text:
How to address wrong view
Did the Buddha give any teachings on how to deal with individuals spreading wrong view?
If someone is expounding their beliefs in a public forum under the guise of the Buddha's teaching, given the possibility that these views may misinform and lead others astray, does one have any responsibility to try to rectify this, and if so, what would be the proper way of addressing such an issue?

Is this a reaction to posts on Buddhism SE - it seems like it is. For me this would be better asked on the meta site but it has got 3 upvotes so obviously the question is liked well enough in it's current format and location. I think I just wanted to comment that it seems a bit meta-ish to me. See how it goes. Thanks

I guess I don't understand what you mean by meta-ish? What function does meta serve that would be better suited to answer this question?

Because on any StackExchange site, one could engage in epic arguments with each wrong answer. Or one could post a correct answer and let voting move the good content up and the bad content down. This may or may not break down in say, if people voted their respective schools orthodox position. If you are talking specifically about, say, your uncles unpside ideas about Buddhism and how to politely set him straight, then that isn't meta. Meta is questions concerning the question site.

I see. I didn't ask this question with the intent of putting it in context, just to elucidate the general principal for myself and others :)

Sadhu! Very good question, very good.

Upasaka Ryan,
Since it is a very important topic and need a lot of explaining, Atma has started to prepare a hopefully understandable answer here: How to address wrong view? It will take one day or two and of course a Book could be written and would be not at all of no use. So not finished yet but give it meanwhile the possibility to put further thoughts and questions while being in development into it.
Addition:
Should be "fine" so fare. Having bend things here longer as a for a good, you may consider possible reasons and more that late consequences, maybe visible here. Sadhu for the effort of many here (as often told, your are trying and doing good in this circumstance, and there has been less exception and those have grown silent since Atmas "accidentally" birth took place here.
As told always welcome in the small "Online monastery" (and this invitation is not meant as such as concurrence or not appreciation of certain efforts here.) At least it anyhow a way to protect one against and react to wrong views.

Sadhu Bhante, Sadhu

Thank you Bhante, for your teaching, both by example and written

Upasaka @Ryan Atma made a revision and extended it a little, of course poor English, so one needs to have certain patient with it. How to address wrong view (preliminary) (there is also a pdf or odt version avaliable)

Of course others have responsibility to rectify the wrong views. There were several individuals spreading wrongly grasped views on Dhamma even during Buddha's time like Arittha, Sati and Sunakkhattha. Buddha's and other monks' reactions on such situations are detailed in Alagaddupama sutta and Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta.
Buddha explains the plight of such people, as if grasping a snake from it's coils in the water snake simile in Alagaddupama sutta.

there is the case where some worthless men study the Dhamma... Having studied the Dhamma, they don't ascertain the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment. Not having ascertained the meaning of those Dhammas with their discernment, they don't come to an agreement through pondering. They study the Dhamma both for attacking others and for defending themselves in debate. They don't reach the goal for which [people] study the Dhamma. Their wrong grasp of those Dhammas will lead to their long-term harm & suffering. Why is that? Because of the wrong-graspedness of the Dhammas.
Alagaddupama sutta

But for people studying the Dhamma for its real purpose, that is the cessation of suffering, Buddha's advice is to question him or an experienced monk when there's doubt.

"Therefore, monks, when you understand the meaning of any statement of mine, that is how you should remember it. But when you don't understand the meaning of any statement of mine, then right there you should cross-question me or the experienced monks.
Alagaddupama sutta

In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
--MN 58, Prince Abhaya Sutra

In this vein, I think you can address the problem by showing how "someone's expounding their beliefs in a public forum" is "unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & disagreeable to others"
However,

There are here, O monks, some foolish men who study the Teaching; having studied it, they do not wisely examine the purpose of those teachings. To those who do not wisely examine the purpose, these teachings will not yield insight.
--MN 22, The Snake Simile Sutra

Based on the above I feel that by shifting our focus from the metaphysics ("how things are") and towards the purpose (i.e. soteriological methodology -- "how to act towards Bodhi") we can all avoid hurtful and non-productive arguments.

What is meant by "how to act towards Bodhi" ? I don't know what Bodhi is.

@Ryan please see PTS dictionary definition of 'Bodhi' :)

Extract from Mahaparinibbana sutta

Then the Gracious One together with a great Community of monks arrived at Bhoganagara. There the Gracious One lived near Bhoganagara at the Joyous Shrine.
There the Gracious One addressed the monks, saying: “I will teach these Four Great Referrals, monks, listen to it, apply your minds well, and I will speak.”
“Very well, reverend Sir,” those monks replied to the Gracious One, and the Gracious One said this:
1) “Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘I have heard this directly from the Gracious One, friends, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ That monk’s speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.
2) If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by that monk,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by that monk.’ This, monks, is the first Great Referral you should bear in mind.
3) Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘In a certain dwelling place lives a Community with elders and leaders, I have heard this directly from that Community, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ Those monks’ speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.
4) If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by that Community,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by that Community.’ This, monks, is the second Great Referral you should bear in mind.
5) Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘In a certain dwelling place live many elders, very learned, who have learned the traditions, who are bearers of the Teaching, bearers of the Discipline, bearers of the Tabulation, I have heard this directly from those elders, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ Those monks’ speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.
6) If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by those elders,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by those elders.’ This, monks, is the third Great Referral you should bear in mind.
7) Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘In a certain dwelling place lives one elder, very learned, who has learned the traditions, a bearer of the Teaching, a bearer of the Discipline, a bearer of the Tabulation, I have heard this directly from that elder, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ That monk’s speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.
8) If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by that elder,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by that elder.’ This, monks, is the fourth Great Referral you should bear in mind. These, monks, are the Four Great Referrals you should bear in mind.”

In the Mahayana tradition the last Bodhisattva branch vow (#16) reads

(16)    not correcting others who are motivated by delusions
  When we see somebody is making a mistake, we must talk to them with the right motivation and try to help them correct that mistake. If we help other people not to make a mistake again, that is very helpful for that other person but it will also indirectly help us as well.

The proper way to address this is also highly situational.
Keep in mind some of the other bodhisattva vows that must be kept in tandem, especially

(27)    abandoning the path of Theravada as unnecessary for one following the Mahayana
(32) praising oneself and belittling others because of pride and anger

(root not branch)

doubting and denying the doctrine of the Great Vehicle

Also

causing an ordained person to disrobe

(34)    disparaging a spiritual master

and

(45)    not acting with whatever means are necessary according to the circumstances to stop someone who is doing harmful action

So in summary one should be certain of the following
Do you have the full context?
If you walked in to a room and heard a sentence that might be out of context you might want to hold off on accusing someone of spreading the wrong view
Are they talking about a Buddhist tradition other than your own?
The vows are very specific in stating that to disparage another tradition, or to cause rifts in the dharma is a downfall.
Are you reacting out of anger or pride?
If so it is better to withdraw, perhaps discuss with the person later when you have leveled your emotions.
Are they a guru or monk?
If they disrobe and give up on their quest it is a huge downfall, is this a patterned behavior? Is this perhaps a lesson tailored to a specific individual? Be certain before going on the route of accusation.
And finally, say you are certain beyond a doubt they are in the wrong, say for this example they claimed that "The Buddha says kill all third born children"
an obvious wrong view and greatly harmful.
Then you would be obligated by the vow, to do something... If you have taken the vows.
As stated before it is highly situational.

(10)    complying with the minor precepts when the situation demands one's disregard of them for the better benefit of others

This last branch vow is an interesting one, one skillful means described by my old guru back when I was practicing the vows and still considered myself Buddhist was the act of reprimanding with false anger. To appear angry and scold when you actual are not holding anger and are holding compassion for the one being scolded.
If someone was a guru or a monk and they were telling people to kill 3rd born children (A highly unlikely case)
It is permissible to break certain vows to stop them and their followers.
See

(45)    not acting with whatever means are necessary according to the circumstances to stop someone who is doing harmful action
The last two downfalls are saying that, although we must not do anything to harm sentient beings, there are circumstances where we might have to act quite forcefully to stop them harming themselves.
  When a person or a group is causing themselves or others pain and difficulties, really unlawfully or immorally treating great numbers of sentient beings badly, we should not just accept that, saying we are Buddhists and therefore passive people. We should oppose them skilfully.

"From what arise contentions and disputes, lamentations and sorrows, along with selfishness and conceit, and arrogance along with slander? From where do these various things arise? Come tell me this."
"From being too endeared (to objects and persons) arise contentions and disputes, lamentations and sorrows along with avarice, selfishness and conceit, arrogance and slander. Contentions and disputes are linked with selfishness, and slander is born of contention." - Kalahavivada Sutta (Sn 862-877).

Brilliant! Also, I've never heard of this particular translator, what is your opinion of him\this translation?

Also also, this doesn't answer the question. Do you have anything more on point?


text:
Was The Buddha only human, or was he super-human?
Before Siddhartha Gautama attained Enlightenment, did he have a normal human body with normal human attributes? Or was his body anatomically different or superior to yours and mine in its physical attributes? If different, in what ways was it different?
Before Enlightenment, did Siddhartha Gautama have a mind (or mental/spiritual capabilities) that was different from a normal human mind? If his mind differed from yours and mine, in what ways did it differ?
What do scriptural writings and recent gurus say about this? What are your own thoughts about this?

