I have a question about my work, I can ask people online."

I've read people say it's fueled by small rewards. You get a little chemical 'hit' from smoking a cigarette or taking a drug; or from winning on a slot machine; similarly you get a little (mental) reward when you get a 'Like' or a reply on social media.
And Stack Exchange for example encourages people to "pay it forward" (e.g. if you're helped by someone's answer, you're invited to try to help someone else by contributing another answer elsewhere), which (the feeling of altruism) is some kind of reward in itself.
See also "operant conditioning".
As for effect, it is time-consuming; and (like other addictions) can or will fragment attention. It also results in social bubbles (less connected with "real" people around you).
People have a similar problem with smart phones and email/messages (the thought occurs, "let's check my phone to see if there's another message"); or with Twitter and news sites ("has anyone posted anything new?").
It's easy (relatively effortless) to do (it's easy to read a web page, for example) so I'm inclined to do it instead of doing something more difficult (e.g. work): "It's time to start work now ... I'll just read a bit of social media first, which is easier, to get started ... maybe I'll feel like working after I do that."
IMO a task's being effortless is interpreted by the brain as a type of reward, something to seek (perhaps it's associated with mastery).
It's unsatisfying though (or only temporarily satisfying), hence the eventual desire to repeat the "rewarding" behaviour.
What are the best ways to deal with this addictive medium?
Sometimes if I get too disgusted by how much time I spend on a site, I block it from my computer so that I cannot access it anymore.1
It may be good (or better) to find alternative media for communication: 'phoning people, writing letters, reading books, meeting people in person.
And perhaps alternative "reward" systems (other activities that are rewarding in some way).
On the subject of "best ways", it might a topic to apply the noble eightfold way to (starting with right view, and so on).

1 This technological solution, i.e. barring one's personal access/exposure, is also used by other software developers: see 'Our minds can be hijacked': the tech insiders who fear a smartphone dystopia, which also explains in more detail the theory of why it's addictive and takes your attention.

I think it's associated with Restlessness-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca) too.

Had to upvote this one... I just... Couldn't... Stop myself!

On a fundamental level, social media use (like most worldly pursuits) probably arises from the three unwholesome roots. For example, "instagram" is a tool with which many people attempt to satisfy their need for recognition (root of greed), in posting public images showcasing the events of their lives. Oftentimes this platform is abused, in order to enhance the portrayal of our lives to the rest of the world (root of delusion) and build our sense of self (more greed). Furthermore, cyberbullying commonly occurs through social media, and this could be considered an extension of the unwholesome root of aversion, or hatred.
To answer your specific questions:

The cause of social media use is these three unwholesome roots: greed, aversion and delusion.
These being the primary causes of suffering according to Buddhist doctrine, the effect of social media use would be (and we could safely say has been empirically proven to be) suffering.
On an ultimate level, the remedy for any worldly pursuit is to clearly comprehend its nature according to the three marks of existence (suffering, impermanence and non-self), and thereby become dispassionate towards it and relinquish it. However, a more proximate solution to social media would be to approach it mindfully, reduce the amount of time spent engaging in it, and maybe abstain from it entirely.

Lastly, a Buddhist approach to any addiction would not necessarily be to "tackle". Instead, you would be more likely to succeed in attaining freedom from the suffering you experience with regard to social media by approaching it mindfully; examining it in order to discover it's true nature and truly understand it's malevolence. Once you see this, you will relinquish it effortlessly.

There is plenty of good advice on this from the Sigalovada Sutta, though it comes from an era where electricity and wireless communication through electromagnetic waves, was not yet invented.
Beware of too much partying on social media (which sounds like addiction to social media):

"These are the six dangers inherent in habitual partying: You
  constantly seek, 'Where's the dancing? Where's the singing? Where's
  the music? Where are the stories? Where's the applause? Where's the
  drumming?'

Too much indulgence in social media could make you lazy (which is distraction to productivity):

"These are the six dangers inherent in laziness: saying, 'It's too
  cold,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too hot,' one does not work;
  saying, 'It's too late,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too early,'
  one does not work; saying, 'I'm too hungry,' one does not work;
  saying, 'I'm too full,' one does not work. With an abundance of
  excuses for not working, new wealth does not accrue and existing
  wealth goes to waste."

Beware not to allow it to make you seek bad companions:

"These are the six dangers inherent in bad companionship: any rogue,
  drunkard, addict, cheat, swindler, or thug becomes a friend and
  colleague.
"Young man, be aware of these four enemies disguised as friends: the
  taker, the talker, the flatterer, and the reckless companion.
"The taker can be identified by four things: by only taking, asking
  for a lot while giving little, performing duty out of fear, and
  offering service in order to gain something.
"The talker can be identified by four things: by reminding of past
  generosity, promising future generosity, mouthing empty words of
  kindness, and protesting personal misfortune when called on to help.
"The flatterer can be identified by four things: by supporting both
  bad and good behavior indiscriminately, praising you to your face, and
  putting you down behind your back.
"The reckless companion can be identified by four things: by
  accompanying you in drinking, roaming around at night, partying, and
  gambling."

On social media, I did join some Buddhist groups and they share good material on it. So, of course, it can be used for good things too. You can find good companions:

"Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper,
  the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and the
  compassionate friend.
"The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when
  you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when you
  are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is requested.
"The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you
  secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in
  misfortune, and even dying for you.
"The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from
  wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what you
  ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.
"The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not
  rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune,
  preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who
  praise your good qualities."

It's up to you to use social media in a way that benefits you.

Eggman, and those interested,
The answer can be found in Methuna Sutta: The Discourse on Coupling: Brahma/Abrahmecariya. It's simply a matter of desire of be coming and on most networks just a maintaining with sensual pleasures. Unskillful entertaining of the mind.

The superintendent of meals
Humans not restrained in sensuality, (after) honour, and do the wrong thing.
  Acting on interest (greed), anger and fear, they are (engaged in) the defiled gathering.
  The recluse who knows has said, Great Men should be praised,
Established in the Teaching, they never do evil.
  They do not act through interest, anger or fear,
That is said to be the cream of a gathering.

Nevertheless, like food is used to overcome desire for food, so is it with socialicing.
It's not so that one should abound what is called

Sangama [fr. saŋ+gam] 1. meeting, intercourse, association Sn 681; J ii.42; iii.488; v.483. -- 2. sexual intercourse M i.407; J iv.106.

but with who and for what purpose.
A person tended to Dhamma and liberation will not be found on ordinaty social medias by nature but would seek for association with Noble one or those following them.
My person gave a extanded talk on Sangama, yet it is in German: Socialicing - សង្គម [Sangama]
One might now thing that "buddhist" Forums and Networks are differen. That is not the case. Nearly all those places and Networks, since mostly also householder undertakings, are nothing else as places for low kinds of coupling, entertainmend, nourishment of sensual pleasure and becoming, identify.
If someone, in the way of serving, helping, assisting, those with noble inspiration, with tendency to Nibbana, seeks of relation with them, seeks for much as possible assosiation, this would be the reason why it can be aspected, that such a person soon might develope right view and progress on the path.
So one is wise if only join places and communities where good deeds are in action practiced and to possible avoid places of consumery, of what even many "buddhist" place are, just charing and eating food (most from third, without any estimate ir obligation) and non of virtues visible.

