text:
Questions to deniers of traditional view on Rebirth
1.
If there's no rebirth, what happens after death of a non-arahant? Does a new life ensue dependent on the one which has just ended?
2.
Rebirth is tightly connected with kamma.
a) Do you observe ripening of all results of wholesome and unwholesome actions in the current life?
b) If you don't, what's in your opinion the fate of those kammas which haven't produced result in the current life?
3.
Current existence is traditionally thought of as being a manifestation of kamma amassed in previous existences.
If there's no rebirth, current life hasn't been preceded by any other existence which would contribute its kamma to it.
How do you then explain differences between people and their experiences, which in MN 135 in particular are explained through kamma?
4.
From experience (one salient example is fate of many Nazi war criminals) it's known that retribution for deeds both evil and good often doesn't occur in the current life (yet the law of kamma somehow needs to operate), it's also unlikely that aranantship will be achieved in the current existence.
Without afterlife and no arahantship in sight, what then should be  incentive to do good and deterrent against doing evil?
5.
If a person doesn't attain nibbana in the current life, isn't there any hope for them?
Thank you for your time

1.
  If there's no rebirth, what happens after death of a non-arahant? Does a new life ensue dependent on the one which has just ended?

Life continues all the time. New lives inherit some characteristics from previous lives. Information is rarely lost completely. Influences carry on. They are not necessarily linear 1:1, but due to grasping some people may identify with a previous life.

2.
  Rebirth is tightly connected with kamma.
  a) Do you observe ripening of all results of wholesome and unwholesome actions in the current life?

Nope. Some are latent until a following life or lives. The question is, whose life?

b) If you don't, what's in your opinion the fate of those kammas which haven't produced result in the current life?

N/A

3.
  Current existence is traditionally thought of as being a manifestation of kamma amassed in previous existences.

Not correct. This is an eternalistic view. There are influences from the past sure, but the experience of current existence is primarily an interpretation we make in the here and now.

If there's no rebirth, current life hasn't been preceded by any other existence which would contribute its kamma to it.

Previous lives did contribute. Not necessarily your lives.

How do you then explain differences between people and their experiences, which in MN 135 in particular are explained through kamma?

N/A

4.
  If a person doesn't attain Nibbana in the current life, isn't there any hope for them?

For them? Sure there's hope for them. But not for the dead John Smith, right?
To summarize, there are past and future lives, OUR lives. There's karmic influence that carries on. There's identification with a living organism in this life, or with a story from a past life. There's hope for and fear of a future life, due to craving.
There's no entity or identity that carries on from life to life, only disjointed influences. In fact, even in this life it is the same, the assemblage of disjointed influences into a bundle is a magic trick performed by the grasping mind.

in this case there's no point in deliberate attempts of escaping from samsara, one is automatically freed from it at the moment of death, and by extention there's no point in the entire Dhamma because ultimate cessation of suffering isn't likely to occur in the current life anyway

I remember several questions around this concern, let me see if I can find them...

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21928/is-suicide-similar-to-nibbana

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/21298/buddhism-on-suicide

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2122/secular-buddhism-and-suicide

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3721/can-a-stream-enterer-commit-suicide

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22718/why-do-secular-buddhists-not-commit-suicide

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/22706/justifying-the-four-noble-truths-without-rebirth

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8973/why-is-life-so-important

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/15023/if-theres-no-self-then-why-should-i-care-about-the-future-lives-and-nirvana

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/7469/impermanence-nonexistance-of-self-meaning-of-life

appreciate the effort

I'm not a denier of literal rebirth but my understanding is thus:
For an ordinary person, until concentration and wisdom are developed to the levels that allow him to stop identiftying with the aggregates, karma and subsequent births make sense to him and can even attract him to the Path out of suffering.
In later stages, as Samidhi I think asks the Buddha "who feels" and the Buddha says that that is anwrong question and answers "dependent on contact there is feeling", we no longer see a person but conditioned phenomena so we can use this to further stop identifying until release.
Gradual training starts with sila which is  related to karma.
No point in fighting about this. Everybody is right:)
The Dhamma is a raft!

Disclaimer: I'm in fact not sure where you stand on rebirth, whether you deny it or just dismiss as unimportant.

I consider 'birth' ('jati') to refer to the production of the view ('ditthi') of 'a being' ('satta'), per SN 12.2, SN 23.2, SN 5.10, SN 22.81, etc. Therefore, I do not deny 're-birth', which is the re-production of this self-view or self-identity (MN 44) of 'a being', both internally & externally. My personal research on 're-birth' can be read at this link.

1. If there's no rebirth, what happens after death of a non-arahant? Does a new life ensue dependent on the one which has just ended?

'Death' ('marana'), similar to 'birth' ('jati'), is a self-view about the death of 'a being', per SN 12.2, SN 23.2, SN 5.10, etc.
The sutta says arahants are not only not subject to 'birth' but they are also not subject to death (per MN 140; SN 22.85). The Dhammapada states arahants do not die but non-arahants are dead already.
Given the questioner is also a student of Xianism, they should understand 'birth' (per Nicodemus) & 'death' do not always have a physical meaning.
Therefore, the minds of non-arahants are subject to birth & death of self-views & self-identities.
As for a new life ('jiva') after the termination of life, this idea or speculation arises in minds that cling to & crave for life. It is a natural instinct that people do not want to die and wish for new life or eternal life, which is why religion is very popular.

2. Rebirth is tightly connected with kamma.

Absolutely. MN 117 states kamma & results ('rebirth') is a mundane teaching siding with merit & attachment. What this means is the results of kamma is always taken personally, such as "I did good", "I did bad", "I am happy", "I am unhappy". Kamma has self-view, unless it is noble kamma that ends kamma (per AN 6.63).

a) Do you observe ripening of all results of wholesome and unwholesome actions in the current life?

Noble practitioners have ended kamma. However, result of kamma can only be observed in this life. SN 12.25; AN 6.63, etc, state there can be no kamma without contact.

b) If you don't, what's in your opinion the fate of those kammas which haven't produced result in the current life?

All kamma produces a result in the present & also future. For example, if my mind gets angry or annoyed, my body & mind become stressed. This stress is a result of kamma. The most small act of clinging produces a result of dukkha, which is why MN 140 & elsewhere states conceiving 'self' is a dart, a tumour, a cancer. In the 1st noble truth, the Buddha summarised 100% of dukkha as 'upadana' ('attachment'). But in MN 26, Buddha said this generation that delights in attachment cannot see attachment is dukkha. That is why this generation believes attachment to a wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend, child, etc, is happiness.

3. Current existence is traditionally thought of as being a manifestation of kamma amassed in previous existences.

No. I do not believe a Buddha can teach this. It is only a view of those who reject the Dhamma is visible here & now.
The sutta (SN 35.145) about "old kamma" refers to the sense organs (not the aggregates) and says they "ought to be viewed as old kamma", which means the noble practitioner should not let the mind drift back to the past, thinking about old kamma but, instead, focus on the sense organs.

If there's no rebirth, current life hasn't been preceded by any other existence which would contribute its kamma to it.

This question is irrational because we know life comes from the sperm & ovum of our parents & we know the kammic or otherwise random events that have lead to our fortune & misfortune in life. Kamma is intention. A new born child is only born with very primal instincts. Please refer to MN 64 about a new born child.

How do you then explain differences between people and their experiences, which in MN 135 in particular are explained through kamma?

MN 12, SN 14.15, etc, say the difference among people occur due to the 'elements' ('dhatu'), just as the modern science of nature (genetics) vs nurture. AN 3.61 states present life experience is not due to past kamma.
There is no evidence the Buddha spoke MN 135, considering its views are only found in two suttas. Also, MN 135 refers to worldly conditions rather than to happiness & suffering, which the other kamma teachings are about. Also, the worldly conditions in MN 135 are found in many other suttas as states of mind, such as spiritual beauty, spiritual wealth, etc. Also, if MN 135 referred to physical conditions, it is obviously false, since the most wealthy people in the world have acquired their wealthy via very evil means. It is ridiculous to say the Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Bush Family, George Soros, etc, are wealthy due to past good kamma. Rational people understand the wealthy families of the world often gained their wealth via colonialism, exploitation, murder & evil. Many of the most wealthy people & families in the world engage in wrong livelihood.
Regardless, MN 135 is not the Dhamma. It is a sutta spoken to a non-Buddhist Brahman student and anyone who takes it seriously cannot, imo, be considered a noble Buddhist.

4. If a person doesn't attain Nibbana in the current life, isn't there any hope for them?

The Dhammapada states the heedless are as if dead already. The Buddha remained silent when asked would he save all sentient beings. The last chapter of the SN states all beings who do not realise the 4NTs will take rebirth in hell (dukkha). The Dhammapada compares the people of the world to a rubbish heap.
If there was a next life, those who do not reach stream-entry in this life would not get closer to Nibbana in a future life because no amount of morality alone can result in stream-entry.
I have not read any suttas where the Buddha taught puthujjana laypeople they might reach Nibbana in future lives. The Buddha did not teach about Nibbana to puthujjana laypeople. In his loving-kindness, the Buddha generally taught laypeople if they do good kamma they will have a 'heavenly' ('happy') 'rebirth'. He did not teach them after eons in heaven they will be reborn in hell.

Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead already.
Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.
Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.
Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.

Dhammapada

To conclude, I have not read in the Pali suttas the role of Buddhism is to save all sentient beings, let alone seek to convert or attract unsuitable people to Buddhism. Originally, the scriptures say the Buddha determined to teach only those with little dust in their eyes. Buddhism is not the same as Christianity, which condemns non-believers.

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

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Formal Meditation Laziness
I have the intuition, from what I've heard within Buddhism, that formal meditation is rarely ever "wrong", and provides benefit if even slight form is held.
Nevertheless, I am struggling to create a regular schedule. It has been years that I know of meditation, have investigated the techniques, and still I seem to avoid practising formally.
Despite contemplation and walking meditation, I fail to progress to a formal routine.
I wonder:

Is there really any remedy to this types of procrastination and
laziness? I feel it may be pointless to try and seek advice on this
topic, that my capacity is absent despite my present desire.
If they exist, what are the remedies to such a basic and pervasive
laziness?

Perhaps I should specify that the reasons I often tell myself against meditating (or other things) are:

Lack of obvious suffering.
Lack of ultimate goal.
Aversion to the effort.

If you don't have a pull factor (natural inclination), then you need a push factor. These are the two factors of motivation.
Suppose your doctor tells you that you have early stage of lung cancer. He tells you not to worry because it can be easily treated due to early detection, but you must give up smoking for good.
So, what do you do? Give up smoking of course. You tried before and failed, but now you have a push factor.

The goal of Buddhist practice and a true understanding of suffering are very distant concepts.  They will hardly motivate you at this stage of the game.  Your main problem is the last - aversion to effort.  I have two answers to help you with that.  First, sit with a group.  Meditation is no different than exercise.  It's all but impossible to get started on your own.  If you do, you will most likely quit.  Sitting with a group affords you an opportunity to sort of hand your will over to the room.  The enthusiasm of others becomes your enthusiasm.  The desire to practice becomes contagious.  It also becomes ritualistic.  Groups generally meet at appointed times and designated places.  That act of attending any of these group sits gets your karmic momentum going in the right direction.  Ultimately, it will spill over into your sits at home.
Which brings me to point number two.  For beginners, you are not going to be able to sit for long periods by yourself.  You will get bored and frustrated very quickly.  You have to ease into it.  Break your practice into increments.  That doesn't mean starting with five minutes.  It literally can begin with just lighting a stick of incense.  After doing that for two weeks, maybe you just touch your butt to the cushion and stand back up.  After a another two weeks, maybe you sit for a minute.  Some days you will feel impelled to sit longer.  Other days, the motivation just won't be there.  Just make sure that whatever phase you're in, you commit to that simple act of effort.

Kusita-Arambhavatthu Sutta explains the grounds for the laziness and the arousal of Energy [AN 8:95].
As this Sutta says, there are 8 grounds for the laziness of a bhikkhu (monk).

A bhikkhu has to do some work: ‘I have some work to do. While I’m working, my body will become tired. Let me lie down.’ He lies down.
A bhikkhu has done some work:  ‘I’ve done
some work. Because of the work, my body has become tired. Let me lie
down.’ He lies down.
A bhikkhu has to make a trip: ‘I have to make a trip. While traveling, my body will become tired. Let me lie down.’ He lies down.
A bhikkhu has made a trip: ‘I’ve made a trip. While traveling, my body has become tired. Let me lie down.’ He lies down.
A bhikkhu has walked for alms in a village or town but has not gotten as much food as he needs, whether coarse or excellent: ‘I’ve walked for alms in the village or town but didn’t get as much food as I need, whether coarse or excellent. My body has become tired and unwieldy. Let me lie down.’ He lies down.
A bhikkhu has walked for alms in a village or town and has gotten as much food as he needs, whether coarse or excellent: ‘I’ve walked for alms in the village or town and gotten as much food as I need, whether coarse or excellent. My body has become as heavy and unwieldy as a heap of wet beans. Let me lie down.’ He lies down.
A bhikkhu is a little ill: ‘I’m a little ill. I need to lie down. Let me lie down.’ He lies down.
A bhikkhu has recovered from illness. Soon after recovering: ‘I’ve recovered from an illness; I’ve just recovered from illness. My body is still weak and unwieldy. Let me lie down.’ He lies down.

Each time he lies down, but he does not arouse energy for the attainment of the as-yet-unattained, for the achievement of the as-yet-unachieved, for the realization of the as-yet-unrealized.
And there are these eight grounds for the arousal of energy. They are listed below as follows;

A bhikkhu has some work to do: ‘I have to do some work. While working, it won’t be easy for me to attend to the teaching of the Buddhas. Let me in advance arouse energy for the attainment of the as-yet-unattained, for the achievement of the as-yet-unachieved, for the realization of the as-yet-unrealized.’
A bhikkhu has done some work: ‘I’ve done some work. While working, it wasn’t possible for me to attend to the teaching of the Buddhas. Let me arouse energy….’
A bhikkhu has to make a trip.: ‘I have to make a trip. While traveling, it won’t be easy for me to attend to the teaching of the Buddhas. Let me in advance arouse energy….’
A bhikkhu has made a trip: ‘I’ve made a trip. While traveling, it wasn’t possible for me to attend to the teaching of the Buddhas. Let me arouse energy….’
A bhikkhu has walked for alms in a village or town but has not gotten as much food as he needs, whether coarse or excellent.: ‘I’ve walked for alms in a village or town but didn’t get as much food as I need, whether coarse or excellent. My body is light and wieldy. Let me arouse energy….’
A bhikkhu has walked for alms in a village or town and has gotten as much food as he needs, whether coarse or excellent.: ‘I’ve walked for alms in the village or town and gotten as much food as I need, whether coarse or excellent. My body is strong and wieldy. Let me arouse energy….’
A bhikkhu is a little ill.:  ‘I’m a little ill. It's possible that my illness will grow worse. Let me in advance arouse energy….’
A bhikkhu has recovered from illness. Soon after recovering.: ‘I’ve recovered from illness, just recovered from illness. It is possible that my illness will return. Let me in advance arouse energy for the attainment of the as-yet-unattained, for the achievement of the as-yet-unachieved, for the realization of the as-yet-unrealized.’

Each time ee arouses energy for the attainment of the as-yet-unattained, for the achievement of the as-yet-unachieved, for the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. This is the eighth ground for arousing energy. "These are the eight grounds for arousing energy."
Although this Sutta mentions the word 'Bhikku', most of the grounds of laziness are common to any human, and also the arousal of Energy can be practiced by everyone to fight against the laziness.

The question then becomes, how do you "arouse energy"?

Unless you have grown up in a Buddhist culture (in which the profound value of meditation is taken for granted), you probably need a psychological understanding of how meditation is actually beneficial. Such an understanding, unfortunately, is hard to come by, simply because it is actually difficult to understand. Take for example how much difficulty the modern scientific community is having while trying to explain Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR). I have practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years. I have written a book called How Mindfulness Meditation Works. It may help motivate you.

There is a huge portion of research done on MBSR, so your statement about the difficulties of the modern scientific community simply isn’t true.

The research done on MBSR is indeed vast and valuable. Perhaps you could explain to us how this research has contributed to the Buddhist concept of sankhara. May you be well and happy. Sila Ananda (aka Ronald Cowen)

you should probably ask someone who makes that claim. I sure don’t.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Suttas where Buddha taught laypeople after heaven they will be reborn in hell?
In AN 4.123, it is reported the Buddha taught monks if a person clings to the heaven of jhana they will end up in hell, as follows:

Monks, there are these four types of individuals to be found existing in the world. Which four?
There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first
  jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by
  directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds
  satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling
  there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he
  reappears in conjunction with the devas of Brahma's retinue. The devas
  of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. 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.

In comparison, in many suttas addressed to laypeople, the Buddha taught if they do good kamma, they will appear in a happy state or in heaven, as follows:

The Blessed One asked them, "Householders, is there any teacher agreeable to you, in whom you have found grounded conviction?"
With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the other world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the
  body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly
  world. Even if we didn't speak of the other world, and there weren't
  the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this
  venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant
  as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine
  of existence.' If there really is a other world, then this venerable
  person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the
  observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body,
  after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly
  world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & adopted by
  him, covers both sides, and leaves behind the possibility of the
  unskillful. MN 60

The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:
(i) they restrain him from evil, (ii) they persuade him to do good,
  (iii) they love him with a kind heart, (iv) they make him hear what he
  has not heard, (v) they clarify what he has already heard, (vi) they
  point out the path to a heavenly state.
DN 31

Are there any suttas where it is taught to householder laypeople that after their time in heaven expires they will be reborn in hell?