You should separate your question into 4 separate questions Krishnaraj.

This question doesn't need to be separated, IMO. The 2nd and 3rd para are really just clarifying what type of details might be sought in an answer.

Buddha only realised the truth, therefore nothing changed. Therefore whether it is realised or not we are all already Buddhas, just that we have not yet realised it. By that logic the Buddha neither had a human body nor did not and was not better than human nor not better.

The 32 attributes are a very curious feature of early Buddhist texts. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to trace them to any other system of thought. They are sometimes hinted to have come from Brahmins, but do not occur in any of the Vedas or Upaniṣads. The characteristics could not be seen by most people anyway, so to argue that they were "physical characteristics" is inaccurate. Only people with psychic powers were able to discern the marks, and some of them could not see all of the marks.
In all other respects the Buddha as portrayed in the early Buddhist texts had an ordinary human body. He had to sleep, eat and defecate; he felt pain; he grew old; and he died.
Later Buddhists however began to make the Buddha more and more super-human. Some Mahāyāna texts argue that his human body was simply a manifestation of a higher order existence. By the mature Mahāyāna the Buddha is fully superhuman and somehow still not a god, like Jehovah. He did not create the world and karma is still largely responsible for morality, though the Buddha has a godlike perspective on the workings of karma right from the beginning.
A similar story seems to play out with the Buddha's mind. Through his practices he gains knowledge (ñāna) that sets him free, but that knowledge includes all kinds of supernatural powers, ESP and so on. He becomes omniscient and omnipresent, but not omnipotent.
It's very important to emphasise that Buddhists do not believe in ātman. Indeed we would argue that we know that there is no ātman. Thus nothing could be said about the Buddha's ātman, since he does not have one.

I understand and accept what you are saying. However, for the sake of absolute clarity, I ask again: May I infer that your own position in this matter is stated in this line i.e. "Buddha as portrayed in the early Buddhist texts had an ordinary human body. He had to sleep, eat and defecate; he felt pain; he grew old; and he died."?

I request you to clarify your position by answering my earlier question.

Yes, Gautama Buddha had 32 major qualities, as do all Buddhas a.k.a. one who has attained the dharmakaya, sambhogakaya, as well as the nirmanakaya--the latter two of which correspond to the physical attainments.
These physical attainments progress according to the Taoist timeline of physical transformation of jing, chi, shen transformation but in Buddhism, which focuses on Wisdom, it is not necessary to focus on the physical aspect because this occurs automatically when one's mind is in the right place (Four Noble Truths, Right Samadhi, 8 + 2 Eightfold Path).
His mind is a mind free from the skandhas.
As for atman... He experientially discovered that there is no atman, that it is a causation illusion via the aggregates/skandhas, that we are the an ocean of interdependence... of Self and thus paradoxically, he attained the true Atman, the dharmakaya, becoming free from birth-and-death and forever serving ourself as a Buddha because such a perfectly compassionate immortal has nothing better to do with their time... this didn't happen at once and occured in a step-wise progression through the Four Noble Truths (which includes letting go of the things that bind one to Atman).
The above idea would be a Mahayana and Tibetan idea... less a Theravadin idea which insists on "annihilation" of self... (which in a sense is the same meaning because one annihilates oneself into the Buddhahood of serving others manifesting limitless skillful means and having uprooted one's poisons and afflictions already...)

The fourth part of my question is: "Kindly also say clearly whether or not you completely believe or partially accept what the scriptures say. If you have any thought-processes regarding accepting certain beliefs, clearly state what those thought processes are."
And accordingly, I am asking you specifically, are you ok with this: "A Buddha’s tongue is extremely long and can reach the top of his head, his ears, and his chest. This comes from his having always spoken kindly to others with words of encouragement and having treated them as gently as an animal licking its young."

Yes, this is a real super power but is more of a side effect. This is in no way the aim of Buddhism. Also, this is one of the many things that need not be believed in order to become a Buddha (the work of many lifetimes) or a bodhisattva or at least a very powerful yogi.

Thank you for taking a clear position on this.
You have given three disclaimers after one positive answer ("Yes, this is a real super power), but... (1) side effect (2) not the aim of Buddhism (3) Need not be believed in order to become a Buddha, bodhisattva or powerful yogi.")

Right. Thanks for noticing. :)
Buddhism is about Wisdom and absolution from dukkha (which concomittantly includes rebirth and the skandhas) not about being about having a long tongue, or shooting rays from ones head or many, many other things that occur when one's chi mai open up due to one's prajna and samadhi power. Buddha understood many other religions and cultures do get caught up in some of the other things and so he chose not to emphasize them.

"... or many, many other things that occur when one's chi mai open up due to one's prajna and samadhi power." Ok, so you believe that all these things actually occur. You didn't say, "supposed to occur as per the texts". Would I be right to infer that you are saying that, unless one exhibits these superpowers (turns ten feet long, develops turtleshell-smooth soles of feet, really long webbed fingers, baby-smooth flawless skin etc.), one cannot claim to have attained buddhahood?

Read this and read this. It will give you the final answers to correlations of super-powers, Hinduism, and specifics that you seek.

I read those articles. They don't not give me any final answers. I request you to answer my question directly, instead of referring me to what others are saying.

I would say the same as that author. His answers are my answers and vice versa... In answer to your question about Complete Buddhahood, yes. All those features are accessible to a Buddha as well as the prajna related powers listed in the article I referred you to.

Adding to Ahmed's answer.
The Buddha had the 32 physical characteristics. They are too detailed to be listed here. Please see the link.
As for mind, heart and character, he had all the Paramis. The Theravada paramis are listed here:

Dāna pāramī : generosity, giving of oneself
Sīla pāramī : virtue, morality, proper conduct
Nekkhamma pāramī : renunciation
Paññā pāramī : transcendental wisdom, insight
Viriya pāramī : energy, diligence, vigour, effort
Khanti pāramī : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance
Sacca pāramī : truthfulness, honesty
Adhiṭṭhāna pāramī : determination, resolution
Mettā pāramī : loving-kindness
Upekkhā pāramī : equanimity, serenity

And as for Atman, he had just the same as everybody else, which is no Atman i.e. no permanent absolute soul or self. You can read on anatta, which is from the Third Mark of Existence. It is said that anatta was uniquely discovered and taught by the Buddha and is not part of Hinduism and Jainism. The other two marks of existence may overlap with Hindu and Jain teachings. This article may also be useful.
As for your question on whether I believe in these or not, well, to be honest, I'm a little skeptical that any human had 40 teeth.

Um, ok, but you are perfectly fine with a 10-foot tall Buddha with webbed fingers, tortoise-bone-ish soles of feet, baby-soft skin. and various body parts that has been shaped by specific acts of compassion?

And you are ok with this? " A Buddha’s tongue is extremely long and can reach the top of his head, his ears, and his chest. This comes from his having always spoken kindly to others with words of encouragement and having treated them as gently as an animal licking its young."

The length of the tongue may be an exaggeration, but if you look at Khechari Mudra of Hindu Yoga, it is apparently possible to have such a long tongue in order to bend it to touch the roof of the mouth and then go backward and enter the nasal cavity.

How about 10 feet tall, webbed extra-long fingers, upward-growing hair and all the rest of it? Would you say that these also may be an exaggeration?

As for Khechari Mudra of Hindu Yoga, I am inclined to say that Hindu belief systems are full of unexamined beliefs and fantastic claims. I wouldn't take anything on faith if I were you.

Here is one example and here is another, of contemporary long-tongued individuals. Lewis also claims to be able to lick her eye. And here is a record of a man almost 9 feet tall. And it also seems that it is not unusual to have more than 32 teeth like this boy.

But, yes, I do agree that the physical attributes may be exaggerations.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Were different parts of the Pali Canon intended for different audiences?
I read somewhere that the Middle Length and Long Discourses in the Pali Canon were intended for different audiences. I think it was that the Long Discourses were intended to convert people to Buddhism and the Middle Length discourses were targeted at experienced practitioners. I could have got that the wrong way around or just generally wrong but I do remember that someone said they were intended for different groups of people.
Does that ring true with anyone? Can anyone give any further details of whether these parts where for different people and if any of the other parts of the Pali Canon would also be intended for different people. I'm more thinking about the Sutta Pitaka. Clearly the Vinaya Pitaka was for monks and the Abhidhamma Pitaka would have been more advance.