"What is good friendship?
"Herein, Vyagghapajja, in whatsoever village or market town a householder dwells, he associates, converses, engages in discussions with householders or householders' sons, whether young and highly cultured or old and highly cultured, full of faith (saddha),[4] full of virtue (sila), full of charity (caga), full of wisdom (pañña). He acts in accordance with the faith of the faithful, with the virtue of the virtuous, with the charity of the charitable, with the wisdom of the wise. This is called good friendship.

.

[Kapadika Bharadvaja:] "To what extent is there an awakening to the truth? To what extent does one awaken to the truth? We ask Master Gotama about awakening to the truth."
[The Buddha:] "There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy.

So one should understand rightly the meaning of

Seclusion
"It's through living together that a person's virtue may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.
"It's through trading with a person that his purity may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.
"It's through adversity that a person's endurance may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning.
"It's through discussion that a person's discernment may be known, and then only after a long period, not a short period; by one who is attentive, not by one who is inattentive; by one who is discerning, not by one who is not discerning."

If one seriously like to make progress, food-places, shows, entertaining, e.g. common social networks need to be avoided, and one should not think "oh, look, this monks use it also, so it might be not that bad" since when seeing monks on social networks, it's a clear sign that such person might wear a rob but by heart had not left home at all, is - if good - simply a "cook".
Since it all is a matter of accumulating debts in this or that way, it's wise to look to whom on does increase debts for his/her entertaining, livelihood of mind. Some word on it may help: Depts, but to whom?
If one is not really blessed, not having good protection yet, one would be wise to activily seek for such protection:

Many devas and human beings
give thought to protection,
desiring well-being.
Tell, then, the highest protection.
The Buddha:
Not consorting with fools,
consorting with the wise,
paying homage to those worthy of homage:
  This is the highest protection.
...
Respect, humility,
contentment, gratitude,
hearing the Dhamma on timely occasions:
This is the highest protection.
Patience, compliance,
seeing contemplatives,
discussing the Dhamma on timely occasions:
This is the highest protection...
Maha-mangala Sutta: Protection

Since just translating, as the mechanic of "gifts" and "debts", to (be)come again and again:

From Dualities
The manifold stresses
  that come into play in the world,
  come from acquisition as their cause.
  Anyone not knowing [this]
  creates acquisition.
  The fool, he comes to stress
      again & again.
  Therefore, discerning [this],
  you shouldn't create acquisition
  as you contemplate birth
  as what brings stress
      into play.

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

There have been several good answers above, but I found many of the answers to your questions in the book: "The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked" by Adam Alter. It includes, but goes beyond just 'social media'.
Part of what Alter says is that the addictive nature of social media and the entire 'monetized' internet world is no accident. He first discusses the way our brains work, especially how addictive behavior is created and fed through external stimulation. He then shows that the creators of games, apps (including but not limited to social media) and entertainment actually hire psychologists to build content to play into these addictive brain centers and create 'addictive desires' for them. The do it for the money, not often for our betterment.
He has been professionally involved in internet tech world and understands what is being done to us through these minimally helpful and often addictive and useless (to assisting our way along the path) entities.
Your feelings that you are being manipulated by social media sources and pulled into addictive behaviors are well founded. We need to be aware of and wary of these distractions to the important path we are trying to follow.
Best, James

Thanks for the reference. This is a link-only answer though -- can you add anything to the answer to answer the question, perhaps summarising or quoting from the book you referenced?

@ChrisW, better? Sorry, I was trying to not be too verbose (which I am prone to do) by creating a 'link only' answer. Have not done a lot of comments here yet and still learning the ropes. Best, James

From a Theravadin Buddhist point of view, a preoccupation with social media is merely a waste of time. Ordinarily, the term "addiction" is reserved for talking about a mental disorder (which consists of a profound disruption of one's life and an inability to function). You probably do not have an addiction. You may wish to contemplate the fact that you are living a trivial life that in no way benefits the people you love or care about.

IMO people who smoke cigarettes, for example, tend to be addicted though not unable to function.

I was referring to the concept of addiction as defined by the American Psychiatric Association in the DSM 5. You are expressing a personal opinion. I am not.


text:
Sutta on the two kinds of (debt) giver, people of guṇā?
Thinking about the two kinds of goodness in giving, and about debt when we receive a gift (guṇā), my person just thought to ask if there is a Sutta which points the different kinds of debt to those two kinds of giving?
One kind of (debt) giver is perhaps best embodied by Mara: e.g. enemies disguised as friends, or the strings of sensuality (kāmaguṇā). The other kind of (debt) giver (who gives debts torward debtlessness: end of upādāna, entertainment) is the Bhagavatā, the One who can Give, the Liberal, along with the other gods (starting by parents, teacher, admirable friends).
Just thought, next to the many Suttas around this fact, if there might be one direct pointing out the two kinds of guṇā and the debts in receiving the given, the inclination to certain destination by association and increasing debts.
Of course given, free of the first kind of guṇā (without wordily strings), Dhamma given in line with Dhamma, is preferred, is possible acceptable.
(For those possible not so familar with the use of the word guṇā, it's used as "goodness" in dhammic countries, for example "person of goodness"/"figue of merits" when speaking about people who one by dhammic law owes debts, like parents, leader, teacher... While the word is also used for the givers of sensuality.)
[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Johann. Please provide an explanation of or a link to the "two kinds of goodness in giving". Thanks

That's the request Dhammadhatu. It's not good to answer the own question is it usually sad.

The two kinds of debt can be found in the Ina Sutta.
The first kind of debt is that of money and material possessions:

"Monks, for one who partakes of sensuality, poverty is suffering in
the world."
"Yes, lord."
"And a poor, destitute, penniless person gets into debt. For one who
partakes of sensuality, getting into debt is suffering in the world."
"Yes, lord."
"And a poor, destitute, penniless person, having gotten into debt,
owes interest payments. For one who partakes of sensuality, interest
payment is suffering in the world."
"Yes, lord." ........
"Thus, monks, poverty is suffering in the world for one who partakes
of sensuality. Getting into debt is suffering in the world for one who
partakes of sensuality. Interest payment is suffering in the world for
one who partakes of sensuality. Being served notice is suffering in
the world for one who partakes of sensuality. Being hounded is
suffering in the world for one who partakes of sensuality. Bondage is
suffering in the world for one who partakes of sensuality.

The second kind of debt is that of virtue (sila) and good conduct:

"In the same way, monks, whoever has no conviction with regard to
skillful mental qualities, no sense of conscience with regard to
skillful mental qualities, no sense of concern with regard to skillful
mental qualities, no persistence with regard to skillful mental
qualities, no discernment with regard to skillful mental qualities is,
in the discipline of a noble one, said to be poor, destitute, &
penniless.
"He — poor, destitute, & penniless, having no conviction with regard
to skillful mental qualities, no sense of conscience... no sense of
concern... no persistence... no discernment with regard to skillful
mental qualities — engages in misconduct by way of the body,
misconduct by way of speech, misconduct by way of the mind. For him, I
tell you, this is getting into debt.
"For the purpose of concealing his bodily misconduct, he formulates
evil desires: He desires, 'May they not know about me.' He resolves,
'May they not know about me.' He speaks, [thinking,] 'May they not
know about me.' He makes an effort with his body, [thinking,] 'May
they not know about me.' For the purpose of concealing his verbal
misconduct... For the purpose of concealing his mental misconduct, he
formulates evil desires: He desires, 'May they not know about me.' He
resolves, 'May they not know about me.' He speaks, [thinking,] 'May
they not know about me.' He makes an effort with his body, [thinking,]
'May they not know about me.' For him, I tell you, this is interest
payment.