The more suttas "where Buddha taught laypeople after heaven they will be reborn in hell", the more proof for your views that when Buddha said the words 'heaven' and 'hell', he referred to mental states in the here & now, in this very same life ... not in the afterlife. Correct?

@beginner No, I think this question is a follow-on from this comment.

I see. Hope it gets resolved.

@Dhammadhatu If there isn't such a sutta, how could someone prove that in an answer? Where did you get the idea (or knowledge) that there isn't such a sutta: did you discover that yourself, or did someone tell you?

Chris. My impression is it a common view in contemporary Buddhism that seeking heaven is ultimately vain because it is temporary. However, I have never read such a view taught to lay people in the suttas therefore by asking this question I hope to clarify the matter. It is a genuine question. Regards

Yes it's a genuine question, I was just wondering how it could be answered, if the answer is negative -- because, "it's difficult to prove a negative". One way they try to "prove a negative" on other sites is by citing an expert's peer-reviewed conclusion; if an author said "I've read all the suttas and talked with teachers, and none of them say etc." then that's some evidence (expert opinion) that the thing doesn't exist. That's why I asked where you got the idea from: it was to ask whether you know any expert who had that opinion, or whether that opinion is based [only] on your own research.

Maybe there is a sutta a member here can offer.

Seldom he taught the transcendent path and the backward to householder. Seldom he taught sunnata to householder. Why? Because the untrained mind would not understand and not protected by firm Silas and precepts "Yogies" dwelling in "housholder-equanimity" would cause them all the reasons to fall into hell, after their "equanimity" journey, gross transgressions, totally unaware, one self totally overestimated.
They would easily, which a notion of "there is no I" tend to pernicious false beliefs which causes them to fall to hell.

The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:

(1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),

(2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),

(3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

(Of course many do not see that they just put the lable of Buddha Dhamma around gross wrong view.)
This is actuallynothing seldom. We find that much under modern Zen-follower, Bodhisatva strivers and in many other secualar approaches where householder are trained in "householder"-equanimity, meditation, but their basic right view and virtue not firm.
Where as the Uposatha of the "cowboys" still has an opening to the path, even if it is mostly just for mundane merits done, the Uposatha of the Jains cuts one easy of the path and closes all access.
Not to speak about the effects on many, when teaching but denying mundane right view, saying somehow "thats kindergarden"-Dhamma.

By ChrisW in regard of the question: If there isn't such a sutta, how could someone prove that in an answer? Where did you get the idea (or knowledge) that there isn't such a sutta: did you discover that yourself, or did someone tell you?

If you try to motivate a child to go to school and learn, become a doctor or what ever, would one start to teach it that doctors also dy?
If one has learned the skill of a doctor, whould it be good to tell him, that he still will go to dy?
The "problem" here is actually that many teaching and training "a doctor will not dy".
What do you think that you and many are? In which possible problematic situation of doubt and desire, yet full of knowledge, all around?
Stick simply to the Basics, all that you have learned and gained by means that are not in line of the Dhamma-Vinaya will not help, but be actually enemies. Why? Because it was not given, is not in line of the economy of the Noble Ones.
Devaduta Sutta: The Deva Messengers
People don't understand when it is sayed that association with fools lead to much suffering. Like the bandits encourage each other "don't be fool, they will not catch us. Why suffer and work".

"This is a man, your majesty, with no respect for mother, no respect for father [1], no reverence for contemplatives, no reverence for brahmans, no honor for the leaders of his clan. (e.g. wrong view) Let your majesty decree his punishment."

Dhammadhatu's concern in a discussion under his question:

My impression is it a common view in contemporary Buddhism that seeking heaven is ultimately vain because it is temporary. However, I have never read such a view taught to lay people in the suttas therefore by asking this question I hope to clarify the matter. It is a genuine question. Regards.

This Sutta might be useful for understanding: Gilana Sutta: Ill and This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard:
A Gradual Training
Today there are many householder and also monastics, making materialist a favor running around on Dhamma-places, in forums... and dispraise the doing of merits and come up with wired "no-rebirth" and "no-doer no deed" approaches. With their "householder-equanimity" (see here) they fall from this heaven and that is why the normally tolerant Buddha was very resolved in rebuking their approches, because it is for the suffering of many.
And why do this "Devas" fall into hell later on? Because they teach to be unvirtouse, even to kill not seeing the impureness in their ways, having not understood the basics, yet believing that they are beyond...
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains.]

I can see various suttas where he did teach householders that deeds may lead to heaven or hell (or to the animal world); but maybe no sutta where he taught that a possible destination is heaven and then hell.

Why should he, when people don't believe in either. Householders are mostly not interested in Nibbana, but seek for destiny to become or not become. Many many things had not been taught to householders, but today, where they are greed after all knowledge, they also suffer with it. Heaven and hell... @ChrisW It must be early in the morning for Chris now.

Thanks Johann but the question is not related to sunnata. The question is about how the Lord Buddha, with perfect wisdom & compassion, taught laypeople.

In the Ariyapariyesana Sutta - MN.26 - (The Noble Search) The Buddha told the monks of the two quests in the world - the noble and the ignoble. He described how he, too, before his Enlightenment, had followed the quest, apprenticing himself with teachers such as Alava Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, and how, on discovering that they could not give him what he sought, he went to Uruvela and there found the consummate peace of Nibbana.
Even those who are on ignoble quests can go to heavens of the sensual kind or even to higher Brahma realms. But as the OP reminds us, in AN 4.123, the Buddha says that even they will end up in hell. That is why Bhikkhu Abhibhu advised the Brahmas that one who makes haste attains the deathless status; One who negligent is like already dead.
In the Arunavati Sutta - SN-6.14  the bhikkhu Abhibhu agreeing with the Blessed One Siki, told the Brahmas that if they are not heedful, they will end up in hell. He said thus:

"Get started! Leave behind evil, be yoked to the dispensation of Enlightened Ones.
Destroy the array of Death, as an elephant would destroy a hut of reeds.
If you live, diligently in this dispensation,
You dispel birth and death and end unpleasantness."

In reading the Suttas in the Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara  - We get to understand that beings in most realms do not have the capacity to change their destiny; they just pay off their past kamma, whether good kamma in deva or brahma realms or bad kamma in the human and lower realms (apayas) if they are not firmly established in the Noble Eightfold Path. In the Suttas we find the term “Naraka”. Naraka is a term in Buddhist cosmology usually referred to in English as "hell" (or "hell realm") After his or her kamma is used up, he or she will be reborn in one of the lower worlds as the result of kamma that had been used up. The Suttas in the Anamatagga-samyutta are:
SN 15.3: Assu Sutta — Tears
"Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time... or the water in the four great oceans?"
SN 15.9: Danda Sutta — The Stick
We bounce from one birth to the next, as a thrown stick bounces along the ground.
SN 15.11: Duggata Sutta — Fallen on Hard Times
When you encounter an unfortunate person, remember: you've been there, too.
SN 15.12: Sukhita Sutta — Happy
When you encounter a fortunate person, remember: you've been there, too.
SN 15.13: Timsa Sutta — Thirty
Which is greater, the blood you have shed in your long journey in samsara, or the water in the four great oceans?
SN 15.14-19: Mata Sutta — Mother
It's hard to meet someone who has not been, at some time in the distant past, your mother, father, son, daughter, sister, or brother.
The Mata Sutta shows that in this endless samsara, there has been nobody who has not been one of our loved ones. We have been in both the heavenly worlds and the lower planes of existence in the past. Compared to our existence in this present world, the life in the Heavens will feel like an eternity. But there is no guaranty, as that too can come crashing down if ever one of its inhabitants have a defiled mind.
In the Brahmajāla Sutta – DN.1: The All-embracing Net of Views Buddha tells us of different kinds of heaven, and the pitfalls that one could face:…

45…. "There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'corrupted by play.' These gods spend an excessive time indulging in the delights of laughter and play. As a consequence, they become forgetful and, when they become forgetful, they pass away from that plane.
47…. "There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'corrupted by mind.' These gods contemplate one another with excessive envy. As a consequence, their minds becomes corrupted by anger towards one another. When their minds are corrupted by anger, their bodies and minds become exhausted and consequently, they pass away from that plane.

"There are, bhikkhus, certain gods called 'non-percipient beings.' When perception arises in them, those gods pass away from that plane. Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world.