Each Sutta was intended for a specific audience to address a specific issue. This is one of the reasons why there was a need for an Abhidhamma that consolidated the messages from all of the Suttas into a overarching framework.
You are absolutely correct that each Nikāya has a different "character". The Dīgha Nikāya tends to include a lot of mythological material and complex arguments. The Majjhima Nikāya tends to include clear explanations of fundamental doctrines. Because of these differences, the different Nikāya appeal to different people for different reasons.
I think that it is important to view the Sutta Piṭaka as collections that evolved over hundreds of years. There was no "master compiler" who said, "Okay, let's put that here for this reason...".
Recent scholarship has compared the Pāḷi Suttas with the Sutras from other schools. Schools started to diverge about 100 years after the Buddha's parinibbāna. In general, the core messages contained in the Suttas and the core messages contained in the Sutras are almost the same, suggesting that the core messages predate the split. Some of the details contained in the Suttas and the details contained in the Sutras are different, suggesting that some of the details were added / deleted / changed after the split. In many cases, the organization of the Suttas is different from the organization of the Sutras, suggesting that the final compilation into Nikāya / Āgama was not determined until after the split.
BTW, the Abhidhamma and the Abhidharma are quite different, suggesting that these were not "fully baked" at the time of the split.
So getting back to your main question... I do not believe that the different "character" of each Nikāya was by grand design, it was more "evolution" rather than "creationism" :-)
Actually, the Suttas (MN 22) mention nine ways of presenting the Dhamma:

dialogues (sutta), narratives of mixed prose and verse (geyya), explanations (veyyakaraṇa), verses (gāthā), spontaneous exclamations (udāna), quotations (itivuttaka), birth stories (jātaka), amazing events (abbhutadhamma), question & answer sessions (vedalla)

Looking at this list, it appears to be grouped according to style of presentation rather than by intended audience. Some of these (udāna, itivuttaka and jātaka) ended up being separate texts in the Khuddaka Nikāya.

Yep. I think this covers it. The differences between DN and MN may have given rise to the conjecture that they were intended for different audiences, but I have not come across this before and I don't see how one could test it.

I have come across this observation before (can't remember where). It may well be that DN is better for recruiting while MN is better for training, but I don't think that is the reason for allocating content.

"SuttaNipatha" the most early sutta collection, is also in the Khuddaka Nikaya as a separate book.

Purely subjectively, to me, it looks like DN suttas are rather artificial compilations, followed closely by MN suttas.
Of these two DN suttas seem the most contrived - none of them look like Buddha's direct words to me but rather like nice and clear summaries assembled from Buddha's quotes with some glue added for smoothness.
Samyutta and Anguttara Nikayas are very different from the above, esp. Anguttara feels like an anthology of raw quotes as close as it gets to Buddha's own words.
My speculation is that Nikayas were created not with specific audiences in mind, but rather by following four very different methodologies. Perhaps DN were created as all-encompassing summaries of the entire teaching across wide range of Buddhist topics, by people who believed that the raw unedited teaching was too fragmented and incomprehensible to most people. MN was seemingly made by picking the points that were most often debated by the non-Buddhist sects and creating nice clear arguments against them. SN feels like a result of an enormous effort to organize the quotes by topics, by people who must have believed in the power of reason. AN seems like a simple collection of all kinds of quotes by rather practical people who believed in K.I.S.S. (keep it simple, stupid). KN is various useful and not-so-useful Buddhist folklore that is not made of Buddha's quotes.
Naturally, the methods and attitudes of the compilers reflected in the suitability of this or that collection for certain audience. But I don't think they were specifically intended for different audiences, no.

In addition to what @RobM has mentioned.
There are 4 types of learners1:

The intuitive or quick learner (ugghatitañña)
The intellectual (vipañcitañña)
The one who needs guidance (neyya)
The rote learner (pada,parama)

There is a view that the Abhidhamma is for the type 3 & 4. Type 1 & 2 have realised a lot due to their past pratice and a Sutta would clear the dust in their eyes. The ones who need more learning are 3 and 4 hence have to lean the doctrine. The Suttas are like a collection of prescriptions given to cure a particular person. The Abhidhamma contains the complete doctrine or the body of knowledge medicine. You become a doctor or knowledgeable in medicine by studying the body of knowledge of medicine and not my reading prescriptions. Also if you are a medical intern you might sometimes need guidance from a doctor. (Guidance coming from the Suttas). Your current knowledge base from past pratice and study to become an intern. (Comparable to the Abhidhamma) Moreover, type 1 & 2 just listening to the Sutta realised the Dhamma from their past pratice type 3 & 4 need to learn the full doctrine hence rely on the Abhidhamma.
This is just a view held by some.

1 To read more on them see: Levels of Learning by Piya Tan

Bhikkhu Bodhi, in his introduction to the Saṃyutta Nikāya:

Prevalent scholarly opinion, fostered by the texts themselves, holds that the principal basis for distinguishing the four Nikāyas is the length of their suttas. Thus the largest suttas are collected into the Dıgha Nikāya, the middle length suttas into the Majjhima Nikāya, and the shorter suttas are distributed between the Saṃyutta and the Aṅguttara Nikāyas, the former classifying its suttas thematically, the latter by way of the number of items in terms of which the exposition is framed.
However, in an important groundbreaking study, Pāli scholar Joy Manné has challenged the assumption that length alone explains the differences between the Nikāyas. By carefully comparing the suttas of DN with those of MN, Manné concludes that the two collections are intended to serve two different purposes within the Buddha’s dispensation. In her view, DN was primarily intended for the purpose of propaganda, to attract converts to the new religion, and thus is aimed mainly at non-Buddhists favourably disposed to Buddhism; MN, in contrast, was directed inwards towards the Buddhist community and its purpose was to extol the Master (both as a real person and as an archetype) and to integrate monks into the community and the practice. Manné also proposes that “each of the first four Nikāyas came about in order to serve a distinct need and purpose in the growing and developing Buddhist community”.

In the first council collect Dhamma(suttas) from those who have listened from the teacher and check for correctness. After that group them as DN - Long, MN-Middle and (KN) Shorter ( Books) collections. Also some suttas group according to topics base in SN. In AN group in numerical base of topics for easy reference.

Thanks - but were they targeted at different audiences?

SN is good for meditate guide..  'Sutta Nipatha' in KN is physiologically advance topics. . Dammapada for general use. Jathaka etc for religious.

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


text:
How to work for liberating ALL living beings?
I am given to understand that a true Buddhist seeks tirelessly to liberate from the suffering (dukkha) of existence all living beings, and not only humans. Attainment of Buddhahood depends on such actions on an ongoing basis, I am told. Based on this, my question is:
1) Apart from generally showing compassion and benevolence towards all living beings, in what ways do accomplished Buddhism practitioners work for the liberation of living being as diverse as, say, ants, pine trees, salmon and e-coli bacteria? What do the scriptures say, and what do the more recent writings say on this matter?
2) How do accomplished Buddhism practitioners liberate from dukkha the beings of non-earthly nature of other lokas, such as angry deities and hungry ghosts? What do the scriptures say, and what does recent literature say?

Somebody voted to close this question as being too broad. It doesn't appear broad actually; this question is merely asking where Buddhists draw the line, when working to liberate all living beings (i.e. how much does "all" really mean?). Additionally you are also asking how the most extreme cases are handled. Is my interpretation of the question right? If so this might provide a way to edit and simplify the question.

@Antony - Your interpretation is more-or-less correct.

As per the "Heart Sutra in 8000 Lines", you liberate all sentient beings by attaining direct realization that in fact there are no any such "sentient beings" to talk about. "Sentient being" is only a nominal designation. Two keywords to study are anatta (sanskt., anatman) and shunyata.
Now, as a practice of paramitas (of generosity, forbearance, renunciation, loving-kindness, and equanimity), the commitment to staying in samsara and deferring one's own liberation until all sentient beings attain nirvana, requires complete surrendering of one's antipathy to samsara and craving for peace, complete surrendering of one's ego - which (the surrendering) paradoxically becomes the gate to Realization.

1) Apart from generally showing compassion and benevolence towards all
  living beings, in what ways do accomplished Buddhism practitioners
  work for the liberation of living being as diverse as, say, ants, pine
  trees, salmon and e-coli bacteria? What do the scriptures say, and
  what do the more recent writings say on this matter?

Even in the traditional Mahayana systems, not all living things are sentient, (else why would the traditional formulation even include the word?) True, some versions of Mahayana Buddhism incorporate "nature", including trees and rocks. This, but I'm looking for a better reference about the status of trees and rocks.

2) How do accomplished Buddhism practitioners liberate from dukkha the
  beings of non-earthly nature of other lokas, such as angry deities and
  hungry ghosts? What do the scriptures say, and what does recent
  literature say?

Kṣitigarbha is an Bodhisattva (portrayed as an ordinary looking monk) who rescues people in the hells. Depending on the flavor of Mahayana Buddhism, this is either meant literally, or it is a story about what behavior that a Bodhisattva practicioner should emulate. (Scholar Jan Nattier in "A Few Good Men", where she notes, "After paying homage to the Tathagata at the entrance to the vihara, the bodhisattva is told to remind himself that "I, too, should become one who is worthy of this kind of worship""-- i.e. capital-B Bodhisattva's like Ksitigarbha are to be copied, not so much adored & petitioned for help. (This isn't true for all of subsequent Mahayana!)