The two kinds of gifts to help alleviate the two kinds of debt can be found in Iti 100:

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

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


text:
Would a wise and compassionate person advice one to figue things out by oneself?
If actually knowing the way to liberation, would one with ability to teach or knowing where to get taught, send another out to find out for one self?
If someone is doing so, send you into the dessert, what can be the reason for such?
Why would, if, a wise and compassionate person, possible avoid to send you out, relaying just on your own?
And why would a unwise and attached person desire to guide or bind others?
(This question(s) arose while reading this answer, and note, it's a question, not a judgement of a certain case at fist place, since preoccupations could distract proper attention easy and fail to, reflect and answer.)
[Note: This question is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purposes and other low wordily gains by trade and exchange.]

If actually knowing the way to liberation, would one with ability to teach or knowing where to get taught, send another out to find out for one self?
If someone is doing so, send you into the dessert, what can be the reason for such?

"It's one thing when I tell you the answer, and it's a totally different thing when you figure it out by yourself." - a quote from my Zen Master. Indeed, liberation only comes from first-hand experience. The truth must be reinvented by every student. So a good teacher gives just enough instruction to set the student in the right direction, but never tries to give the final answer, because it would be meaningless. Just like a good father does not try to live his son's life but allows him to make mistakes and learn.
So good teacher does a lot of work: motivates, shows the nature of the mind, helps see obstacles, gives confirmation when things go well, says "no this is wrong" when they don't and so on.
There are some students that receive all explanations and instructions, and even understand all the logic, but still can't make the final jump. In this case the teacher sends the student away forever, to live, meditate, and recreate the teaching in one's life - until the truth is found.

That possible assumes that sending one into the dessert means "don't give what would becurrent desired" but in the question it's not meant as such. (If that comment does not look like as if my person tries to live Andreis life here). Sure there are certain needs to handle the pride of one in need, but thats another matter, sure worthy another question.

From a Theravadin Buddhist point of view, the answer would be a clear no. From a Theravadin point of view, (1) the only cause of the cessation of suffering is to gain psychological insight into the historical cause of one's own suffering and (2) this personal insight is difficult to acquire. A wise and compassionate person would know this and try to provide some advice on how to acquire the required insight. The nature of the advice would depend upon the psychological state of the individual and the wisdom of the advisor.

For me, it is not so necessary to judge or criticize another as "unwise" or "uncompassionate".
Instead, the answer referred to in the question is simply not a Buddhist answer but a philosophical approach more similar to the Tao Te Ching or Krishnamurti.
Maybe, for some people, this approach is more beneficial because, even in Buddhism, although the Buddha clearly expounded the path, not every Buddhist has penetrated & realised the path.

If actually knowing the way to liberation, would one with ability to
  teach or knowing where to get taught, send another out to find out for
  one self?

I think no. If one knows the way to liberation, he would always strive to give advice that would help that person reach liberation.

If someone is doing so, send you into the dessert, what can be the
  reason for such?

Maybe someone is not yet ready to hear the Dhamma, so what else can you do other then to let them go their path on their own? You can't help if somebody does not want to be helped or if he/she does not need help.

Why would, if, a wise and compassionate person, possible avoid to send
  you out, relaying just on your own?

A wise would avoid to send you out if he sees:

he can help you and
that you can be helped and
you want to be helped.

If all three of the above conditions are met, he would avoid to send you out.
If only condition 2 and 3 are met, he would send you somewhere else to get help, possibly to some other teacher or on a path that would help you.
In any other combination of the above three conditions, the wise would let you go on your own. What else could he do if he sees that he can't help you? What else could he do if he sees that you can't be helped? Or if he sees that you don't want to be helped?

And why would a unwise and attached person desire to guide or bind
  others?

There are many reasons why would an unwise and attached person desire to guide others.
But what is the core, what is the reason, what is the cause an unwise and attached person would desire to guide others?
It is craving.
When there is craving, there is becoming. That which becomes, is considered as "I". What is considered as "I" is self.
Suppose this self lacks self-esteem, feelings of importance, lacks joy, happiness, sense of achievement, purpose in life, etc. This all creates suffering for that self.
When self suffers, there is only one medicine that cures the cause of the disease of suffering: REALIZATION OF ANATTA.
When anatta cannot be realized due to strong hindrances (panca), there remain only two medicines to alleviate the symptoms of the disease of suffering:

Become devoted to sensual pleasures (craving for desires)
Become devoted to self-affliction (craving for no desires)

These are the medicines. Other than that, there are no others. If there are others, they all stem out of one of these three.
If anatta cannot be realized, self will use either medicine 1. or 2.
The bigger the suffering of the self, the more it will use these two medicines.
Now, some selfs have unpleasant feelings of inadequacy or lack of importance or similar. To get rid of such unpleasant feelings, they can take medicine 1. Thus, they start desiring to have feelings of adequacy or similar. Since they can't get these pleasant feelings by mere wishing or fantasizing, they decide to become experts in some field, for example, in the Dhamma and they start teaching the Dhamma and guiding others in the Dhamma. By teaching the Dhamma, gaining followers and guiding them, they get the pleasant feelings of adequacy and the unpleasant feelings of inadequacy cease. These pleasant feelings of adequacy can be any feelings, like feelings of being proud of oneself, or having pride, or being important, or feelings of entitlement, or feelings of being superior, or smart, or wise, etc. But since all feelings are impermanent, the pleasant feelings of adequacy sooner or later cease. Once they cease, the inadequate self is revealed, and unpleasant feelings of inadequacy arise again. Again, the desire for feelings of adequacy arise, and the cycle repeats.
When one truly realizes anatta, there is no way a person will use medicine 1 or medicine 2 to alleviate unpleasant feelings. Instead, wisdom will be used, which comes from own personal experience and insight, which goes like this:
From craving as a condition, comes becoming.
From becoming, come unpleasant feelings.
With the removal of craving unpleasant feelings cease.
That's why a wise has no unpleasant feelings or, to be more precise, a wise has unpleasant feelings when he allows them to arise. For example, he could see pain, but he would not be in pain until pain is allowed to arise. Or he could see fear, but he would not be in fear until fear is allowed to arise. He has mastered feelings to perfection. He knows what is feeling, what is its cause and what is the way to its cessation.
Knowing thus, the wise helps, when he is capable of helping and the person needs help and the person wants to be helped. Knowing thus, the wise also doesn't forget to help himself, as only by helping himself, he would be able to help others.

Let’s look at this question from a different perspective with this analogy:    Let’s imagine you know a car mechanic that works on race cars--let’s say  Lamborghinis.  You tell him you want to build one and he says,
“Sure!  Look up the information yourself.”  Having never done any car repairs, how confident would you be in your finished product?  Your question is not really so different.  Without a teacher, you don’t even know enough to know what you don’t know. You also won’t know what you might have misunderstood or failed to grasp. While Buddha said to question what you are taught and ultimately decide for yourself if it rings true with you, (Kalama sutra AN 65 Book of 3s pg 280 B. Bodhi ed)  there is much to be gained from a teacher.  A deep and personal relationship can encourage knowledge and a sense of humility. He can skillfully shape you the way a carpenter shapes a masterpiece, and he is an experienced guide in the vast and often overwhelming Buddhist terrain. I don’t find any Pali cannon references specifically saying you have to find a “teacher”, but many times the Buddha extolled the benefits and importance of having a “good friend” (Kalyāna mitta in Sanskrit--which basically IS a spiritual friend/guide/advisor/teacher) as being an essential part of the spiritual process.  This person will keep you on the correct path and get you through times of discouragement. When his disciple “Ananda” said good friendship is ½ the Holy life, Buddha responded: “Not so, Ananda! This is the entire holy life, Ananda, that is good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship.  When a Bhikkhu has a good friend, a good companion, a good comrade, it is to be expected that he will develop and cultivate the Noble Eightfold Path.” SN45:2. B.Bodhi ed. Pg.1524-1525    I will objectively say a rare person will find enlightenment on his own, but the vast majority need skilled help.  Best of luck with your efforts!