In the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta - MN-136: The Greater Analysis of Action  Buddha shows how even a celestial being create kamma, and some of which may influence the last moment when kamma is made before death, which in turn is the basis for the next life.
Buddha’s advice to you and I, is equally true to those in heaven. For example in Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha –DN.16 Buddha states that… of that which is born, come into being, is compounded and subject to decay.  In Buddhism, ‘jara-marana’ is associated with the inevitable decay. "Decay is inherent in all component things.
Thus, it begs the question as to what’s the answer is. For this we must understand the true nature of “mind-made pleasures”, and their Ädeenava (serious consequences). A Buddha comes to the world to reveal the true nature of the world, to show the Ädeenava aspect, or in other words: anicca, dukkha, anatta. This insight helps one to see the Nissarana of all things, meaning willingly giving up (or relinquish) assada by comprehending their serious outcomes (adeenava). This leads to achieving a peace of mind, cooling down, and ultimately to Nibbana.
As I understand now, the OP specifically asks for:
Are there any suttas where it is taught to householder laypeople that after their time in heaven expires they will be reborn in hell?
There is one Sutta that was told to the lay people of this earth specifically. If one is to follow the conditions of the Conditions of Worldly Progress that will ensure happiness in this very life, and a rebirth in the heavens, but would NOT help one to escape from Hell. If the Conditions of Spiritual Progress is met, then it is a sure ticket for escape from ALL suffering, which is what we, lay Sangha – the Upasaka & Upasika – wish for all householder laypeople when we do the Ariya Metta Bhavana.
This one sutta is Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: Conditions of Welfare – AN-8.54. In the Ariya metta bhavana, we, the Lay Sangha, wish anyone and everyone to be free from ALL suffering and it is formulated as such:
“May myself and all living beings attain the Sotapanna stage and be free from suffering in the lower realms forever”
“May myself and all living beings attain the Sakadagami stage and be healthy forever”.
“May myself and all living beings attain the Anagami stage and be content (attain peaceful happiness)  forever”.
“May myself and all living beings attain the Arahant stage and be free from all suffering and attain the full Nibbanic bliss”.
All four Brahma vihara (metta, karuna, mudita, upekkha) are cultivated with this bhavana.

Sadhu! There is a sutta, just not remember, where one asked what the different of one coming to heaven might be, for a person who practiced generosity. Followed by different for a monk having practiced such and for an Arahat. While explaining the significance was always "for one with virtue". If remembering, maybe worthy to add, Nyom.

Thank you for your effort Saptha but the question asks for suttas spoken specifically to laypeople. Since no sutta spoken to laypeople was post, the answer does not get the 100 reincarnation merit points.

Well well @Dhammadhatu… it looks like I interpreted your question incorrectly. So what you meant was to the lay people of this earth. Even the Devas and the Brahmas hear these suttas and they are all lay people. Now what is found in the Abhidhamma was first told to the Devas, and those too are related to escaping from suffering.  I guess, just to meet your condition I will add one more sutta that would help a lay person of this earth to see the noble penetrating insight that leads to the destruction of suffering and escape from hell.

The question was raised, because Dhammadhatu told on other place that the Buddha did not say that at all. So to save his face, he putted this question on here. Like Chris pointed out under the question, but doring a cleaning action, it is no more that easy to see. https://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/40358528#40358528 Anyhow, since guessing not after certain bonus, its proper to use anything just to teach release. Those who are after other gains, let them gain or maintain. If asking "did the Buddha..." it would be properbly right to say just: no, not direct.

In the oral Tibetian Buddhist traditions this is a common belief.
The logic that is normally presented is this :

In the realms of heaven, you are "burning up" large quantities of "positive" karma quickly
There is little reason to generate "positive" karma while in the heaven realms, why? Because you are in some state of bliss
Once you burn all that "good" karma all that is left in your "stash" is "bad" karma.

Now, this can be seen in the Tibetian Wheel of Life Illustration, but I do not have the memory or resources to know if any sutras flat out say it.
I think it is worth noting that the drop from heaven to hell is not guaranteed by even this belief, as it is in accordance with the "individuals" karma. However in most cases after a birth in heaven, the next rebirth will tend to be in the lower realms, either animal, hungry ghost, or hell being.

thank u for your answer however it is not related to the question. the purpose of the question is the reconcile what the Buddha actually taught in the Pali suttas with the common held contemporary beliefs in the different branches of buddhism. regards

@dhammadhatu the tibetan tradition deviates from what Buddha taught in several key ways. It may not be the answer you are looking for, but it is a valid answer as far a Buddhism goes... If you are asking a question with an expected answer then maybe you should just post your own answer instead of baiting.

@hellyale This is an interesting answer, thank you. Just it's not an answer to the OP's question, which was tagged "pali-canon" and which asked, "Are there any suttas...". I (personally) would like to know more about what the Tibetan tradition says (so I welcome you to post more answers). But one of the ways in which multiple traditions coexist on this site is by sometimes using tags (like "pali-canon") to specify when the OP is asking about a specific tradition. See also [tag:tibetan-buddhism] and [tag:vajrayana] and [tag:mahayana] ... and any topic that doesn't have a tradition-specific tag.

@ChrisW ahh I missed the pali tag... should I delete this answer?
Dhammadhatu my apologies

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


text:
How to manage insects in the house while adhering to the First Precept?
I have a precept tracker app that is used daily to see how well I am measuring up to keeping the precepts. One question that sometimes appears has to do with insecticide and essentially asks if it was used today.
Problem is, live in an apartment in the city and despite how clean it is in here, there are occasionally roaches. Quite honestly, I can't catch them to take them outside - it's impossible, especially if there is more than one. They are small too. Can't be overrun by them by not attending to the issue as would be evicted.
So, I use roach traps, thus having to mark "yes" each day.
Are there any solutions to this? Have others come up with creative ways not to kill them or is this just something that I will have to live with thru fall and winter? Seems like such a petty issue to some, but am trying to become more sensitive to life in all forms.

Why would you be evicted? Is this required by law?

May my person ask of what is a "precept tracker app" (certainly a little amused/confused), Mr. C Smith?

edited the latest title: "How to manage insects in the house?" to reflect it's a Buddhist question, not plain technical one.

@Samana Johann the app can be found in the Play Store for Anroid phones when you search under "precepts". Entitled "5 Precepts - buddhist life"

Oh that would be easy not conform with the precepts to take there or what is not given, C Smith. Anyway, maybe a nice and helpful tool, better for sure are admirable friends.

Becoming sensitive/ kind to all forms of life is the sign you are walking the path :). Deeds speak louder than rhetoric, those clever minds learnt the letters only; true Dharma followers learnt the teachings of Buddha, including the teachings of Karma and Rebirth in Buddha's original meaning.
When you treat them with kindness, they return you with kindness. My place was savoured by ants when I just moved in, I didn't kill them but drove them away or let them be if not too troublesome, they started to decrease. Once I was peeling a pear near the sink the peels and some juices fell onto the worktop, immediately ants coming like people going for party and feast. Suddenly I realized our small castaway could be a treasure vault for another lifeforms... So I started to bestow my presents to ants - literally :]. I'll leave the used sugar bag on the worktop the ants will clean the leftover spotlessly, it's a great amusement and feels some accomplishment for having treating the ants. Since all these measures they seem just appearing occasionally in untroublesome way. I learnt that ants are very tidy and sanitary conscious little creatures, so I'm not disliking them.
For roaches I learnt from Chinese Buddhist sites that you can use empty mineral water bottle for example. Roll newspaper in cone shape, insert the smaller end into the bottle, inside the bottle put bit of bacon or smelly food, lay the bottle flat on floor or where they like to cross, tip the newspaper touching ground so they can crawl in. The roaches will be drawn by the smell they will enter the bottle via the wider end of newspaper; since roaches are blind they can only detect light they won't be able to find the exit, which is high in the mid-air inside the bottle. Once you collect enough of them, take them to release in appropriate environment, such as rubbish collecting point away from neighborhood. I tried once or twice it works, I caught one or two, maybe I didn't put in smelly enough food since I was trying to go against meat 1st by not buying raw meat, I didn't use bacon but certain Thai style fish favoured chips instead; also there was one or two of them only that I saw.

Other passive method is to scent your home, sandalwood or cedar etc.,  those fragrant smells are toxic and repellent to most insects. Still less known way is to use Mantra, this required certain merit and ability that the practitioner accomplished, Puan Mantra is very well known for Chinese Buddhists.

These suggestions are non-violent and will try but need clarification on the bottle with food inside please. The roaches can't just climb out of the bottle since it is laying flat on the floor? Could also use some vegetarian ideas for putting in the bottle. Can't think of anything that really stinks.

roaches can't climb out because they are blind, can't see the exit. they navigate by light, so the transparent bottle will confuse them the light source. laying flat is to allow the roaches entering from the wider end, where paper tipped to floor to give them passage. you may use anything as long as they are attractive food for roaches and gives out smell to allure them. bacon is smelly and can last few days before rotten... it's not too bad smell for human. roaches are carnivore preferred i think... maybe they like cheese?!