His greatest compassionate Vow being: "If I do not go to the hell to
  help the suffering beings there, who else will go? ... if the hells
  are not empty I will not become a Buddha. Only when all living beings
  have been saved, will I attain Bodhi."
  ref: Buddhanet

The story of Ullambana is about merit a son whose mother has become a hungry ghosts. He holds vegetarian feasts for monks, and then some percent of the merit accrues to his mother so that she can exit that realm.
I think Buddhists went through periods of reification of metaphors and de-reifications of metaphors. When sutras swing towards talking about sunyata/emptiness and the way our mind shapes our experience, then the heavens and hells are in our heads, metaphors for states of mind. And then next chapter they are reified again and people are taking the consequences of these stories very seriously. If there really are hells, it is our responsibility as Bodhisattvas to do something about it.
Interestingly, often the "doing something about it" was deferred to the next life time. Ancient Buddhists were called upon to care for the sick, sometimes called on to give to the poor, particularly beggars, but the bulk of the good deeds done would be done in the next life.  In modern times, we're starting to see Humanistic Buddhism and Engaged Buddhism, so while I don't know how effective it is, some Buddhists have their heart in the right place when it comes to dealing with people who are in the metaphorical hells at the moment.

As an aside I don't have space to develop- one of the various interpretations of the consequences of annata is that maybe there aren't individuals to be rescued, but only the entirety. In otherwords, either we are all enlightened or none of us are. Sort of like a single shared soul, but different enough from atman to not cause problems with that.

A very well-thought-out and honest answer. I am grateful.

This answer is based on Theravada. so it may not appropriate here, comparing with Andrei's answer.
As per the "Maha Hasthipadopama Sutra in a paragraph", you liberate 'Your Self' by attaining direct realization that in fact there are no any such "sentient beings" to talk about. "Sentient being" is only a nominal designation. Two keywords to study are anatta (sanskt., anatman) and shunyata.
Now, as a practice of paramitas (of generosity, forbearance, renunciation, loving-kindness, and equanimity + 4), the commitment to staying in samsara and deferring one's own liberation until all sentient beings attain nirvana, requires complete surrendering of one's antipathy to samsara and craving for peace, complete surrendering of one's ego - which (the surrendering) paradoxically becomes the gate to Realization.(by removing the lock of it)
From The Maha Hasthipadopama Sutra

“Friends, just as when a space is enclosed by timber and creepers,
grass, and clay, it comes to be termed just ‘house,’ so too, when a
space is enclosed by bones and sinews, flesh and skin, it comes to be
termed just ‘material form.’
“If, friends, internally the eye is intact but no external forms come
into its range, and there is no corresponding conscious engagement,
then there is no manifestation of the corresponding section of
consciousness.    If internally the eye is intact and external forms
come into its range, but there is no corresponding conscious
engagement, then there is no manifestation of the corresponding
section of consciousness.    But when internally the eye is intact and
external forms come into its range and there is the corresponding
conscious engagement, then there is the manifestation of the
corresponding section of consciousness.
“The material form in what has thus come to be is included in the
material form aggregate affected by clinging. The feeling in what has
thus come to be is included in the feeling aggregate affected by
clinging. The perception in what has thus come to be is included in
the perception aggregate affected by clinging. The formations in what
has thus come to be are included in the formations aggregate affected
by clinging. The consciousness in what has thus come to be is included
in the consciousness aggregate affected by clinging.
He understands thus: ‘This, indeed, is how there comes to be the
inclusion, gathering, and amassing of things into these five
aggregates affected by clinging.
Now this has been said by the Blessed One:
“One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the
Dhamma sees dependent origination.”
And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen.
The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five
aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering. The
removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for
these five aggregates affected by clinging is the cessation of
suffering.’
At that point too, friends, much has been done by that bhikkhu.


text:
Why is a sotāpanna defined as unable to take another teacher and unable to commit matricide?
Among the descriptions of stream-enterer (sotāpanna) is one which says that they is not capable of committing six wrong actions:

Murdering one's own mother.
Murdering one's own father.
Murdering an arahant.
Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood.
Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.
Taking another teacher.

Question:

Do the scriptures and/or commentators say something about the significance of this particular selection of actions? Why are these (and not some other) actions the ones which cannot be committed?
Is it suggested hereby that creating a schism in the monastic community is as grave an action as patricide, matricide or murder of a holy and peaceful person?
Does it also mean that taking another teacher is like wounding one's teacher, which is as terrible an offence as patricide, matricide, murder etc?

The source says 'foremost' teacher, so this is different from simply 'another Buddhist teacher'. So even if I study under another Buddhist teacher, my foremost teacher is still the Buddha.

A stream winner is not capable of creating schism and taking another teacher, because a stream winner has verified confidence (i.e. conviction resulting from experiential realization) in the Buddha, the Dhamma (his teachings) and the Sangha (the monastic community).
From the Vera Sutta:

"And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is
  endowed?
"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed
  with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One
  is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct,
  well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer
  for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human
  beings, awakened, blessed.'
"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is
  well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless,
  inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
  themselves.'
"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of
  the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have
  practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who
  have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight
  individuals [1] — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples:
  worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of
  respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.'

The Sangha referred above is composed of eight types of individuals:

The four pairs are (1) the person on the path to stream-entry, the
  person experiencing the fruit of stream-entry; (2) the person on the
  path to once-returning, the person experiencing the fruit of
  once-returning; (3) the person on the path to non-returning, the
  person experiencing the fruit of non-returning; (4) the person on the
  path to arahantship, the person experiencing the fruit of arahantship.
  The eight individuals are the eight types forming these four pairs.

It doesn't say that those are offences. It says that a stream winner is not capable of these acts. Since a stream winner is fully convinced in the Buddha and his teachings, he is not capable of taking another teacher. A stream winner has also reached the level of spiritual maturity that makes him incapable of committing matricide, patricide and murder of an enlightened person.
Not just matricide, patricide and killing arahant, according to the Cakkhu Sutta, the stream winner "is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades." Also in this verse, The Buddha said "the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed."

The question is about what is the significance of bunching together offences like taking another teacher and creating a schism in the sangha, with seemingly more heinous offences like matricide and patricide. Does such a categorization suggest that a parity is being drawn between the two kinds of offences?

It doesn't say that these are offences. It says that a stream winner is not capable of those acts. If a stream winner is fully convinced in the Buddha and his teachings, he is not capable of taking another teacher. A stream winner has also reached the level of spiritual maturity that makes him incapable of committing matricide, patricide and murder of an enlightened person. ==> Added to answer

Presumably, these teachings are referring to a historical day and age when, although a person committed murders and acts of violence, he would still be a stream-enterer of good standing if his acts did not include murder of his parents, a serious attack on his teacher, sowing dissent among his brother-monks, etc. That sounds like a scary period of history!

@KrishnarajRao Have you heard about 'Angulimala' the merder of thousends. Buddha met him at the moment he try to kill his mother. By hearing Load Buddha and surrender  to ........ 'Arahant'.

@Shrawaka - Right. The fierce Angulimala was incapable of killing or injuring Lord Buddha. So why is it said to be a qualification of a stream-enterer (surely a more peaceful person than Angulimala) that he/she is incapable of injuring Lord Buddha and drawing blood? What is the point being made by so saying?

@KrishnarajRao Refer the answer The Quality is shown as Impossibility.

@Shrawaka - To kill any being -- even an ant -- is an impossibility for a paralyzed person and a sufferer from Parkinson's / Alzheimer's disease. That is not normally spoken of as a positive qualification for them.

@KrishnarajRao and Also a Chiled. But They are not Sothapanns. To be a Sothapanna Must have remove his 'wrong view', that cause to rebirth, suffering etc.

@KrishnarajRao - Not just matricide, patricide and killing arahant, according to the Cakkhu Sutta, the stream winner "is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades."

@KrishnarajRao - With regards to Angulimala, perhaps he could not kill the Buddha due to the Buddha's psychic powers described in Dhammapada Verse 124. The story reads, "He took out his bow and arrow to shoot at the Buddha, but as he drew his bow, he became immobilized and remained fixed in that position like a statue. His sons ... took out their bows and arrows to shoot at the Buddha, but they also became immobilized and remained fixed in their respective postures." But I'm not familiar enough with the Angulimala story.

@KrishnarajRao - Also in this verse, The Buddha said "the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed."

@ruben2020 I want to delete all these comments. Do you want to edit your answer to include any information from your comments, before I delete the comments?

@ChrisW - I feel that would be an abuse of your privilege. For whatever it is worth, I protest.

@ChrisW - added 2 relevant comments to the answer. But is there a need to delete comments? Maybe you can move them to chat.

Angulimala wasn’t even a stream enterer when he try to kill the Buddha.

I have a theory or opinion as follows (not a canonical explanation).
"Stream-winner" is one of the stages of enlightenment.
Essential or defining characteristics of a stream-winner are:

Understands the Buddha's teaching sufficiently well
Will therefore become enlightened within a few lifetimes (e.g. within seven lifetimes) furthermore none of those lifetimes will be in hell.

The "impossibilities" which were listed follow from these characteristics:

Because they understand Dhamma sufficiently well, they won't split the Sangha and won't seek another teacher. It may be a slightly circular definition, in that the ariya-sangha is defined as being composed of stream-winners etc. (i.e. those who attained those various stages enlightenment).
Because they're enlightened they won't do things which will cause them to be reborn in hell; matricide is an example of an action which will cause a person to be reborn in hell; so the syllogism is that they won't commit something like matricide.