The Kalama sutta tells the Kalamas to "know for yourselves" which qualities are skillful and unskillful. The context and questions is intended to help them decide which path to follow, help them to decide that "lack of greed, following the four precepts, lack of aversion, lack of delusion" are skillful qualities (and perhaps a "path" to follow); but (unlike this answer you referenced) it doesn't tell them to follow their own path.
However --

You yourselves must strive;
  the Buddhas only point the way.
  Those meditative ones who tread the path
  are released from the bonds of Mara.

When I was learning Maths at school, that first half of each lesson would be the teacher explaining a new technique or theory, and how to use it. The second half of each class would be exercises which each student would practice, while the teacher walked around the classroom helping anyone who needed it -- in other words we were expected to "figure out for ourselves" how to practice something ... but not without having been taught.

How could someone remove the blinds of the eyes of a seeker such as you, to help you to gaze upon the Truth? Currently the world today is at crossroads to discern what the Buddha really taught as opposed to what had been practiced in the last 1000 years or more. What if at close examination a person gets to find that all forms of the Buddhism, which the general masses worldwide practice does not represent truly what the Buddha taught?
I am asking this question aloud as what if it is that for more than 1000 years, a misrepresented and a modified version derived from Buddha desana got adapted as Buddhism, and had been accepted and practiced in place of what the Buddha taught? If this is so, then due to such practices the doors to Nibbāna could remain sealed and inaccessible. However, the pristinely pure Buddha dhamma and desana would have existed since the days of the Buddha uninterruptedly for a while.
Could this True Dhamma be remaining to be hidden by dhammathāwaya?  When will we ever get to remove the blinds of our eyes and gaze upon the truth and be the judge? These are all questions that no one seem to have any answers. Now I have answered your question with more questions.

This question(s) arose while reading this answer

What he knows he did not find it by himself, something lead him to that. Even tho that is the case he thinks he found out by himself.
The technique that is meditation he did not learned by himself and even tho that is the case he totally dismisses of learning anything that might not come from him.
He then proceeds to follow the school of thought that follows no school of thought. And all he learns from meditation is true and that is the only way to be enlighten.

If actually knowing the way to liberation, would one with ability to teach or knowing where to get taught, send another out to find out for one self?

If he knows the way and has the ability to teach then he will teach.
He might also believe he knows but that is different.
And he won't tell you to find by yourself, what he can say is that you have to find it for yourself. If he does that he is teaching but that is not the question. So the answer is no he will give the answer.

If someone is doing so, send you into the dessert, what can be the reason for such?

If he gives you a method then that is the way, if the method is only that then that is it. But that is a answer. Unless there is no method, but he that knows that path to liberation will if he is able to give you an answer.

Why would, if, a wise and compassionate person, possible avoid to send you out, relaying just on your own?

Liberation means unconditional love for everything. If that is the case is because that is better for you.

And why would a unwise and attached person desire to guide or bind others?

Reasons are endless...

Would a wise and compassionate person advice one to figure things out by oneself?

If he advised you how to do it then it is not like you found out by yourself. That points out to a method. And it means that he is not that wise because it's contradicting itself...


text:
Can karma be destroyed by other Niyamas?
Can karma be destroyed by other Niyamas?
Can the other four niyamas from the "Five Niyamas" remove a person's karma? Or just affect it?

What are the Five Niyamas? Thanks

From what i understand they are 5 "laws" of the world  -  the law of karma is one of them
I understand that not all agree about that there are 5 laws and some say there is only karma  ----  i personally dont like it and would love to think that all is kamma and that's it ...
a link i didnt read even about this thing :  http://thezenuniverse.org/the-five-nyamas/

Not exactly a duplicate. But linking this question here as some of the answers there shed some light on to this question. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25790/is-there-a-way-to-hasten-the-results-of-bad-deeds/25793#25793

No, if speaking of "can one deed make another undone" (MN 101), Breath, but by the deed of traing the mind, one can reach the ability to bear results of fruits from deeds easier. See the The Salt Crystal.
Since it has much impact of general ways of thinking, living mostly in a world of believe that unrightouseness could be corrected, the Essay Wisdom over Justice might give certain inspiration, dealing at least with this issue outwardly.
For Suttas (teachings) on kamma (actions) look up here: Kamma
In detail, of what certain sects see as skillful (here Niyamas), there are certainly deeds which are not benefical at all for even lighten effects of old kamma, not to speak of going beyound. But such would need the discussiin of each of this practices. Some of this classical are benefical, kusala-kamma.
To get rid of the effects of ones previous deeds eternally, there is just one refuge: Nibbana.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

They can influence Karma and affect Vipaka(result).
ex: The reason why mangoes taste the way they taste is due to Bija Niyama & Uttu Niyama. Not because of Karma. So when you eat a mango, the pleasurable feeling at the tongue arises due to Karma. But Karma cannot make it taste like an apple, if you eat a mango. The nature of the pleasure is conditioned by other Niyamas.
Similarly, they could potentially make some Karma defunct(Ahosi) by not giving them the chance to come into fruition.
ex: When the world system is about to be destroyed, if you do a Karma that can only give result in the sensual realm, it could become defunct due to the destruction of the sensual realm.

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

Kamma is destroyed only by the Dhamma Niyama of not-self (anatta).

Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right
  speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma. AN 6.63

thanks for the reply i would like to think you are right but i want to be sure its the case  ... so devils advocate :  what you wrote talks about the complete cessation of karma in genral  and that the noble eightfold path is the only way to do so  .... but that doesn't mean that spesific karmas along the way cannot be destroyed by other laws (from the five niyamas)  .......  just for the ultimate cessation of karma you can only do it with the path - but that is a different issue

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


text:
Does meditation increase sensitivity to sense perceptions and why?
Each morning, I meditate for 30 minutes. Within 45 minutes to an hour after, I commute to my university. For the first hour or two that I am at university after meditating, I feel almost overwhelmed by the intensity of external stimuli (car noise, sights, sometimes even internal thoughts and physical feelings). Conversely, on days that I do not meditate, I feel relatively stable and at ease walking onto campus.
Does meditation increase sensitivity to these stimuli? If so, how, and what is the purpose of this with regard to meditation practice?

The sights and sounds were always there. Since your question is about why it is different when you meditate as opposed to the days you don't, may be you need to understand what happens on those days in order to understand this increased sensitivity ?
Maybe your mind was caught up in worrying about fulfilling commitments, like reaching university on time. Maybe you were daydreaming, or probably just scanning the environment and only noting novel and interesting stimuli.
Probably this doesn't happen on the days you meditate. I don't know about your typical meditation session, so I am assuming you are watching the breath. So you watch the sensations that make up the breath for a period of time. You are not only looking at interesting sensations during this session, you are looking at all the sensations - if you are doing it right. So after this session, when you go out, its only natural that you are not looking at just interesting sensations or worrying about getting somewhere, but looking at all the sensations that make up the external reality.