Some killing is unavoidable.  To exist is to kill.  Gardening involves killing, walking often involves crushing little creatures underfoot.  Eating involves much killing (all diets, though some more than others). That does not mean, though, that one has to just throw up one's hands and not bother.  One can still minimize impact, certainly avoiding any wanton killing and trying one's best to avoid killing from heedlessness.
Every life form is precious and we can try to be as gentle and loving to creatures as possible.  Sometimes the issue is just in our mind - we are unwilling to share space with another creature or bug - it's useful to reflect on what hidden view it is that motivates us to refuse to share "my" space with another creature that doesn't understand anything about property rights.  I've chased hundreds of lizards out of my dwellings until the act of chasing an adolescent out of the room (the only home he'd ever known since he was born) into the cold dark night made me realize he was not doing anything at all to me and now is suffering due to my basis-less intolerance. I tried to invite him back in and have stopped chasing them out.  Other examples of things arising purely from our mind are some hard-to-explain aversions of some bugs etc.  Being willing to look at our minds shows us much.
In other instances, co-existence is simply not possible.  Examples include mosquitoes that don't just share space with you, bugs leaving droppings that can lead to disease etc or some other infestation that is unaffordable.  In those cases, prevention (like Sankha's suggestion) by maintaining cleanliness, not letting them get in the first place, catching them with nets and releasing them outside are solutions.
But sometimes we need to get them out first before implementing preventative measures to stop them from coming back. Remember that what is "unavoidable killing" really depends on how much effort we are willing to put in. To illustrate, the roaches can always run and hide among things when we chase them out instead of nuking them with insecticides. However, if we took care to remove all the things from our dwelling first, it would be possible to not kill any.  Not suggesting that that's the only way, just illustrating the flexibility of what "unavoidable" can mean.
So, I would try as much as I reasonably can (that goes far) with mettā for the creatures and if there are accidental deaths, forgive yourself for mistakes since you are trying your best.  Then, for chemicals, I would use repellents instead of killing chemicals.
Finally, it's useful to consider all the other ways in which we kill (directly and indirectly) through our choices of what's consumed, what's worn and what's eaten.  We can try to be kind to beings in all those areas and gain much mileage rather than being too harsh on oneself because of being unable to prevent avoid 100% in any one particular situation.  To come back to the beginning - total avoidance is impossible, but we can do our best.

Roaches usually come when you drop food pieces on the floor. Killing will break the first precept. So if you see any cockroaches inside, simply chase them out. Do not eat food everywhere. Do it at one place and clean up after. You can use a repellent like Dettol to clean. Close any holes where they can sneak through to your apartment.

Sadhu for your care and concern, Mr. C Smith.
Sankha Kulathantille tried to give you good help. Its good to associate with people having faith in the fundamental teachings and the basic precepts.
Not providing with a practical answer my person gives here that what is called "Anumodana" generally, a teaching that approves skillful deeds (here by concern) and encourages to follow this track further:

Getting the Message, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2006; 7pp./21KB)
In today's climate of terrorism and war, we hear politicians, pundits, and even a few Buddhist teachers insisting that killing can be morally justified when it prevents others from killing. In this essay the author points out that the Buddha's teachings on the subject are uncompromising and crystal clear: killing is never skillful.

Not only killing by one self, but also encouraging others (by signs what ever) to do, when it comes to death on it, breaks the precept. Even to mentaly approve killing is the kamma of killing. Kamma is done my thought, word and bodily deeds.
May you have good ideas and never fall into lazyness and lack of concern, always searching for alternatives and admirable friends.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gains or trade and exchange for it.]

It's not the action that is important but the intention behind the action. If the intention is pure, the result will be wholesome. If the intention is defiled, the result will be unwholesome. Thus, choose your actions wisely.
Nonetheless, a solution to your problem would be to live in symbiosis with the roaches. Then, just before the owner of the apartment notices the roaches, you evict the roaches by catching them alive and throwing them out.

Roaches tend to hide in cracks, inside walls, and so on. Catching is likely impossible, and they breed so fast that the problem will be out of hand very quickly.

My first two suggestions are similar to others.
Firstly, avoid leaving exposed food or food crumbs, that might attract insects or rodents.
Secondly, use agents that repel rather than kill insects or rodents. Please also consider the safety of your pets and children too. For e.g. I have successfully used powdered white pepper to repel ants. Ants lose their scent of the trail when they encounter pepper. Pepper is also safe for your pets and children. Pepper is organic too.
Thirdly, in many countries, if you run a restaurant, you could get shut down if there is an infestation of rats or cockroaches. So, what do you do when all else fails? You can try rat traps. Then release the rats elsewhere. But that might be against the law too, if you release them in populated areas. So, the only remaining way to comply with the law, is to use methods that kill the rats or cockroaches.
Fourthly, what if you really need to kill the pests in order to prevent certain diseases that affect humans? For e.g. in countries where dengue or malaria is endemic, they need to control the breeding of mosquitoes and, repel and kill mosquitoes by fogging. And in some places, the urine of rats can cause leptospirosis. So, in these cases, the only way left is to kill the mosquitoes and rats.
In my opinion, if the intention is to comply with the law and/or prevent human diseases, then it is perfectly alright. Remember the "middle way" in all things. Please also see this answer.

The original scriptures teach kamma is intention. When I first lived in a monastery in Thailand, after around six months, a young visitor wanted to live in the storeroom below my hut (rather than in the visitor's dormitory). There were many stray dogs in the monastery. The young man befriended a dog and suddenly his room became full of fleas. He asked me what to do & I said to buy some insecticide. But he did not listen to me and asked the abbot of the monastery, who replied sternly: "Go to town & buy something to clean your room". He returned to me & asked: "What did the abbot mean?" I replied: "Go to town & buy some insecticide". I went to town with him and bought some insecticide because the intention was "to clean" the house rather than to kill with violence.

So like bomber pilots throwing napalm of the forest "we don't like to kill millions, we just burn the forest to see the tracks..." ? Ohh man...

no, Johann, no.

Here a vet will recommend you medicate a pet dog (i.e. put anti-flea poison in the dog).

Old saying: "if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas." A flea of prevention is worth a dog of cure. Pretty much everything that can harm people is alive and all food is alive too, so worrying about killing is going to be a full time job.

I try to use a barrier. When ants were getting into my mum's house, for example, I found holes in the mortar of the outside stone wall: refilling those (with mortar) acts as a barrier to keep insects (and mice) out.
And I too used to live in a rented apartment with roaches. I now prefer to live in a high-rise building, where each apartment has its own concrete walls and floor ... a better barrier against insects, more self-contained, sterile.
Some houses are more-or-less open to the outside (in the tropics for example). There I expect a solution is to keep the place clean and swept, and to keep any food in sealed containers.


text:
About the "knower" disappearing during vipassana
When inner conversation disappears, the "doer" disappears. How does the "knower" disappear, during vipassana meditation?

Knower dissapears when "knowing" disappears.
How to achieve this?
Complicated answer is: with stopping craving.
Simple answer is: with calming of the mind and letting go completely.

The distinction between idea and experience falls away. Samsara and Nibbana are actually seen / known to be one thing. It just happens. Concepts and questions no longer hold one's attention for long.


text:
Delayed speech as right speech
I was once told a story by the abbott of a monastery about how the Buddha once decided to delay his speech and said it only when it was the right time.  Paraphrasing, the story is like this -

Two tribes were going to war over the waters of a river and the Buddha
  wanted them to stop, but he knew that they were not in the right frame
  of mind to listen to him.  So he kept quiet.  After 3 days of
  fighting, when both sides were in pain from the fighting, the Buddha
  decided to give them advice at that moment, when they were primed to
  listen and they stopped the war immediately.  Although he allowed many
  people to die in waiting for the right moment, he saved a great many
  more lives.  If he had spoken right away and they'd rejected his advice, they
  might also not have listened to him afterwards either.

The abbott then advised me to remember this story as a model.  And I did.  I liked it a lot too.  This was many years ago.  The problem is, I recently decided to look up the story and found this story in the Mahāvaṃsa, of imminent war between the Sakyans and the Koliyans over the waters of the Rohini river.  A key difference here is that the Buddha did not wait until the fighting had started.  He showed up at the site where the armies had gathered.  Still a nice story of the Buddha stopping a war, but not an example of delaying speech for the appropriate moment even at some cost.
It's no longer possible for me to ask the abbott whether he meant this or another story or if he has a reference to another version of the same story which involved 3 days of battle. Instead, I'd like to ask the community about the main point:

Do you know of a canonical reference (from any flavor of Buddhism)   where the Buddha or another prominent figure decided to delay a    statement on account of timeliness and later said it with positive   impact? To be clear, instances where the Buddha decided not to say   something are numerous - I'm only looking for examples where he (or  another person) did end up saying it later.  Edit: Also, I know that the teaching on speaking at the appropriate time is quite clear - what I'm asking about is examples from the life of the ancients.
It would be particularly great if there are examples where the delay    did come at a cost.

The Sakyan clan was finaly killed, as the Buddha saw that it's no more possible and kamma will ripe, he did no more "go in between". Better to assume that being able to act like a Buddha is to simply stick by ther precepts as they are. Any answer here will merely a source of speculations, althrough there are many instances where the suttas state "seeing with his awarness..." and so on.

this story also recorded in Chinese Agamas (Sutra). i couldn't find the exact paragraph to read since it's many, but from quoted it said Buddha found the Sakyans and Koliyans were armed with wooden rods about to fight, not fighting already 3 days... Personally I doubt the reliability of Mahavamsa, it liked to make up things... that's why when the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Yijing (635–713 CE) visited Ceylon (meant Country of Lions) he took none Suttas nor canonical works from there, they were nothing worth to add to collection, nor accurate...