There may well be (and presumably is somewhere) a commentary, but I don't know it. Shrawaka's answer shows the list is taken from the Anguttara Nikaya ... that doesn't add much context except what we already know i.e. that it's a list of six things (because the Anguttara Nikaya consists of lists).

AN collected suttas using numerical order. but not only the lists, they are also suttas have contents.

@Shrawaka Which AN sutta or suttas for example are you thinking of?

for ex  -  AN 3.65 kalama Sutta, 3.61, 3.68, 3.69

@Shrawaka Thank you, you're right. Yet this introduction says, "the third nipata contains suttas concerning three things (e.g., a sutta on the three kinds of praiseworthy acts; another about three kinds of offense), and so on". I wonder what the connection is between the "Kalama sutta" and "three" i.e. why that sutta is classified there.

I want much time, have to search,

Considering this summery we should take AN is also a resource collection.

I have an armchair philosophy answer to this one, (i.e. I can't cite any one on it, but it makes sense).
One of the following is different than the other.

Murdering one's own mother. Murdering one's own father. Murdering an
  arahant. Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing
  blood. Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.

Killing parents is incredibly rare-- a quick google is showing small 2 digit numbers for typical large countries. In the time when these rules were made up, the population was probably too small to find more than one or two a year or decade.  Arahats and Buddhas were exceedingly rare-- even if you wanted to kill one, there weren't any available.
The bit about wounding was because at one point someone made up the "fact" that you couldn't kill a Buddha, so in that case, you could only wound them.
But schism? It was a something that the leaders of Sanghas worried about. Someone who was intent on committing a crime, could commit this one, the rest are just not something anyone does or can do. This list of rules essentially says, schism is as bad as the worst imaginable crime. This list is normally combined with the penalty of never being able to reach enlightenment. The particular enumerated crimes are rhetorical flourishes.
(Taking up a new teacher is just a variation on the rule against schism, I don't see it as often.)
In sum, the whole point of this list of rules is to say "Schism is the worst crime imaginable" It is a self serving rule that would have been made by a leader worried about challenges to his authority. Me not being a monk, when I first saw this rule (which gets told to lay followers as well), I thought, how quaint, a list of rules that are near impossible for me to personally violate.

They are not rules to follow. they are impossibles to do by sothapanna not only this life, until he attain final Nirvana, after seven life maximum.

What is "Entering the Stream"
Quoting from the Saṃyutta Nikāya

holding masses, ( matter, feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness).
“Monks, when the noble disciple knows the arising, fading, satisfaction, danger, and the escape from these five holding masses as
  they really are,it is said he has entered the Stream of the
  Teaching, would not fall from it, would directly aim extinction.”

What are the "Rewards"
Quoting from the Anisansa Sutta: Rewards

One is certain of the true Dhamma.
   One is not subject to falling back.
   There is no suffering over what has had a limit placed on it.
   One is endowed with uncommon knowledge.
   One rightly sees cause, along with causally-originated phenomena.

What are the "Impossibles" that "Stream enterer" cannot do.
What are the signs (or proofs) that one has entered the stream?
Quoting from the Aṅguttara Nikāya

Impossible
The view about a self, (Identical View),
  doubts,(About Teacher, Doctrine and Community),
  grasping to the idea of breaking the rules and greed (Accept another teaching),
  hate and delusion (Karma) which lead to hellish results.
– Third on impossibilities

It is impossible that one come to right view should. deprive the
    life of mother, father, of a noble one, with a defiled mind cause the
    blood of the Thus Gone One to spill, split the Community of bhikkhus,
    or appoint another, as teacher.

What is the reason?
The one come to right view, has thoroughly seen the
  reason that pleasantness and unpleasantness arises on account of some
  reason.

The reason why a stream-winner cannot commit matricide etc. is because there is no such stress with him that capable enough to matricide etc.
Most normal persons when get angry they behave without self control. A sothapanna has no wrong view such as "The view about a self, doubts, grasping to the idea of breaking the rules and greed, hate and delusion which lead to hellish results." So there is no reasons to get angry.


text:
How are the 31 planes of existence (especially Bṛhatphala planes) a practical metaphor?
This comment suggests that the various lokas and beings inhabiting them can be taken metaphorically, i.e. it said,

Many of these can be answered with references back to metaphorical interpretations, by both traditional lineages and by the modern secular Buddhism movement. If I were you I would ask questions about the meaning behind the metaphorical language and how it can be applied to solve the problems of life and death.

So, as a follow-on from that comment — i.e. if or when they are interpreted metaphorically:

Is there an overarching metaphorical meaning of the 31 lokas, and the various kinds of beings that inhabit them? What is the meaning, and how does this meaning help the practitioners of Buddhism, and all earthly beings?

Wikipedia descrides the Bṛhatphala planes as follows — unless this reference is inaccurate, would you explain how its metaphorical meaning can help practitioners and all earthly beings?

Bṛhatphala Planes
These two realms are a result of attaining the fourth jhana. They remain in the tranquil state attained in the 4th Jhana, and is characterized by equanimity (upekṣā).

22 - Unconscious beings (Asaññasatta) Realm of mindless beings who have only bodies without consciousness. Rebirth into this plane results from a meditative practice aimed at the suppression of consciousness. Those who take up this practice assume release from suffering can be achieved by attaining unconsciousness. However, when the life span in this realm ends, the beings pass away and are born in other planes where consciousness returns.

21 - Very Fruitful devas (vehapphala deva) In the Jhana Sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya the Buddha said "The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades."

Is there an overarching metaphorical meaning of the 31 lokas, ...

According to the metaphorical style of interpretation, 31 planes of existence are a map of various lifestyles and mind states (with lower realms corresponding to neurotic conditions, and the higher realms to the meditative trance states) with examples of attitudes leading to and perpetuating such states.

... and the various kinds of beings that inhabit them? What is the meaning, ...

Based on my study of texts and my insight meditation, here are some very condensed and simplified descriptions. Please don't take these as all-encompassing definitions, they are just basic pointers:

hell is a subjective state characterized by heavy antipathy and helplessness, in which "how things are" is 100% opposite of "how you think it should be" and you can't do anything about it.
animal realm is a life style characterized by complacency towards hardships and inconveniences, ignorance, lowly values and lack of ownership over one's destiny.
preta's realm is a neurotic condition in which confusion, craving and negative prejudice continuously give rise to a cycle of false hope to attain something 100% worthy, alternating with bitter disappointment when every consecutive object of one's pursuit fails to satisfy one's childishly simplified expectations.
human's realm is lifestyle and condition dominated by attachment to and preoccupation with what one holds important or dear, such as errands, projects, group interests, conflicts etc.
asura's realm is a mindset and attitude of extreme intelligence and ambition / competitiveness, without regards for others' well-being.
gods' realm or heaven is a temporary state when the objective state of things 100% matches one's expectations and one is deluded into assuming that things will never change. Deva' realms from 6 to 11 are different kinds of this state.
the form realms (#12 to 27) are semi-enlightened lifestyles and mindstates characterized by predominance of abstract thinking and substantial levels of insight into the nature of phenomena, resulting in relative absence of strong emotions. The only remaining source of conflicts and suffering in these realms is rigid adherence to one or the other philosophic position.
the formless realms (#28 to 31) are the predominant mindstates of yogis bent on the practice of transcendental absorption (cultivation of meditative trance) which are characterized by a temporary bliss followed by the inevitable return to the empirical world with its problems and pains.

... and how does this meaning help the practitioners of Buddhism, ...

Study and meditation on the realms helps practitioners of Buddhism to disidentify / step aside from their own biases and states of mind, as well as to identify the conditions of others, and hopefully pick an appropriate corrective action towards the Liberation-By-Wisdom.

... how [realms #21 and 22] metaphorical meaning helps practitioners ...

Realms #21 and 22 is a reference to mindstates of non-buddhist practitioners succeeding in meditation. Even though they may achieve bliss (#21) or suspension of consciousness (#22) because of their Wrong View they are bound to fall back to the lower realms. Metaphorical illustrations like these help the practitioners of Buddhism understand the subtle differences between correct and incorrect practices at advanced stages of the path.

... and all earthly beings?

All Buddhist practices directly or indirectly help "all earthly beings" as you call them, by reducing the amount of "suffering pollution" generated due to confusion and ignorance.

How does this metaphorical stance account for the presence of beings we refer to as animals, then?

This is evolution of consciousness we are talking about. Unfortunately these days some humans almost seem to be less evolved than animals :-( Although I think this better matches what we refer to as "livestock" - not thinking for themselves, being led by others to slaughter.