If so, how, and what is the purpose of this with regard to meditation practice?

You need to observe all the sensations of your meditation object for making progress in mindfulness meditation. It is normal to have some spill over effects of practice in normal life. If you can, you can maintain mindfulness while interacting with the world as well. If you can't, that is fine, as it is generally considered to be more difficult. So increased sensitivity is normal, and it is result of being open to all sensations during the meditation practice.

From my experience, yes. That is obviously your experience too. When you say meditation, what type of meditation are we talking about? Mindful-meditation? Are you focusing the mind on the breath and clearing your thoughts? If so, then you are creating a vacuum in your mind. Nature abhors a void, therefore you naturally become more aware and connected to the external.
When I was living at the Temple in Brooklyn, I shaved my head and noticed that I was even MORE connected to the external. I could literally feel the temperature of the air in the room change. Sensory overload. Oddly enough, my Sensei would go outside in the winter with no hat on. I thought, his head must be so cold. But what is cold? Cold is of the mind. You can choose not to be cold. Just as you can choose not to be overly affected by cars and the panoply of urban life. It is all in the mind.

Ian,
Meditation does not necessary increase sensitivity. If it is merely a "switch off" or "ignoring" infuences training then, because of becoming used of a certain as pleasant recognised state of "defusing" it seems to have reasonable influence of the non-defusing parts of time with it's dislike.
Generally sensitifity should be trained from gross to fine and the steps are traditionally generosity, virtur and reflecting the Dhamma (dana, sila, bhavana). Then, having got valid sensibility (not in a sense of dislike), it might be proper to go into Samatha (tranquillity) meditation. In this way, by being really more sensible, it will also be easier to come and go into Vipassana later on, or even before.
If doing just a "ignoring-training", used often as well-ness tool, it naturally has it's good and it's bad, but does not really work on the cause. Like doing fitness training for compensation.
A possible useful talk on the first steps might be: Sensitivity through generosity.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Does meditation increase sensitivity to these stimuli?

In abhidhamma, mind can does just an object, focus, per a arising. And there are over than a trillion  mind arise per a second.
On non meditation day, the practitioner has too much several objects per second. So, practitioner's sense perceptions are over sensitivity more than his ability can notice all objects on his sense perceptions.
But on meditation day, the practitioner has just only one main object, main focus, per a meditation, maybe through an hour or a day. So, it is easier for him to notice unusual object, that is out of meditation's object and appear on his sense perceptions.

If so, how, and what is the purpose of this with regard to meditation practice?

If it's possible, the practitioner should move to the better place, to avoid to waste the time on non meditation's object, because mind can have just one object per arising. Or if it's not possible, ignore them, don't focus on them. Because the practitioner must has just meditation's object, focus. So the practitioner must take his mind back to meditation's object, such as breath of ānāpānassati meditation.
For an advance insight meditation practitioner, balava-vipassanā, he has a powerful ability to meditate in every situation. But the beginners practitioners can't act like him, because their mind's focus can easily stolen by non meditation's object more than his powerful skillful meditation's object.

The purpose of Buddhist meditation is not worldly achievement. The purpose of meditation is to increase mental sensitivity so to realise the worldly things are disturbing & suffering. The Buddha did not teach meditation to corporate entities. If meditation is interfering with your studies, I suggest to stop meditation.

Dhammapada 75. One is the quest for worldly gain and quite another is the path to Nibbana.

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

I think the main purpose of Buddhist meditation is to increase sensitivity, not as much to external stimuli but to th contents of your mind and the way it processes the world.
Meditation is not a end by itself, but a means between many to attain final liberation from suffering, aversion, craving and ignorance.
Right concentration should be used as a means for clearing the mind in order to pay attention to our reactions, intentions and habitual tendencies.
Wih due time and training, you will become more sensitive to aspects of your mind that you never pay attention to before. As you progress on the path, you'll understand the details and mechanisms of the mind, cutting to your previous well-established beliefs, wrong perceptions and preconceptions. That's when you start seeing reality for what it is, and so, you'll experience by yourself the deepness and accuracy of the Buddha's teachings to eradicate suffering and ignorance.
The reason behind this increased sensitivity is that your attention and understanding get sharper. You stop being dragged by the torrent of emotions and impulses that used to fill your mind. And as a consequence, you can see clearly the mind for what it is: impersonal, interconnected and mutually conditioned processes. Each process has its causes and each process has its consequences. Each process has requirements for existing, and when you uproot those nourishments, the processes cease.
Have a wonderful day!


text:
References, Suttas, on the effects of rejecting (gifts)
Just wonder if there are explicitly teachings on cause and effect of rejecting gifts. What might be the effect of rejecting a pure gift? Maybe one or another Sutta may come to your mind and maybe you like to share it in an answer.
Gift here can be in the frame of material gifts, to time, effort, skill and knowledge.

I can recall there is a Sutta where a monk reject the robes offered to hims as he had plenty of robes.

Angulimala Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html

What was the effect Nyom Sarath? Is it just a side story or does it transport a teaching?

AN 9.5 states:

And what, monks, is the power of benevolence? There are four ways of benevolence; by gifts, by friendly speech, by helpful acts and by
  bestowal of equity. This is the best of gifts: the gift of Dhamma. And
  this is the best of friendly speech: to teach again and again Dhamma
  to those who wish for it and who listen attentively. And this is the
  best of helpful acts: to arouse, instil and strengthen faith in the
  unbeliever; to arouse, instil and strengthen virtue in the immoral; to
  arouse, instil and strengthen generosity in the niggard; to arouse,
  instil and strengthen wisdom in the unwise. And this is the best
  bestowal of equity: if a stream-winner becomes equal to a
  stream-winner; a once-returner equal to a once-returner; a
  non-returner equal to a non-returner; and an arahant equal to an
  arahant. This, monks, is called the power of benevolence.

Therefore, the attempt to give a mundane dhamma gift to a supramundane stream-winner (or higher) is to be rejected.
This is similar to what occurred in MN 140, when the gift of metta by (the unknowing) Pukkusati of calling the Buddha "friend" was later deemed to be inappropriate, thus rejected & the object of confession.

Then the thought occurred to Ven. Pukkusati: "Surely, the Teacher has come to me! Surely, the One Well-gone has come to me! Surely, the
  Rightly Self-awakened One has come to me!" Getting up from his seat,
  arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, and bowing down with his
  head at the Blessed One's feet, he said, "A transgression has overcome
  me, lord, in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled
  as to assume that it was proper to address the Blessed One as
  'friend.' May the Blessed One please accept this confession of my
  transgression as such, so that I may achieve restraint in the
  future."
Yes, monk, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to assume that it was proper to
  address me as 'friend.' But because you see your transgression as such
  and make amends in accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your
  confession. For it is a cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of
  the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends
  in accordance with the Dhamma and achieves restraint in the future.


text:
Is this concept of Non-self correct?
**

I was trying to figure out the meaning of Non-self one day and
stumbled upon this idea. Please bear with me as this is a bit long...