Thanks, @Mishu米殊 That is quite interesting. Thanks for mentioning the presence in the Āgamas.  I wonder how Yijing knew whether  something is accurate or not. I mean, just putting oneself in the same situation today, it's easy to see whether a translation is an accurate translation or not, but I don't know how I would judge whether a text is true.  Weren't all later works "made up" in some way?

Yijing traveled to Ceylon, a fact, recorded in his journal. Yijing didn't bring nor translate any Ceylon's works, a fact, reflected in his translation works. He even translated another version of Diamond Sutra, which already nicely done by Kumarajiva 300 years before him. His didn't bother with Visuddhimagga (Abhidhamma Pitaka) - work of 5th century; but Chinese collection has the Vimuttimagga - mother of Vismgg. He didn't take any Nikayas (Sutta Pitaka); Chinese Agamas is the equivalent collection inherited from one of the 18/20 early schools...

Vismgg. taught Rddhi/Iddhi, "to walk on water is to solidify water for walking", this is grotesquely wrong, if one has a little knowledge of what happened scientifically when transformed consciousness through Samadhi. Yijing translated the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, which the Chinese canon has other Vinayas inherited from other schools already. He took none Vinayapiṭaka (Vinaya Pitaka) from Lanka school; because the Lanka Vin. was a collection of different rules from different schools and re-edited. The ancient Chinese pilgrims were to find the most authentic gems of Buddha's teachings...

The Lanka school Dīpavaṃsa (4th CE) wrote: "These 17 sects are schismatic, only one is non-schismatic. With the non-schismatic sect, there are eighteen in all... the Theravāda is supreme..." can one trust teachings of those proclaiming this? \ When one is "enlightened" by authentic Buddha's teachings, one is able to discern what is Dharma; this first stage before Stream-Entrant is called Clear Dharma-eye (法眼凈). I recently was by chance linked to a Sanghata Sutra in Eng., fascinated, found the ancient Chinese translation in 12th CE...

...just few lines into it something smelt wrong... then I googled, listed many analysis to show it's a fake-sutra. even I can detect the inconsistent/obscurities in a fake-sutra, can't the great masters like Yijing differentiate what is accurate from inaccurate? The Chinese had already their supremacy in spiritual, cultural, social and material aspects over thousands years until 100/200 years ago, it's very rare for them to be so fascinated with an imported, Buddhism; nevertheless, pilgrim to collect treasured teachings was ardent... Personally I think Buddhism is the cream of all.

In the Abhaya Sutta (MN58), the Buddha taught:

(1) 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.
(2) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
(3) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
(4) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
(5) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
(6) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

There's the story of The Weaver's Daughter from a Dhammapada commentary, where the Teacher delays talking ...

The people of Alavi waited upon the Teacher and provided him with food, and when the meal was over, took his bowl and stood waiting for him to speak the words of rejoicing (with the merits of the donors). Said the Teacher, "I came here on a journey of thirty leagues for the sake of a certain maiden. As yet she finds no opportunity to be present. When she finds the opportunity to be present, I will speak the words of rejoicing." Having so said, he sat down and remained silent. Likewise his hearers also remained silent.

An article (link below), an essay and the story around the intention and means on right speech, might help to understand the "Demons of defilements" in regard of certain justifications good:
Right Speech is Not Always Gentle (by Sallie B. King) - about justifying wrongs
That same issue counts as well for speaking and not speaking. Skillful and unskillful delay. But since the untrained mind is not capable to trace the real intention, the Buddha did not gave much advices there and it's not even judgeable from outside if not capable to read others mind, why one might be silent and why speaking.
It's complex but also easy when keeping it simple. Precepts just as they are without justification.
Additions on question in discussion:

Gotamist: Thank you for the answer, Bhante, and highlighting your response that the Buddha did not get into specifics in some areas. Precepts as they are, without justification is a powerful practice indeed. Thanks also for the article on social justice. Thanissaro Bhikkhu makes some excellent points there, but I was unable to see the connection you were perhaps intending to draw between the approach to social justice and my question about examples of beneficial delay.

Gotamist, never ever delay! When ever wholesome mind (wfich is actually seldom) arises, act on it. That counts not only for bodily deeds, merits, but also for speech.
If not acted, a seldom chance is gone. As the Buddha told:
Delay a little and you have lost, something that will maybe never possible to do later.

One should make haste in doing good deeds; one should restrain one's mind from evil; for the mind of one who is slow in doing good tends to take delight in doing evil.
Dhp story

If you have not told what is right, you may feel remorse a life time. Having not done even a "Duty" you will have bad conscious later.
As told in a Sutta: What ever not done at the proper time, later one will have no chance to correct. So it's really not good to delay speech, if to speak is possible. If such is censured, that lies in the sphere of those oppress.
Like my person here, if made a promis, even mental, if it was something skillful or obligated, it will follow as long as not made "real". Once told, once fullfiled, one gains release.
So beware of the "Demons of defilemts" who tell you cheating "don't do this, don't do good, they/he/she will not like good, so its bad"
There is no need of shame in regard of doing skilfull deeds, even if the whole world would laugh or blame.
If the target receiver receives? That's his/her business, luck or demerit. No need for guessing, no need to "read mind" of others. You may be wrong and at least, one does deeds for one self as long as not free from all fetters.
Speaking as well not speaking can be unskilfull and actually most staying confronted silent is very unskillful.
In regard of promises, Gotamist may maybe like to listen: [Q&A] Is changing your mind same as lying? Breaking promises
If wishing a talk and extended answer on this matter, may you feel welcome to ask for.
There is also an explaining how to generally behave, which will help here in this regard as well, since Gotamist seems to have certain of the qualities inside him, he might enjoy to read: On general good behavior.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gain by trade an exchange with it.]

Thank you for the answer, Bhante, and highlighting your response that the Buddha did not get into specifics in some areas. Precepts as they are, without justification is a powerful practice indeed. Thanks also for the article on social justice. Thanissaro Bhikkhu makes some excellent points there, but I was unable to see the connection you were perhaps intending to draw between the approach to social justice and my question about examples of beneficial delay.

It's not easy, the matter of right time, lets see, maybe an answer may have some delay, @Gotamist.

"Pardon" the delay :-) answer extended and may it of good use for Nyom @Gotamist and possible others as well.


text:
Best advice to deniers of rebirth?
If you knew about a Dhamma practitioner who strongly believes in no reincarnation or post-mortem rebirth what would be your advice to him/her?

This kind of preaching is off-topic on this site. See "Seeded questions" in Moderation policies for Questions. See also topics in the "Minimizing controversy" section of FAQ index (summary of site policies), including "Are we here to preach and make converts?" and "May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them?"

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic as explained in my previous comment above. If you want to discuss this kind of topic with other users, please use chat instead.

One could "give a talk" like the Buddha gave to the Kalamas.
The Buddha pointed out here, that it is merely risky to relay on people who are not clean and pure in their ways and livelihood. One, an ordinary person, is not able to teach rightly and has his preoccupations.

"And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by delusion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."

Simply focus on what is skilfully and unskilfully, making clear that one not acting skilful by himself can not be easy a place to relay on, find out by yourself what leads to longterm happiness while searching for approve from the wise and then, end your teaching, after indroducing to the Brahma-Viharas, like him:

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.
"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both respects.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.
"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now."

Having trained them quite good and eager, they might be able to understand the teachings on Kamma and rebirth later on better.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purposes or other low wordily gain by trade an exchange with it.]