So this is basically bhava in literal sense. :)

@AndreiVolkov "Unfortunately these days some humans almost seem to be less evolved than animals" -- You seem to suggest that in "those days", humans were somehow better than "these days". Is that a considered opinion?


text:
Getting started young with many attachments
I realize that at least the first part of the title is probably the most easily researched question with relevance to Buddhism possible, but I'd say I've read quite a bit and though I've seen very appealing and interesting ideas, I have no idea how to actually apply many of them.
I'm a fourteen year old male. I've always sorta felt like there was something more but that Christianity always looked outside yourself seemed wrong. Recently I had a spiritual experience and soon after read Be Here Now and it all seems to fit perfectly. I just have no idea what to do. I have little choice in what I eat, wear, how I look, none in what I live (etc)... what do I do? I'm trying to meditate and though it does make me conscious and alert, I feel like soon after I feel a strange warm sensation I "snap out of it" automatically.
More than the actual lifestyle changes, of course, I'm looking for changes in the way I think and act. The spiritual experience sorta let me see the degree to which almost everything around me is fake and wrong. I feel like I'm a much better person compared to the guy I was before but I'm just having incredible difficulties making it stay because though my state of mind and experience has changed, my surroundings have not and I feel like due to my confidence problems I conform.
I realize that this journey lasts a lifetime and forever, but I'm afraid that if I don't make progress and begin it'll just be a forgotten memory. Has anyone been in a similar situation? Any tips? What did you do that finally made you adopt the lifestyle? I'd be perfectly satisfied with a link or a name of a book but I need something.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful. I would recommend for you Ven. Yuttadhammo's video series on "Introduction To Meditation: How to Meditate".

Ven. Yuttadhammo has also made a booklet called "How To Meditate: A Beginner's Guide to Peace".

Even if you might not see it, you are very lucky to start this journey (Buddhism?) at such a young age. Just having a sense of a direction shapes to some degree the choises you make and the way you approch life situations.
At this age you might not have control of many decisions that affect you,so becomes even more important what you do with the aspects you can control ( who you spend your free time with, the books you read).
I think it's very important to be kind with yourself. Like you've said, it's a long journey. Try to rejoyce for the smallest progress you make (maybe you're controling your temper for 5 minutes longer than you normally do, maybe you are a little bit kinder to stranger than you were before); don't condamne yourself for the mistakes, just make a mental note to try to do it better the next time.
If you are interested in Buddhism, the precepts are very important guides in our life journey. The important thing is they are trainings, aspects we can continuously work on. So maybe you would like to read more about it.
Then there is the Eight Noble Path, the important training in morality, concentration and wisdom. I found very helpful the book of Lama Surya Das - Awakaning the Buddha within. There are many books on the topic, so just give it a try.
Venerable Yuttadhammo has a series of youtube videos on diffrent aspects of life and meditation. I highly recommand theme.
As one last idea, try to focus on the things you can control, understand that continous insight takes a lot of work and meditate.
Good luck!

I can't comment so if it's alright I'll address both from here. Firstly thanks a ton, this was perfect. The Youtube series seems really appealing for ease so I'll definitely check that out and as soon as I can I'll get the book and, of course, read the guides and pamphlet which should keep me busy long enough to finally ground all my thoughts.

@user6933 To be able to post comments etc., you need to complete the registration process as a user. The web site sees your comment as coming from a different user than the one who asked the question (user6928 as opposed to user6933).


text:
Is there any mention of child adoption in any Buddhist writings and what is the view on child adoption with regard to Buddhism?
Being married, I have of late been coming across the dilemma of whether to have a child or not and if yes, if a biological child or not (which by itself may be another question which I may ask separately).
So, when I ponder on the subject, I get the thought if it may be more meaningful to adopt an orphaned child instead of having a biological child. But again, although at the surface adoption appears to be an altruistic and more meaningful thought, if I think deeper, I really wonder if the desires as a result of which I would want to have a biological child (and which I want to avoid) are pretty much the same as those which want me to adopt one. Additionally, adopting a child has its own administrative and emotional complications, which may result in unhappy experiences and which may therefore defeat the entire purpose.
So, I thought it may help me build a perspective on the subject, if I come to know what is the opinion on child adoption with regard to the Buddha's teachings. So, my questions are:-

Is there any mention of the merits/ demrits of adoption in the Tipitika or any other Buddhist writings?
Is there any incident from during the life of the Buddha in which child adoption was involved?
Would it help to strengthen one's ethics by adopting a child?
How can we compare or weigh the merits of dana to several orphan children vs adopting and nurturing one?

I view it as adoption can be nothing but good. you are providing a child with a home, food and most importantly love. if it is done with good intention then it cant be bad.

Yes, there is something mentioned in Buddhist canon, in the section of Vinaya, disciplines part. Two nephew of Ananda was wandering aimlessly with crying, Ananda saw it, asked to children "what happened to you, and why you crying?" child responded that their parent was killed. Ananda felt so sad and adopted these two children,brought them into Monaster for study gave education. Two children took enrolled in the monastery, as their age is already above seven and able to scare the crow away. In the text of Vinaya stated that child who reached seven year must be able to scare the crow away.

Only my opinion, but since you will be looking after and caring for another being, supplying them with food, water, shelter and affection, I cannot see that being anything but positive. There is no specific mention of child adoption as far as I know but there is mention of compassion and loving-kindness. As long as the intent is good it does not matter whether you adopt someone who already has a body or if you create a body for a being to manifest as.
You should probably avoid adopting lots of orphans if you have financial or administrative concerns for the reasons you stated

Is there any mention of the merits/ demrits of adoption in the Tipitika or any other Buddhist writings?
It's only short, but the Zen story Is That So? features an adoption.
I think it's intended to portray a wise attitude, and good parenting.

Is That So?
The Zen master Hakuin was praised by his neighbours as one living a
  pure life.
A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near
  him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was
  with child.
This made her parents angry. She would not confess who the man was,
  but after much harassment at last named Hakuin.
In great anger the parent went to the master. "Is that so?" was all he
  would say.
After the child was born it was brought to Hakuin. By this time he had
  lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good
  care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbours and everything
  else he needed.
A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her
  parents the truth - the real father of the child was a young man who
  worked in the fishmarket.
The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask
  forgiveness, to apologize at length, and to get the child back.
Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: "Is that
  so?"


text:
Is Dana (donation) more about detachment from one's possessions & to break one's ego or is it more about helping others?
Whether it is booking a flight ticket, hotel room, buying an electronic gadget etc there are so many online stores which offer so many deals, that I spend a good deal of time finding the right deal, before spending. Furthermore, where I belong its common to haggle with shopkeepers to get a good deal.
And then, I occasionally donate money to some cause as Dana.
That makes me think, what is the real purpose of Dana? Is it more about detachment from material possessions and sharing one's merits/ earnings with others to dissolve the ego or is it more about helping those in need? If it is the former, I might not as well worry about haggling with a shopkeeper or try finding a good deal online, and buy things at first sight, with metta to the seller considering I have donated the amount I could have bargained for to him. If it is the latter, I continue finding good deals and then donate the saved up money to those "I feel" (very subjective) are in need.
So, how can Dana be explained in this context?

Renunciation :)

DANA SUTTA
In this Sutta, Buddha broke it down to 7 categories of why people give Dana
(1) To answer your question as to purpose of dana, people give for many reasons.
(2) some give to detach(ornament of mind) which bears great fruit and great benefit.
(3) some people give to help others.
I think you can answer yourself if the reason you want the merchant to maximize his profit is because you want to help him out or you are doing it to let go of your attachment.

Dana is given by selflessly helping others and by doing so ironically helping yourself. It is the understanding of interconnection. Service as oppose to monetary or material aspects is another great way to give Dana.

Ultimately, dana involves a recognition of several points:

That some goal is worthy, important, intrinsically good, or otherwise valued
That someone has the will, the compassion, the clarity or other qualities necessary to pursue that goal; qualities that we ourselves currently lack
That we can foster the manifestation of that goal by providing for that someone.

Dana is a moment of humility, where one says: "That is a stronger person than I am, with higher purposes than I have. Giving to them helps them make the world I live in better." There may be other, more superficial reasons, but that is the core of it.

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


text:
Is there anything one can do to save the deceased from the consequences of their Kamma?
I generally had the understanding that there is no way one can save the deceased from the consequences of their Kamma. At most, we can send Metta to the deceased which may comfort them wherever they exist. This understanding of mine is based on this story, wherein the Buddha using the analogy of butter and stones in two earthen pots makes the son of a deceased father understand that one cannot help the deceased escape from their Kamma by performing rites and rituals.
But I was surprised to come across the Ullambana Sutra  in another answer in this forum, where the Budhha seems to suggest the contrary - recommending rites and rituals for the benefit of the deceased and in fact their liberation from woeful states.
Can anyone clarify this contradiction and elaborate on how one can help the deceased? Is Metta for the deceased effective for their well being?
P.S. My question is not to create controversy. I'm more interested in learning the right view than the contradiction, if that helps anyone answer. I would be glad even if anyone answered the question without touching upon the contradiction part.

Are you looking for the Mahayana answer or the Theravada answer?

I had kept it open ended since from what I could gather, the sutta I have quoted seems to be a Mahayana Sutta as per the internet. But if the answer were to depend on one of the two, I prefer to have the Theravada one.

The Ullambana is a Mahayana sutra, and from the Theravada standpoint, isn't Buddhavacana, isn't authoratative. In Theravada, merit isn't transferable, except in the limited case of letting your friends know about your success so they can be happy about your success and do a little mudita.

Within the Theravada I believe there is one classification of hungry ghost which can receive a transfer of merit. II believe this is why they leave offerings of food out in Thailand and build small houses

I like to make the following points (from a Theravada standpoint.):

Sañcetanika Sutta and Loṇa,phala Sutta deals with how Karma can be eradicated or results can be limited.