**
There are four great elements which are responsible for all conceivable objects and forms. If we take a human being, we have a body made of the 4 great elements and a consciousness. As we know there is no such thing called a person beyond the grammatical meaning, therefore neither mind or body is a person or a soul or any such thing.
Let's expand this to a universal level, the same way a body host a consciousness, the universe hosts all consciousnesses. So the assumption here is that 4 great elements provide the infrastructure for the birth of a consciousness. if we forget the identities like human,animal,heavenly,etc, what we have is a sea of 4 great elements that facilitate the existence of all so called "beings". this shows an uncanny resemblance to what we call a being.
- Allow me to elaborate -
A body is a housing for a consciousness, the body consist of the 4 elements.
The universe is a housing for consciousnesses, the universe consist of the 4 elements.
Take into account that according to the teaching, the consciousness is not a permanent one, it is explained as a static that occurs and ceases with every though,recognition,comparison,etc.
Taken as a static, a consciousness does not even last a second. Bearing this in mind, allow me to end the question.
*

If consciousness is a static like phenomenon, and the body taken out
of its uniformed identity resembles the universe itself, can one find
that the non-self idea within this context?

I know that this is very philosophical, but this is how Buddhism's discussions have happened in the canon and the only way to discuss
deeper concepts. as i expecct my friends here to be more than
signposts that point directions, i have asked this here and i hope the
question is not going to be flagged or deleted because of its long and
philosophical nature.**

From my point of view, you are stating the following: the human body, made of four elements and consciousness, resembles the universe which is also four elements and consciousness. Beyond this formal comparison, I believe you meant to say consciousness is dynamic, given you say the teaching states it is not permanent. It is indeed composed of discrete moments of cognition, according to the Abhidhamma. With these two aspects, you wonder whether the anatman concept can be found therein.
I believe you are alluding to two different things, both of which partially cover the meaning of no-self. The first is the similarity of forms, and therefore the meaninglessness of their distinction. The second is the dissection of the self into parts.
In the first case, one might argue that given the body and the universe share the four elements and consciousness, they are similar, which is what you have done. One might add that these characteristics do not define the body or the universe. This type of reasoning, whereby the identity of a given object is sought, but invalidated because of other objects with similar characteristics (e.g. a table has legs, but so does a chair), can lead to a certain understanding. This understanding is of the self being dissolved by lack of identity, by being indistinct from otherness. The self simply doesn't exist intrinsically, but exists, to refer to Nagarjuna, as dependently originated. That is to say it exists in interconnection with other phenomena.
The second point you put forward is the non-entity status of consciousness, its existence as fragmentary parts. Indeed, a Tibetan master once exposed to my group, at a temple, that emptiness was about division into parts. Because everything can be separated, again and again, in different ways, the self doesn't subsist as a complete and solid entity. Since consciousness occurs through connections always different -- i.e. a moment of consciousness depends of its proximate and subsequent equivalents -- then the self is never the same. As a river flows with continuously different water, but stays the same river, the self appears whole and static but is made up of parts.
While these two answers show certain aspects of reality, a mere conceptual understanding is obviously not sufficient. Such paradigms need to be considered thoroughly through meditation, and in different ways. Vipassana in itself sees reality without the need of a theoretical overarching structure. This shows familiarization through contemplation, and not just literal learning, provides benefits; even this shows such notions don't exist in themselves, in the mind, but require different angles of approach to fully generate insight.
These are merely some aspects of anatman. Many others exist.
Hopefully, this answers some questions.
Eggman.

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range."
  - Sabba Sutta

Universe is a concept. What you call universe in reality is just eye & forms, ear & sounds etc. etc.
So the eye & forms are not-self, ear and sounds are not-self...
This idea you have been contemplating represents(in reality) just the mind and thoughts which are also not-self.

I agree my friend, what i am trying to discuss is not the meaning of the mind or consciousness. what i am asking is the nature of its existence when taken out of the context of a being at a universal level.

Sankha, please tell me your thoughts on the answer given below by the user - beginner

@Theravada Anatta cannot be seen at the conceptual level. You have to observe ultimate reality. In ultimate reality, the universe is what is mentioned above

To say that "all consciousness is not permanent" may be going too far.
Quoted below is form "Paradox of becoming" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, as it read ‘Consciousness without surface, without end, luminous all around is permanent and lie outside the aggregates.
.....................................................................

SN 35:23 indicates that the “all” in “all that is sensed, being
unrelished, will grow cold right here” denotes the six sense media.
The term “Such” refers to the fact that the arahant’s attainment is
effortlessly unaffected by the arising or passing away of anything
related to the six senses. Because sensory consciousness arises in
dependence on the six sense media, this Suchness is unaffected at the
arahant’s death, when sensory consciousness totally ends.
However, a third analogy raises the question of whether there is another mode of
consciousness unaffected by the arahant’s death. In this analogy,
awakened consciousness is depicted not as a seed but as a beam of
light, the four nutriments of consciousness are the various places
where a beam of light might land, while passion and delight are the
means of its landing.
“Where there is no passion for the nutriment of
physical food, where there is no delight, no craving, then
consciousness does not land there or  118 grow. Where consciousness
does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form
does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no
growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in
the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the
future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you,
has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.
[Similarly with the nutriment
of contact, intellectual intention, and consciousness.]
“Just as if
there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the
north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has
entered by way of the window, where does it land?” “On the western
wall, lord.” “And if there is no western wall, where does it land?”
“On the ground, lord.” “And if there is no ground, where does it
land?” “On the water, lord.” “And if there is no water, where does it
land?” “It does not land, lord.”
“In the same way, where there is no
passion for the nutriment of physical food … contact … intellectual
intention … consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then
consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does
not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does
not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no
growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in
the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the
future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you,
has no sorrow, affliction, or despair.” — SN 12:64
This analogy does
not specifically state whether it refers to the arahant before or
after death. However, in the context of this analogy, the beam of
light depends on the wall, the ground, etc., only for the fact of its
appearance and growth within space and time. This suggests that it
otherwise would not be affected when the nutriments disappear. Thus
the analogy would refer to the arahant both before and after death.
This interpretation is supported by two contexts, one authorial and
the other textual. The authorial context is that if the Buddha’s
Awakening had revealed that total Unbinding was a state of total
unconsciousness, he would never have thought of using this analogy to
describe the awakened state.
The textual context is provided by MN 49,
which states that—in contrast to the consciousness of an unawakened
being, which is known only through its interaction with kamma—the
arahant’s knowledge of unconditioned consciousness is totally
unmediated.
“‘Having directly known the all [the six sense media and
their objects—see SN 35:23] as the all, and having directly known the
extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the
all, I wasn’t the all, I wasn’t in the all, I wasn’t coming forth from
the all, I wasn’t “The all is mine.” I didn’t affirm the all ….
“‘Consciousness without surface, without end, luminous all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth … the liquidity of
liquid … the fieriness of fire … the windiness of wind … the
being-ness of beings … the deva-ness of devas … the Pajapati-ness of
Pajapati … the brahma-ness of Brahma … the radiant-ness of the radiant
(devas) … the beautiful black-ness of the beautiful black (devas) …
the sky-fruit-ness of the sky-fruit (devas) … the conqueror-ness of
the conqueror … the allness of the all.’” — MN 49

Thanks my friend, please tell me your thoughts on the answer given below by the user - beginner

@Theravada... The final conclusion noted by @ beginner " 'not self' = all " is I think a wrong view, because "'not self' = all" truly mean 'no-self' which is the wrong view... If the concluding statement is wrong then the premises must be wrong.