If you're a denier of traditional view on Rebirth, please read this until the end. It will make your life even more beautiful than it already is.
Please note: what follows is in no way an attempt to change your beliefs about non-existence of reincarnation.
Read the whole text until the end. Promise right now you'll read it until the end. Here it comes:
If you're a denier of traditional view on Rebirth, you hold a position regarding the afterlife. A view.
Why is that so?
If I were to ask you "Does self end after physical death for an ignorant?"
You would answer "yes".
If I were to ask you "Does self continues after physical death for an ignorant?"
You would answer "no".
By you answering in such a way, this is clear evidence that you have a view "self ends after physical death for an ignorant".
Please note that I'm not arguing that this view is a wrong view neither a right view.
There's nothing wrong with having such views. It's normal. Even Buddha had views.
You could argue that the view "self ends after physical death for an ignorant" is not really the view that you're having and you would follow with a long description of your view by providing definitions of meanings for the words 'life', 'death', 'ignorant', 'ending', 'birth', 'being', 'person', 'heaven', 'hell', etc. You could play with it, change it, cut it ... do any operation you want onto it ... but at the end, it would not be important how you would define this view of yours or which words and definitions you would use ... it would always, at the end, be a view you're having.
You could provide proofs from the suttas that self really ends after physical death ... or you could provide proofs from the suttas that there really is no death ... or you could provide proofs by quoting other dhamma teachers ... etc. You could provide any proof you want ... any interpretation you want ... any argument you want ... but at the end, all of this would not be important, because at the end, it would always be a view you're having.
AT THE END, it would always be a view you're having. Please note that I'm not arguing about the validity or falsity of this view that you're having because the validity or falsity of the view is really not the issue here.
If I were to ask you: "Do you see how you're clinging onto your view?"
(Please don't stop reading. Read until the end. It's urgent)
If I were to ask you: "Do you see how you're clinging onto your view?"
You would answer "I'm not clinging onto it."
So you say you're not clinging onto it ... Think about it. Do you really not cling onto it? You could be wrong. Even geniuses make mistakes sometimes.
If you still persist with the position "I'm not clinging onto it.", read slowly and carefully my next sentence.
If you are truly not clinging onto it, then it would be very easy for you to accept the possibility of continuation of life after physical death.
Read it again.
If you are truly not clinging onto it, then it would be very easy for you to accept the possibility of continuation of life after physical death. Right???
Did you get it? If no, read again slowly the previous sentences. (please note: this is in no way an attempt into changing your views. It is an attempt of showing the clinging behind the view.)
Now I ask you: "Do you accept that there is the possibility of continuation of life after physical death for an ignorant?"
Because you're a denier of traditional rebirth, you again would answer "no".
This again is clear evidence that you have a view onto which you're clinging. If you were not clinging onto it, then it would be very easy for you to answer the question with "yes".
Did you get it?
Do you see it? You can't let go of it. You're holding onto it. Do you see?? It's a mental thing that you're holding onto. It's like some kind of mental energy or however you want to call it. It's of spiritual nature.
Whenever there's clinging onto a view, view becomes a neurosis.
Think about it. What is a neurosis? It's when somebody repeats the same pattern of dysfunctional behaviour over and over again and can't help himself stop repeating the pattern. In the same way, when clinging on a view is present, the repeating pattern is of spiritual/mental nature: You're stuck into a repeating pattern answering "no" to questions about possibility of existence of reincarnation. To a clever mind this isn't a big deal and you are completely right. What is not right is the clinging behind the behavior.
Just like I see ugly weeds slowly growing in a beautiful garden, in the same way I see this ugly clinging growing.
If I were to ask you "Do you accept there is the possibility of ending of life after physical death for an ignorant?" and you would answer "yes". And then if I were to ask you: "Do you accept that there is the possibility of continuation of life after physical death for an ignorant?" and you would answer:

a)   "no" => that would be evidence there's clinging
b)   "I don't know, but I believe 'no'" or "it seems like
it's no" => that would be evidence there's clinging, but less
strong than in the case of a)
c)   "I don't know", "maybe", "I need
to find out" => that would be evidence there's no clinging or there's
very little clinging, but there is a sure potential for clinging to
arise in the future
d)   "yes" => that would be evidence there's no
clinging. Congratulations!

But since you answered a) "no", that's a sign you're clinging onto a view. Whenever there's clinging onto a view, view becomes a neurosis.
Clinging is a disease. Get rid of it. Don't wait. Do it as soon as possible.
You see, in reality, it's not that the view is a disease, but the clinging (onto the view) is a disease.
That's why you should not see views as something of importance to you. They are just clinging. Nothing else. Views fueled by clinging are really just disease. They look like views, but in reality, they are just clinging. A disease that should be eradicated.
Get rid of this clinging.
After reading all this, you could argue that your view "life ends after physical death for an ignorant" will cease to exist after the physical death of your body, thus you will no longer be able to cling onto it, because there would be nothing to cling onto.
That is not correct. You forgot,  that even if the view ceases, craving will remain. Remember, firstly there is craving, and after craving, there arises the view.
Craving is a disease.
Just like I see ugly weeds slowly growing in a beautiful garden, in the same way I see this ugly craving growing.
It's the craving that gives raise to a view and then you cling onto it. Craving is the fuel to clinging. So even if your view ceases, this craving would remain. How do I know that it would remain? Because craving comes before clinging. So even if clinging ceases, craving remains. It cannot be any other way.
After reading all this, you could argue that craving will cease to exist after the physical death of your body, thus you will no longer be able to crave for anything.
To this I answer: surely the view will cease to exist after the physical death of your body, but how can you say that after your physical death you will no longer be able to crave for it, if even in the here & now you're not able to overcome this craving?? How can you be 100 % sure that after physical death this craving will cease??
You can't be 100 % sure! You can't know what happens after physical death! That's why you should approach your situation with urgency in the here & now! Don't loose this opportunity.
You know that craving is a disease. So get rid of it! Don't rely on faith that craving will stop after physical death! You can't know! Besides, you have nothing to loose if you get rid of this craving ... you can only gain. If you get rid of it, you'll live a happier life, in heaven, in the here & now, free from craving and clinging. So you get +1 point. Then, if after physical death there is really the afterlife, you'll attain a happy existence or even Nibanna because you'll be already free from craving! Thus +1 point. See? Get rid of this craving in the here & now. You can only profit from it, not loose.
DO NOT loose this chance. Meditate and see this craving in action. Then eradicate it. Then come back here and answer these two questions:
1a. "Do you accept there is the possibility of ending of life after physical death?"
2a. "Do you accept that there is the possibility of continuation of life after physical death?"
If you would answer sincerely with a "yes" to both questions, you will know that you're 100 % free from craving for views regarding the afterlife. +1 point for sure for you. So do it!

I don't know exactly how much meditation. I did it a lot a few years ago. Today I do it less often ... at least 15 minutes per day on average. The answer to all your other questions is: Yes and no. I decide when it's yes and when it's no. By having this freedom of decision, I can say that I'm free from sensuality and pleasure.

They are and they are not ... it depends from which angle you look at sensual pleasures. I think sensual pleasures are obstacles in the sense that we crave for sensual pleasures. We (ignorantly) think that we need them. Defiled by such ignorance, we have a hard time conquering this ignorance with wisdom. But on the other hand, without these obstacles, we would never have a chance to gain wisdom, so in this sense sensual pleasures are not obstacles but an opportunity to conquer ignorance by gaining wisdom.

My advice is this is the right noble path; the path of utter impermanence (anicca) taught in SN 22.59, which resulted in the first five arahant disciples. The last words of the Buddha were: "All things are subject to vanish" (DN 16). The first words of the first stream-enterer were: "All that is subject to arising & subject to cessation" (SN 56.11) The suttas clearly state any views about reincarnation are not the noble path (MN 117).
This question is illogical because believers in reincarnation can never be Noble Dhamma practitioners because they can never view impermanence to the degree required for the fruition of dispassion (viraga) & Nibbana, as taught in SN 22.59. Instead, their minds engage in continued becoming. The Buddha condemned as blameworthy (MN 144) those that crave another 'kaya'. The Buddha called those who crave for aggregates "little children" (SN 23.2).
As for believers in reincarnation, my advice is to change religion & stop corrupting Buddhism for those with little dust in their eyes who reject the Buddha-Dhamma because of the superstition.
The suttas clearly describe the following as evil wicked defiled views:

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

btw I have a curiosity, you do not believe in Rebirth.. what about your views in Devas and Brahmas?..


text:
How can we know that we experience sensations as a series of discrete sensations?
I'm currently reading the book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" by Daniel Ingram, and he insists over and over that the continuity of sensations is an illusion, and that sensations actually come to us in a sort of flickering.  I've done some meditation and have started to feel what he is talking about.  But if we can detect the gaps in between the sensations, isn't the detection of the gaps itself a sensation?  How do we know that the experience of flickering isn't the illusion, and that the reality is a continuous stream of sensations?

See also Awareness of two things

Daniel posts here: https://www.dharmaoverground.org/

There is obviously not a continuous stream of sensations otherwise the mind could remember every sensation, similar to how every frame in reel of movie film can be viewed. In other words, the sensation experienced one second ago has disappeared, forever. To believe there is a continuous stream of sensation is to only observe arising & to not observe passing/disappearance. Its like a person given a box of delicious chocolates that hungrily can only see the next chocolate to be eaten, never realising each chocolate is disappearing & soon there will be no chocolates left, which eventually brings despair when the chocolates (similar to life) run out
Regardless, what Daniel is writing about, such as observing 40 sensations per second, is not found in the reported teachings of the Buddha, although it may possibly be found in later philosophy called Abhidhamma. To me, what Daniel is writing about is unimportant for clear insight, because objects must be very discrete to experience abrupt disappearance (rather than a blur of oscillating sensations the mind becomes infatuated with; like becoming infatuated with the oscillations or vibrations of a girl dancing on a cliff; rather than watching the girl fall off the cliff, to her death).
The Buddhist scriptures refer to observing the coming-to-be & then disappearance of a single in-breath, then an out-breath (MN 118) then, on a more advanced level, the arising, persisting & disappearing of a feeling, perception or thought (AN 4.41). This is more than enough for the purpose of vipassana. For example, merely observing a single breath, until it disappears; then observing the next breath, until it disappears, is enough to get started on seeing the true nature of life phenomena.