If you have done a large amount of +ve Karma then a litter -ve Karma has limited effect
Your Karma ceases to exist when you experience the result. This is something you want to avoid if it is a bad Karma but when doing Vipassana your old stock of fabrication come into the surface and gives you a sensation and passes away if you are equanimous to the experience. These experiences tend to be more milder than Karma giving results in the normal course. See: The Discourse Summaries

Rights and rituals have a place in Buddhism:

This is to keep the institution going and as means to attract people to Buddhism especially who are not yet ready or mature for deep insight
Rights and rituals can be a steppingstone to liberation if the rights and rituals foster morality (sīla,vata), as in (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta
Rites and rituals cannot eradicate Karma at least as per Theravada tradition

There is a sutta (can't find it now) documenting a case when someone asked Buddha about posthumous prayers helping a sinful person obtain better rebirth and his reply basically was that this was like throwing a heavy rock into a lake and chanting "swim good rock, swim" :))
So here is your Theravada answer :)
Now, Ulambana Sutra is a Mahayana sutra and as such should be taken as a skillful mean to motivate people to spread Dharma and make offerings to improve the future rebirths situation in general - not to circumvent individual karma.


text:
Quantified Self and Meditation
I've looked around here for things related to this but keep coming up dry...
As is fairly common these days, I've been tracking/logging a lot of different things over the past several years such as my diet,  exercise, certain specific activities or actions taken etc.
I'm curious to hear opinions/advice and if anyone is aware of any references in the suttas on the topic of tracking and logging each time you sit & the duration of the sit. Particularly when establishing or modifying a  habit, I've found logging to be extremely helpful --> but at times the idea of logging my sits also seems counter to the teachings and especially counter to "just being."
Are there any references in the canon or other teachings that might point to or be a helpful guide in this area?

I have no sources to quote so I don't want to make this an answer, but what I have found is that metrics that chart meaningful progress are hard to come by. They are often best used as a tool to help identify and avoid paths that do not lead where you want to go, but it is hard to find metrics which actually direct you towards the right path. There is always a happy medium between the two, with enough metrics to avoid undesirable paths, but not so many that they obscure the right path. This balance varies from person to person, so it is reasonable to assume your balance will differ from others

(Also worth noting is that it is reasonable to expect your own balance to change over time, as you change and your environment changes around you.)

Nava Sutta
towards the end of the sutta, Buddha talked about daily progress of Dharma development.  My take on it, it is hard to track quantifiable progress daily.  You just know.  Though the sutta talks about effluents in general, it might be applicable to meditation as well.

Just as when a carpenter or carpenter's apprentice sees the marks of
  his fingers or thumb on the handle of his adze but does not know,
  'Today my adze handle wore down this much, or yesterday it wore down
  that much, or the day before yesterday it wore down this much,' still
  he knows it is worn through when it is worn through. In the same way,
  when a monk dwells devoting himself to development, he does not know,
  'Today my effluents wore down this much, or yesterday they wore down
  that much, or the day before yesterday they wore down this much,'
  still he knows they are worn through when they are worn through.

It is unrealistic to project a quantified mindset onto early Buddhists. They didn't have paper to write on. They didn't have writing. Without writing, math must have been rather limited, let alone mathematical thinking. Later on, Buddhist universities developed logic, which is a sort of propositional math. There were whole manuals for Buddhist logic exercises. In Mahayana, there are sutras with chapters that discuss powers of 10 and extremely large numbers (Avatamsaka is one).
My personal thoughts on the matter
I recently started using beeminder.com to track my meditation. I give my self a point a day for meditating. If I'm derailed on my goal, I pay a small fine.
The most measurable things are going to be inputs, e.g. minutes meditating. The outputs might be measurable using techniques of modern psychologists, by say by writing 20 similar questions that elicit if you are exhibiting this or that quality. Adding up the "yes"es is a score of the outputs of contemplation. Even in psychology, these metrics are controversial as to if they really measure what they purport to measure.
Measurable Practices
In the universe of all Buddhist practices, some are more measurable that others (keep in mind, I'm not promoting any of these, just making a comment on what Buddhist broadly defined do that is quantifiable)

Chanting- # of matra repetitions. Chanting is noisy meditation, usually counted with mala beads.
Prostrations- # of prostrations. Prostrations are like meditation, but with constant motion
Infractions of precepts - Even early Buddhists were expected to list their infractions at Uposotha.
Meditation time. I know monks used to use incense sticks as timers, so they'd meditate for n incense sticks.
Meritable acts. In Mahayana texts there are many rhetorical flourishes that involve merit accounting, such as "you can transfer 1/8 of the merit of a good act to your deceased kin.", or the merit of doing this is more than the merit of doing that (i.e. a measure that is rankable) The math geek in me wishes they'd fully developed the system, but AFAIK, it wasn't a fully developed system. It sort of reminds me of the Boy Scouts effort to do one good deed a day.  Vajrayana also has many practices that are done n times, with merit accruing for each, such as turning prayer wheels, making flags, etc.

Minutes spent meditating is what I've been tracking too - along with periodic journal entries on various qualitative experiences, just as something to reflect on later. The idea of tracking the general progression of my own mindfulness wasn't as much the aim for me, but I can see how that was the take away from my question. Good answers all around.


text:
Ways to strengthen the perception of the breath
I would like to hear all the ways to strengthen the feeling of the breath so i will know when it enters the body and when it leaves it
i tried to put a hand on the stomach and feel the air go out and in of the nose - with limited success
would like to hear tips on how to do the standard methods people use above - maybe i can improve them - and also i wonder if there are different ways to know strengthen my ability to know when the breath enters and leaves the body   -   any interesting way you have i would love to hear about it - it dosnt have to be buddhist in any way it can involve equipment even - whatever can help improve my skill of sensing the breathing
I am not looking for different ways to meditate without the breath (only for ways to iprove my breath sensing skill) - thats a different subject and it can be addressed in another thread i created :
Can't notice the breath

You could also "breathe strongly, firmly and rapidly", as they do in Sunlun's method. Rapidly means really rapidly, see the last part of this video.

You should put your attention to the centre of the upper lip
You should be aware of if breath is in or out, long or short to start with

There is no need to feel anything like the touch sensation thought this also becomes apparent with practice.
What you should do to strengthen your perception of breath is the to:

Sense the start of the breath
The acceleration of the inhaling or exhaling process
The peak of the process
The deceleration
The gap between breaths (This is split second and many miss this as loose or weaken your attention breath at this point. Hence this is the point mostly your mind starts wandering away from the breath.)

Also the following book might be of interest: Mindfulness With Breathing : A Manual for Serious Beginners

The above book can be downloaded from: https://campuslink.okstate.edu/organization/buddhist-student-association/DocumentLibrary/

Increase your mindfulness: if you aren't aware of your breathing, then where is your awareness? Is there something bigger distracting your attention? Different things will distract you to lesser or greater degrees, but remember this is an exercise in mindfulness.
For me, my breath had become more subtle than my heartbeat during meditation. It helped to ask, are you breathing or are you not breathing? How do you know if you're breathing? To do so I had to develop my mindfulness further, notice the most infinitesimal sensation of  breath, with full attention over the entire cycle, and let nothing come between my mind and my breath.

Directed mental effort or intention to know the breathing is a thought. Being a thought, it is a hindrance to awareness. It brings limited results because it calms the breath but does not calm the mind commensurately, which makes the breath disappear from awareness when the breath calms.
In my experience, the best method I found to strengthen the perception of the breath was to stop trying to perceive the breath & to just sit still & quiet. This method will allow the mind to collect (gather) itself upon the breath.
I would recommend the introductory parts of Ajahn Brahm's Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond, which can be read here.


text:
Near death experience and meditation
I have been trying to analyse NDE stories from a meditator's point of view. The way people change after a NDE is, in some cases, similar to the changes a person goes through after meditating for a while (i. e. less materialist, more calm, serene, not affraid of dying, less attachment to the "I"...). It is a life changing experience just like meditation when taken seriously.
In general NDE fits well in the Dhamma, showing for instance that the mind does not depend upon the body.
Let's accept NDE as true for a while.
What I don't get and want some help is: almost all NDE are nice and positive (similarly to going to heaven). In the Dhamma we usually hear that most people are reborn in the awful planes due to their kamma. Some monks even say people sometimes get a glimpse of their future realm of rebirth. That would suggest NDE should be bad and traumatic for most people, but it is not! I don't believe so many people are going to be reborn in heaven, based on the way people live and all ignorance and anger in the world.
Also, most people after a NDE claim to have seen and talked to dead family members or even pets, would that imply necessarily that they were all in the hungry ghost realm? Or could they be devas, but keeping the same old shape?!
I know fitting NDE 100% into the Dhamma may be impossible, but I appreciate any help!

seeing is seeing

Please elaborate :)

seeing is like a dream. After looong dream (he) will be born  again.(Awake) to samsara.

NDEs must conform to the Dhamma, if it is true, as must all phenomena. Their 'niceness' is not surprising if we note they are just our initial experiences while still only recently deceased. These pleasant experiences may soon be gone for those destined for the lower realms. The process of self-judgement often reported in NDEs may be the beginning of many not-so-nice and not-so-near-death experiences and rebirths.