I do not understand "Not self = all"

the finality of his answer is not my finality

As you correctly assumed, consciousness is not a separate essence distinct from the four elements. Consciousness emerges based on the form. In other words, consciousness is a property or a dynamic aspect of form+anicca. Consciousness is living, flowing in-form-ation. Not a static piece of information, but non-discrete (analogue?) information that flows as everything in the universe is in motion and interacts.
So consciousness is not something inside human body that starts with birth and ends with death. But we can't say that consciousness permeates the universe and is eternal, that would be a miscategorization. There is nothing like "one" consciousness at the universal level. Consciousness is not continuous, it is emergent, ephemeral.
Information is not separate from its media. Information is media, media is information. Same way, consciousness does not literally exist, just like information, consciousness is implicit in its media - the endless flow of things.
Now, I only used the word "consciousness" because that's what you used, so I wanted it to sound familiar to you. Strictly speaking, we can only talk about consciousness in context of a sentient being. At the level of the universe we could say that consciousness is the hidden spirit or the hidden soul of things, but to use such words would be very confusing. In the universal context I prefer to use a more general word "mind". Mind at large is not self-aware, while consciousness usually develops a notion of self, atta. It's kinda funny to talk about it like this, because consciousness is mind, but we are at the limit of words here.
Anyway, what should be clear is that consciousness is not atta, mind is not atta - atta is a concept that emerges as consciousness in its representational or modeling activity comes up with an object to stand for the subject of interactions and the enjoyer of future results. This is what's described in the Twelve Nidanas, the process by which the notion of self develops through a series of implications or inferences.
Implication is a process by which something is created as a side-product of declaring something else. When we say "this is up" - we're creating "down" implicitly:

When the world sees beauty,
  Then ugly exists.
  When sees good,
  Then bad exists.
Therefore:
  What is and what is not create each other.
  Difficult and easy complement each other.
  Tall and short shape each other.
  High and low rest on each other.

This is called "this-that conditionality", in Pali Idappaccayatā
This-that conditionality is the mechanism behind Twelve Nidanas, behind the Second and Third Noble Truths, behind Four Immeasurable Abodes, behind First Jhana.
When we create one side, we create the other. When we hate for one side, we crave for the other. When we praise one side, we blame the other. So, when we learn to release one side, we learn to release the other.
"Self" and "world" mutually co-create each other. If we let go of world, we let go of self. If we let go of self, we let go of world. To let go of world is to stop hating the world, or craving for the world, or have any attitude or preference towards the world. To let go of self is the same. That is the end of asava, the preferential attitude, the end of the basis for craving, therefore the end of dukkha.

Andrei, first of all thanks for your resourceful answer like always. might i extend the discussion? I do not propose a universal collective or a single universal consciousness, forgive me for the bad choice of words, so allow me to correct myself, What i propose for the discussion is more like lightning. Lightning is born out of the cloud, what we call individual thoughts are essentially resembled by individual minds at a universal scale.....

.....At a larger scale, the mechanics are essentially the same. a thought occurs the same way a mind is born in the first time in a being. What i am attempting to do is trying to comprehend the mechanics of karma at a basic level....

what i am trying to discuss is not the meaning of the mind or consciousness. what i am asking is the nature of its existence when taken out of the context of a being at a universal level.

Andrei, please tell me your thoughts on the answer given below by the user - beginner

MN 38 & SN 22.53 say consciousness is dependently originated dependent on sense organs & the other four aggregates. Therefore, it appears the suttas say there is no consciousness independent of the four elements.

Good, bhikkhus. It is good that you understand the Dhamma taught by me thus. For in many ways I have stated consciousness to be
  dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination
  of consciousness. Bhikkhus, consciousness is reckoned by the
  particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When
  consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as
  eye-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the ear and
  sounds, it is reckoned as ear-consciousness; when consciousness arises
  dependent on the nose and odours, it is reckoned as
  nose-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on the tongue
  and flavours, it is reckoned as tongue-consciousness; when
  consciousness arises dependent on the body and tangibles, it is
  reckoned as body-consciousness; when consciousness arises dependent on
  the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness. MN
  38

Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of
  consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from
  fabrications,' that would be impossible. SN 22.53

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

thanks you, please tell me your thoughts on the answer given below by the user - beginner

I think I got what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong ...

You're observing:

Universe houses consciousnesses that arise and cease (because of beings being born and dying)
Mind houses consciousnesses that arise and cease (because, according to the teachings, mind contains consciousnesses that arise and cease with every though, recognition, comparison)

Your conclusion out of these observations:

Universe and mind (look like they) are the same thing.

You're observing:

Universe is made of the 4 great elements
Body is made of the 4 great elements

Your conclusion out of these observations:

Universe and body (look like they) are the same thing.

Your final conclusion out of all these observations:

Since it's obvious the universe is not self, and since universe and mind and body are the same thing, it follows that body and mind are not self, just like the universe is not self.

A = 'not self'. If A = B = C, it follows 'not self' = B = C.
Or ...
Universe = 'not self'. If universe = mind = body, it follows 'not self' = mind = body.
Or ...
'not self' = universe = mind = body
Or ...
'not self' = all

This is all very good.
Your concept has driven you to the truth.
Now you need to experience it yourself.
Why not just close your eyes and perceive.
Whatever you perceive, that which you perceive is not you. Why it's not you? Because it's perceived! If it can be perceived, it CANNOT BE you.
Then why not just open your eyes and perceive.
Whatever you perceive, that which you perceive is not you. Why it's not you? Because it's perceived! If it can be perceived, it CANNOT BE you.
This experience is worth more than all the concepts put together.
Once you experience it ... once you know with experience what is not self ... you'll be ready to investigate not self and experience how from not self comes 'becoming'. Once you experience it ... once you know with experience how and why there is becoming ... Nirvana will follow.

well observed my friend, so do you suppose this chain of logic that you have perfectly captured the same way i did is true?

You think the answer is "yes", but that is wrong answer. Your answer really is "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". If you don't know or you're not sure, why don't you verify it yourself and come to a conclusion based on your own observation? Your logic is showing you something. Find out if it's true or not. Meditate and see. Don't loose this opportunity.

by the way, i don't believe Not self = universe

Do you believe self = universe? What do you believe?

No, i do not associate the identification called "Me" to anything. as i said, this is an attempt to associate Non-self to the body and the universe.


text:
What are the cases where a karma's fruit is destroyed?
I would like to know what are all the cases in which a karma's fruit is destroyed.
Except being destroyed by walking the "path"  - this will derail this question cause this causes discussions on this point alone  ... so please ignore the destruction of karma with practicing the nobles path.
karma's fruit can be destroyed by other karmas - right?
Karma's fruit can be destroyed by not having a chance to happen in a specific lifetime - for example in this lifetime or the next one - right?
(*Subsequently effective kamma - upapajjavedaniya kamma)
answer to second mini question : yes  (counting karma with tiny amount to ripen as destroyed vipaka )   -  but that does not mean that karma with destroyed vipaka has no effect cause there are 3 effects for karma  -  and there always have to have at least one effect the three are :  samuṭṭhānas  - accummulations - vipaka

According to Abhidhamma one does both good and
evil during the javana process which usually lasts for seven
thought-moments. The effect of the first thought-moment,
being the weakest, one may reap in this life itself. This is
called the Immediately Effective Kamma. If it does not
operate in this life, it is called Defunct or Ineffective
(Ahosi). The next weakest is the seventh thought-moment.
Its evil effect one may reap in the subsequent birth. This is
called Upapajjavedaniya Kamma. This, too, becomes ineffective if it does not operate in the second birth. The effects
of the intermediate thought-moments may take place at
any time until one attains Nibbana. This type of Kamma is
known as Aparapariyavedaniya—Indefinitely Effective.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

No, actions can not be done undone, breath, past can not be destroyed. So also their results will come into being, as long (as excluded to be answered) there is to BE.
That's importand: outside there is no escape.
By effort, having a cause, certain deeds are done or not, and those effects will take place or not.