We are typically quite sloppy about what are physical sensations and what are mental sensations (memories, mental images, and mental
  impressions of other sensations). These two kinds of sensations
  actually oscillate back and forth, a back and forth interplay, one
  arising and passing and then the other arising and passing, in a
  somewhat quick but quite penetrable fashion. Being clear about exactly
  when the physical sensations are there will begin to clarify their
  slippery counterpart that helps create the illusion of continuity or
  solidity: flickering mental impressions.
If you can perceive one sensation per second, try for two. If you can perceive two unique sensations per second, try to perceive four. Keep
  increasing your perceptual threshold in this way until the illusion of
  continuity that binds you on the wheel of suffering shatters. In
  short, when doing insight practices, constantly work to perceive
  sensations arise and pass as quickly and accurately as you possibly
  can
How fast are things vibrating? How many sensations arise and
  vanish each second? This is exactly what you are trying to experience,
  but some very general guidelines can provide faith that it can be done
  and perhaps point the way as well. Begin by assuming that we are talking
  about one to ten times per second in the beginning. This is not actually
  that fast. Try tapping five to ten times per second on a table or
  something. It might take two hands, but it's manageable, isn't it? You
  could obviously experience that, couldn't you? That's the spirit!
  There are faster and slower vibrations that may show up, some very
  fast (maybe up to forty times per second) and some very slow (that are
  actually made up of faster vibrations), but let's just say that one to ten
  times per second can sometimes be a useful guideline in the beginning.
Page 20
Since I just used this dangerous phrase “the mind,” I should quickly mention that it cannot be found. I’m certainly not talking about the
  brain, which we have never experienced, as the standard for insight
  practices is what we can directly experience. As an old Zen monk once
  said to us in his extremely thick Japanese accent, “Some people say
  there is mind. I say there is no mind, but never mind. Heh, heh,
  heh!”

You could try to understand this by your own meditation experience, or you could trust science (for now).
From this April 2016 article in Quartz based on this research paper:

First, the authors argue, we unconsciously process visual stimuli
  continuously, and are oblivious to this stage. We only then become
  consciously aware of the information once it has been transferred to
  conscious perception, which happens in discrete moments, or “time
  slices.”
Michael Herzog, a professor at the École polytechnique fédérale de
  Lausanne’s Brain Mind Institute in Switzerland, and Frank Scharnowski,
  a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Zurich, argue that
  we’re unaware of the gaps in our consciousness. They say there can be
  a 400-milisecond lag between unconsciously receiving stimuli and
  transferring it to conscious perception.
“We perceive time as continuous just as we perceive a line as
  continuous even though its ink is of discrete atomic nature,” the
  authors write in their paper.
But our perception of conscious does not align with reality.
  “According to our model, the output of unconscious processing is
  discrete, meaningful, and rendered conscious at once. Large parts of
  unconscious processing will never reach consciousness,” the
  researchers say.
The authors note that the debate over how consciousness works has a
  long history. In the third century BC, the Abhidharma Buddhist school
  put forward the theory that consciousness is made up of discrete
  moments. There are numerous more recent papers arguing for just such a
  conclusion. Meanwhile, experiments show that when two stimuli are
  presented in rapid succession, they’re perceived simultaneously, while
  discrete perception is thought to explain various visual tricks, such
  as the optical illusion that often makes spoked wheels look as though
  they’re moving in reverse, and flash lag illusion, where a flash that
  occurs in the same place as a moving object is perceived to be in a
  different location.

This April 2016 Science Alert article adds:

In other words, while we're taking the world in, we're not actually
  consciously perceiving it. Instead, we're just mutely using our senses
  to record data for up to 400 ms at a time. Then, in what could be
  called a moment of clarity, we consciously perceive the stimuli that
  our senses have detected.
The team thinks this presentation of information to our consciousness
  lasts for about 50 milliseconds, during which we also stop taking new
  sensory information in. And then repeat.
Our senses start taking new information in from whatever stimuli are
  around us, before handing it off to our consciousness to perceive and
  enjoy – back and forth, and so on, and so on.
The team says each window of recording and playback would last for a
  different amount of time, depending on the kind of information being
  processed.
While the constant to-and-fro suggests consciousness is anything but a
  seamless experience, if the researchers are correct, our brains
  somehow manage to stitch everything together so it feels like a
  continuous flow of events with no interruptions.

You have to do this by stages while practicing Satipathana.
Just practice breath meditation first.
Then practice some walking meditation.
It is gradual training.


text:
Is it possible to describe nibbana?
This Dhamma Wiki article, Nibbana, says that "Nibbana (Pali), nirvana (Sanskrit), is the highest spiritual state and the ultimate goal of Buddhism."
Please describe nibbana. What is it? How do you know you are in Nibbana?
How can somebody describe Nibbana if it's impossible to know what follows after death?

It is possible to describe the nibbana, but non ariya practitioner can't understand the description.
In abhidhamma taught that the non ariya practitioner can't know the real nibbana, until he will be ariya. Because he has not enough ability.

Althought there are many expressions denoting Nibbana, even and especially by the Buddha: No, is't not possible to describe, just or simply not in the sphere of "All", senses and their faculties, since it lies beyond.

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

This work, which might give a notion, might be a useful inspiration to "see and realize for oneself":

Mind Like Fire Unbound: An Image in the Early Buddhist Discourses (Fourth Edition), by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff) (1999; 4pp./11KB)
Early Buddhism borrowed two of its central terms from the workings of fire. Upadana, or clinging, originally referred to the fuel that kept fire burning; nibbana, the name of the goal, to a fire's going out. This is the first book to examine these terms from the perspective of how the early Buddhists themselves viewed fire — what they saw happening as a fire burned, and what happened to the fire when it went out — to show what light this perspective throws on Buddhist doctrine in general, and the practice of meditation in particular. With extensive quotations from the Pali canon, newly translated, this is also a useful sourcebook for anyone who wants to encounter Buddhist teachings in their earliest known context.

Nibbana is displayed in the third Noble Truth, which might be the most proper way to describe it, yet it lies beyond the sphere of imagination, because there is nothing compareable in the sphere of the six senses:

"Now from the remainderless fading and cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-and-form. From the cessation of name-and-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress and suffering.
read more about the third Noble Truth & Nibbana

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

The article you quoted, amply describes Nibbana using 33 phrases, from Samyutta Nikaya 43.
I can't tell you how to know if you have attained Nibbana. But I can tell you how to know if you have not attained Nibbana - you would be afflicted with one or more of the ten fetters. Even if you have experienced a little of one of these, even once today, you've not yet reached "the other shore" which is "taintless", "peaceful", "sublime" and "deathless".
These are:

belief in a self (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi)
doubt or uncertainty, especially about the Buddha's awakeness and
nine supermundane consciousnesses (vicikicchā)
attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa)
sensual desire (kāmacchando)
ill will (vyāpādo or byāpādo)
lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)
lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm
(arūparāgo)
conceit (māna)
restlessness (uddhacca)
ignorance (avijjā)

After attaining Nibbana, the Buddha remained alive for decades and was therefore able to describe it, before his passing away.

Please describe nibbana. What is it? How do you know you are in Nibbana?
The doctrine starts with the "four noble truths".
See also "arahant", and the four stages of enlightenment.
How can somebody describe Nibbana if it's impossible to know what follows after death?
I don't think they're related: Nibbana is not an after-death state, not an after-life.

It is not possible to describe Nibbana but entering to Nibbana while you're alive-and in your physical body gives few results:
1- Unlimited, unquestionable, perfect peace and happiness
2- Starting the process of involuntary and spontaneous purification of the mind and spontaneous mindfulness
3- Experiencing temporary and different types of blissful states of mind time to time.
4- Time to time experiencing physical pain in different parts of the body(especially when waking up from sleep in nights) due to opening of the closed energy systems of the body(Eventually this will end)
5- Stop believing in self(but the identification with self will continue until the person internalized Nibbana's effects in his/her life)
6- Time to time entering to Nibbana again.
There are some other results of entering to Nibbana but these 6 things can be enough signposts for people to check If they realized Nibbana or not. There are amazing states of mind that can be confused with Nibbana but entering to Nibbana gives permanent results.
The way to enter the Nibbana is not thinking or craving Nibbana but practising mindfulness all day long with effort. It is perfectly possible for most of the Buddhist meditators and many of the non-Buddhist meditators to enter to Nibbana in this life time or maybe in a very short period of time. Thinking that Nibbana is an unattainable goal is completely wrong and this idea is the main problem in Buddhists and many of the spiritual people in general.
The important thing is not just entering Nibbana(as contrary of many people think) but actually internalizing Nibbana's effects on oneself and let the positive results of Nibbana to be permanent in one's life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTbVVbDpGzM

How can somebody describe Nibbana if it's impossible to know what follows after death??>

You experience Nibbana while you are alive. What you experience after death will be the same. Obviously, there is no rebirth and there is no physical body or consciousness to experience it.

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