NDE's are true. Just as true as any other experience. When there is seeing, this is the experience of seeing. It arises and ceases.

“Again, bhikkhus, when walking, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I am walking’; when standing, he understands: ‘I am standing’; when sitting, [57] he understands: ‘I am sitting’; when lying down, he understands: ‘I am lying down’; or he understands accordingly however his body is disposed."
“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating feelings as feelings? Here, when feeling a pleasant feeling, a bhikkhu understands: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling’; when feeling a painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a painful feeling’; when feeling a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling.’ When feeling a worldly pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly pleasant feeling’; when feeling an unworldly pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly pleasant feeling’; when feeling a worldly painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly painful feeling’; when feeling an unworldly painful feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly painful feeling’; when feeling a worldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel a worldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling’; when feeling an unworldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he understands: ‘I feel an unworldly neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling."
“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects? Here a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five hindrances. And how does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five hindrances? Here, there being sensual desire in him, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is sensual desire in me’; or there being no sensual desire in him, he understands: ‘There is no sensual desire in me’; and he also understands how there comes to be the arising of unarisen sensual desire, and how there comes to be the abandoning of arisen sensual desire, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of abandoned sensual desire.’
      “There being ill will in him … There being sloth and torpor in him … There being restlessness and remorse in him … There being doubt in him, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is doubt in me’; or there being no doubt in him, he understands: ‘There is no doubt in me’; and he understands how there comes to be the arising of unarisen doubt, and how there comes to be the abandoning of arisen doubt, and how there comes to be the future non-arising of abandoned doubt."
“Again, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects [61] in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging. And how does a bhikkhu abide contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging? Here a bhikkhu understands: ‘Such is material form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception, such its origin, such its disappearance; such are the formations, such their origin, such their disappearance; such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.’
      39. “In this way he abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects internally, externally, and both internally and externally … And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That is how a bhikkhu abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in terms of the five aggregates affected by clinging.

Satipatthana Sutta

In this way, seeing is seeing. Trying to prescribe anything else to it in an ultimate sense is false attribution.

Is there seeing?

@Ryan, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that people who've had NDEs can meditate on the experience; hopefully to realize that the NDE is not something to be taken too seriously. Right?

@Anthony indeed. or at least, just to be taken as seriously as any other experience. as far as I understand, at least :)

I don't agree with seeing because the eyes are not working. Maybe "thinking" would be more accurate, the 5 doors are not working when the body is dead. I do think NDE deserve some more analysis, but I see your point.

I recommend studying the Six Yogas of Naropa and The Tibetan Book of the Dead, specificlaly the pre-Bardo stages which is the Buddhist equivalent of NDE.
One thing in particular that is mentioned is that people's wishful thinking will be actualized. If a person believed in the Buddha, they will see the Buddha, if a person believed they were a bad person, they will see hell.
This is a precursor to the actual stage of Bardo and is also why it is important to die happy. I have read some good books about this topic, some of which explains tricks and tactics to succeed in gaining Enlightenment after death (mainly it involves maintaining composure and not being alarmed by anything that may arise) from the Tibetan school.

If a person behaved like a Deva(God), they will be devas.

There is also the practice of Phowa (ejection of consciousness - one of the 6 Yogas mentioned above. As a practice it is not done fully - that would be done when dieing - but is a preparation for conscious dying.

When you get a NDE you get an impression of your pending death and impermanence of life. Because of this impression you perhaps may get the benefits of contemplating on death.

mindfulness is established on death as the object,
the mental hindrances are suppressed,
the dhyana-factors appear.
...
And,a monk devoted to this mindfulness of death, is constantly diligent.
He gains the perception of non-delight in all existence.
He abandons longing for life.
He is one who censures the bad.
He is not one who stores up much.
He is free from the taint of avarice.
And the perception of impermanence grows in him.

Source: Maraṇa Sati Kathā by Piya Tan
Nearing the point of death you are get sign of the a Kamma you have performed. Sometimes what you see is a sign of what you did maybe the person involved. This explains seeing dead relatives. Also you will see signs of where you will be reborn. If you like or dislikes  a person, or the person owes you something and you are destined to be born near where the person is born then you might again see such people. These are in most cases signs and you are not really seeing the being. For more information on the process nearing the death of a being see the section The mind at the time of death in The Abhidhamma in Practice by N.K.G. Mendis.
If the Karma that has come up at the point of death is of positive nature you might get positive looking signs like lights, angels, etc.
NDE is very rare experience but the same benefits can be reaped from contemplation of death. See my answers on this topic: How do I do “contemplation of death” meditation? And is it dangerous?, Is contemplation of death auto-suggestion?

In general NDE fits well in the Dhamma, showing for instance that the mind does not depend upon the body.

The mind depends on the body of the sentient beings in the sense-sphere realm (Kama loka) and in the fine-material world (Rupa loka). Mind does not depend on the body only in formless realms (Arupa loka).

What I don't get and want some help is: almost all NDE are nice and positive (similarly to going to heaven). In the Dhamma we usually hear that most people are reborn in the awful planes due to their kamma.

This is because the so-called NDEs are not the same as actual NDE mentioned in Buddhism. According to my understanding there can be no one who lives after having actual Near Death Experience (Mental process at death - Maranàsanna Viti). Why?? There are five-fold lawfulness (Natural order or Niyāma Dhamma) mentioned in Buddhism. Citta Niyāma is one of them which maintains the lawful sequence of the functions of consciousness. When a sentient being enters his/her/its Maranàsanna Viti, the sequence continues and ends with Cuti citta (the last thought moment in the current life). The sentient being has no control over this Maranàsanna Viti. The thought moments (citta) flow according to Citta Niyāma. Thus he/she/it cannot stop at somewhere in the middle of this citta viti and continue his/her/its current life. After the cuti citta the sentient being will reappear in his/her/its next life according to his/her/its own kamma.
This article on How Rebirth Takes Place by Venerable Nārada Mahāthera explains Near Death Experience (mental process at death) of a sentient being.

Some monks even say people sometimes get a glimpse of their future realm of rebirth.

Yes, that's true. In Maranàsanna Viti, one of Kamma, Kamma Nimitta, or Gati Nimitta becomes the object for the Javana cittas.

Kamma - Some good or bad act.
Kamma Nimitta (Kamma symbol) - Mental reproduction of any sight, sound, smell, taste, touch or idea which was predominant at the time of some important activity, good or bad.
Gati Nimitta (Symbol of destiny) - symbol of the place of future birth.

I think the psychics who are able to see the spirit world says that some people goes to hell. Because their minds are so corrupted, they believe that they deserve to be in hell and as a result they go these lower planes.
The near death experiences are so peaceful and blissful because people become free from body. Its perfectly normal to have blissful experiences when you go to the home. I rarely have short astral projection experiences and I enter to the void state that I think every people who dies is able to experience more fully. Anita Moorjiani talked about her near death experience and she said that she was feeling other people's feelings and immediately getting detached from these feelings and she also experienced unconditional love. I think what near death and astral projection experiences proves is that the physical dimension is the most dense and slow plane. So the people who does bad deeds are already having their consequences when they re-born in the physical world. For most people the only way to become free from this cycle is to start their spiritual journey/spiritual practice while they are in the physical world.


text:
Anybody know what is Nirvana and where we can find it?
Learning Buddha dharma we need to dive in to the dharma world. Without knowing the truth about Dharma we can not reach our enlightenment.

I believe this question has been covered in can-you-explain-nirvana and this question also relates to it where-does-a-person-go-after-attaining-nirvana. I can't see anything in this question that wouldn't be covered here. To be honest I'm finding it too vague to be useful or add anything to the site so I'm going to put it on hold. If it can be rephrased so as to be clear what additional information is required

over and above what is already on the site then it can always be voted for reopening. All the best

It's  hard to know what Nibbana is without experiencing  it. The same as it  can't be known what an orange tastes like until it's taste is experienced, it can only be described with words. It's easier to say what it's not.
Nibbana is not nothingness or annihilation. Nibbana is the highest goal, better than the bliss of Heaven.
Nibbana is a state of great renunciation. There is Heaven within Samsara but it's imperminent and Nibbana is the   final permanent liberation beyond Heaven and outside of Samsara.
Nibbana is an end of the cravings which cause all the suffering of birth, old age, disease, death, lamentation and fear.
Nirvana is the cure for our suffering here in the material world of Samsara caused by craving sensual pleasure and seeing reality as we want to see it rather than how it really is.
It's the correct understandung, virtue, peace and clarity of reality as it really is that leads to Nibbana.

Acoording to the Theravada tradition (or more precisely, the Mahasi tradition), Nibbana is state which is achieved towards the end of the insight cycle (magga-nana and phala-nana, fruition, called also "touch of Nibbana"); it is a state of extinction of consciousness, so there is nothing which can be said about it, there is no experience at all, and only when consciousness reappears, there is the knowledge that something has happened. It is said to have profound effect on the mind in destroying defilements. The state is termed supramundane, since there is nothing "mundane" (no time, no space, no consciousness).
Kenneth Folk talks about this in his excellent inverview at https://batgap.com/kenneth-folk/ .