Breath: "I read now at manual of abidhamma that karmas can destroy other karmas - and a comment from some member here that if some karmas dont have a chance to rise in this life or the next they destroyed (by destroyed i mean they dont have any effect)"

Maybe add a link in your question, for such is not the Dhamma of the Buddha: no effect, when there is a cause. One may, as said, by training the mind skillfully, bear it with more ease, of cause even to big extend. Nevertheless, what has been caused will have it's effect.
Here again some illustrations and Suttas (also to do not understand the law of kamma as a straight line, determinated):

Aṅgulimāla’s case illustrates a general principle stated in AN 3:101: If the workings of kamma required strict, tit-for-tat justice—with your having to experience the consequences of each act just as you inflicted it on others—there’s no way that anyone could reach the end of suffering. The reason we can reach awakening is because even though actions of a certain type give a corresponding type of result, the intensity of how that result is felt is determined, not only by the original action, but also—and more importantly—by our state of mind when the results ripen. If you’ve developed unlimited goodwill and equanimity, and have trained well in virtue, discernment, and the ability to be overcome neither by pleasure nor pain, then when the results of past bad actions ripen, you’ll hardly experience them at all. If you haven’t trained yourself in these ways, then even the results of a trifling bad act can consign you to hell.
The Buddha illustrates this principle with three similes. The first is the easiest to digest: The results of past bad actions are like a large salt crystal AN 3.99. An untrained mind is like a small cup of water; a well-trained mind, like the water in a large, clear river. If you put the salt into the water of the cup, you can’t drink it because it’s too salty. But if you put the salt into the river, you can still drink the water because there’s so much more of it and it’s so clean. All in all, an attractive image. The other two similes, though, underscore the point that the principle they’re illustrating goes against some very basic ideas of fairness. In one simile, the bad action is like the theft of money; in the other, like the theft of a goat. In both similes, the untrained mind is like a poor person who gets heavily punished for either of these two crimes, whereas the well-trained mind is like the rich person who doesn’t get punished for either theft at all. In these cases, the images are much less attractive, but they drive home the point that, for kamma to work in a way that rewards the training of the mind to put an end to suffering, it can’t work in such a way as to guarantee justice. If we insisted on a system of kamma that did guarantee justice, the path to freedom from suffering would be closed. (from: Wisdom over Justice)

See also:

Kamma & the Ending of Kamma

The Seeds of Karma - 21 QUESTIONS ON KARMA & REBIRTH

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

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

Karma can be destroyed by not having a chance to happen in a specific
  lifetime - for example in this lifetime or the next one - right ?

Yes. Only when karma has 0 (zero) chances to produce effects in the future (this lifetime, next, or the next, or the next, or ANY life in the future), it can be said that it's destroyed.
Karma can only be destroyed with attainment of Nibanna. Then, karma will not produce any effects.
If Nibanna is not attained, a potential will remain for karma to produce wholesome, unwholesome or neutral effects.
Unwholesome effects raise the potential for future effects. Wholesome effects lower the potential for future effects. Neutral effects neither raise nor lower the potential for future effects.
When karma is not destroyed, only its potential for future effects can be changed.
The potential of karma to produce effects in the future can be diminished to 0 only with attainment of Nirvana.
If Nirvana is not attained, the potential of karma to produce effects in the future will always be more than 0.
Please note that this does not mean that if one attains Nirvana or Nibanna, the potential for karma to produce effects is impossible to be more than 0. It can become more than 0 again, only it will come from wisdom, not ignorance.
UPDATE:
Here it says:

Subsequently effective (upapajjavedanya) kamma is kamma which, if it
  is to ripen, must yield its results in the existence immediately
  following that in which it is performed; otherwise it becomes defunct.
Defunct (ahosi) kamma: This term does not designate a special class of
  kamma, but applies to kamma that was due to ripen in either the
  present existence or the next existence but did not meet conditions
  conducive to its maturation. In the case of Arahants, all their
  accumulated kamma from the past which was due to ripen in future lives
  becomes defunct with their final passing away.

Source: http://www.saraniya.com/books/meditation/Bhikkhu_Bodhi-Comprehensive_Manual_of_Abhidhamma.pdf
Above it does not say that defunct kamma means that it is destroyed. The way I see it above, the term 'defunct' is ambiguous - it could mean "the potential for future effects is exactly 0 (zero) (thus karma is destroyed)" or  it could also mean "the potential for future effects is so small that there is almost 0 (zero) chance that it will produce effects in the future (thus karma is not destroyed)". I know it's the latter.
Here it says:

"Monks, I don't speak of the wiping out of intentional acts that have
  been done & accumulated without [their results] having been
  experienced, either in the here & now or in a further state hereafter.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.208.than.html
Here it says:

"An action to be experienced cannot be turned, through striving &
  exertion, into an action not to be experienced.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html
And here it says:

Here, following Norman (1997:166), I use the reading upapajjaṁ or
  uppajjaṁ “in the next life” (rather than the variant uppajje).
  Buddhaghosa “corrects” upapajjaṁ here and else where to be a
  tatpurusha, as upapajje or uppajje. The Commentary explains this
  sentence (wherever it occurs) as referring to “3 kinds of karma” (ti
  kamma), according to the time of their ripening (vipāka) or fruiting
  (phala), thus:

karma experienced in the present life
karma experienced in the following life
karma experienced in a subsequent life

However useful such an idea may be, it should be noted that it is not
  attested in the early Canon. Discourses such as the Deva, daha Sutta
  (M 101) simply speak only of two kinds of karma in terms of time of
  ripening or fruiting, that is:

karma “to be experienced here and now,” and
karma “to be experienced in another life”

Source: http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/3.9-Sancetanika-S-a10.206-piya.pdf
Thus said, my position remains unchanged.

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


text:
What is the sutta in which the Buddha described focusing the mind as similar to whittling?
I believe there is a sutta in which the Buddha uses an example of whittling or carving a piece of wood to describe the process of refocusing your mind in meditation. What is this sutta?

I am not sure that these are what you asking for.

Maha-Malunkya Sutta: Insight Meditation To Be Anāgāmi-Ariya

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Maha-Malunkya_Sutta

Maha Saropama Sutta: The Longer Heartwood-simile Discourse

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.029.than.html

Angulimala Sutta: About Angulimala

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html

Please also quote the relevant fragment (sentence or paragraph) from the sutta.

My person does not reminde on a sutta taking the whittling of wood as a sample (for now), but a good simile of Ajahn Chah, which transports the message that if one does not make the basics, like generosity, virtue, the 7 treasures complete, it does not make much sense to meditate. Like:

Making Tables & Chairs
It's good to make the mind pure and at peace, but it's hard. You have to start with the externals — your bodily actions and words — and work your way in. The path that leads to purity, to being a contemplative, is a path that can wash away greed, anger, and delusion. You have to exercise restraint and self-control, which is why it's hard — but so what if it's hard?
It's like taking wood to make a table or make a chair. It's hard, but so what if it's hard? The wood has to go through that process. Before it can become a table or a chair, we have to go through the coarse and heavy stages.
It's the same with us. We have to become skillful where we aren't yet skillful, admirable where we aren't yet admirable, competent where we aren't yet competent.

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