text:
Studying in nepal
A friend of mine has decided to move to Nepal,to study there.
In his country there are no Nepali embassy should He contact them online? Links would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

You can post questions about visas etc. on Travel.SE.

The comment isn't an answer, it doesn't try to answer your question: it's telling you that that some elements of your question might also be on-topic on a different Stack Exchange site -- if your question is about visas rather than Buddhism, you might get better answers there -- I think the policy you mention is at the bottom of this help topic, i.e. "When shouldn't I comment? Comments are not recommended for ... Answering a question or providing an alternate solution to an existing answer; instead, post an actual answer."

Although I can see a list of all your comments (including all deleted comments), but I don't know or can't identify what/which of these comments, what post of Dhammadhatu's, you're talking about.

Near Kathmandu there's a place called Boudha.
Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, one of the most famous lamas in Kagyu lineage, has his teaching center there. Check out http://www.rinpoche.com/boudha18.htm
You can go as a tourist first and then figure out permanent status.

The Kathmandu Valley is a major place of pilgrimage for Buddhists. Around the city of Kathmandu are ancient Buddhist stupas such as the Great Boudhanath Stupa. The area surrounding the stupa which is known as “Boudha” has over sixty Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. There are many teachers and high lamas, either living in Boudha or visiting. Due to this, many students of Buddhism from all over the world come to stay here to receive teachings. Some monasteries provide situations for study in Higher Buddhist Philosophy. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche’s main monastery known as Thrangu Tashi Choling is located in Boudha close to the Boudha Stupa.
In the hills nearby Boudha, Phullahari Monastery, the seat of HE Jamgon Kongrul Rinpoche is located.
In the area of Swayambunath, is the Swayambunath Stupa also known as “The Monkey Temple”. Located on top of a hill, the whole hill itself is considered to be a self arisen stupa. According to legend, Lord Manjushri cut into the lake that was once the Kathmandu Valley and as the water was set free the hill rose up simultaneously. Thrangu Tara Abbey, Thrangu Rinpoche’s nunnery for Buddhist nuns is in Swayambu. There are many monasteries in the Swayambu area including Benchen Monastery, the home of Tenga Rinpoche and Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche.
Among the many places of pilgrimage is Namo Buddha, one of the most important, where, in a previous life as a prince, the Buddha gave his body to a starving tigress and her cubs. At Namo Buddha, Thrangu Rinpoche has a temple, school for young monks, a college for Higher Buddhist Studies and other projects.

To start with, here are general information on visa. Beware that the specificity depends on your citizenship (basically, what country issued your passport). Just some general points are:

Generally, a tourist visa is US$ 100 for 90 days Visa.
Retreat visa do not exist for all countries. They are not even mentioned on the official website. Last time I wanted to get such a visa, they asked for a motivation letter and proofs that I will do retreat from the center I planned to go in.
You are likely to be able to stay longer if you get a student visa. However (1) The number of study centers that enable you to get such a visa is small, and they are mostly universities. It is likely that if you study in a monastic setting, or a Dharma lay setting, they will not allow this. (2) If you plan to stay for, say, one year, you have to send a bank statement from a local bank in Nepal to the Nepali government , showing that you have a balance of - give or take - $3,000. The amount depends on your citizenship. This rule also applies for India, etc.

For these reason, I concur with Andrei: try on a tourist visa. And I suggest you also give a try to the Himachal Pradesh in India.
In Nepal, if you don't speak Tibetan, I believe you can study in English at the following places. I'm not entirely sure, though.

Rangjung Yeshe Institute. I would assume they might open a door to a student visa because they work in partnership with Kathmandu University.
Rigpa Shedra.
Kopan Monastery. The Basic Program, for instance, but it is not all year long.

In Buddhanath, there are a few Shedra (i.e. "places of teachings") open to Westerners. The question is always: do they teach in English?
In India, there is the Institute of Buddhist Studies and Dialectics.
I am sorry I cannot help you much with this. But do not think that you have to live in one of these countries to be a monk in a Tibetan tradition. There are places in the West.


text:
What is worth desiring from the world?
What is worth desiring from the world when everything is impermanent ?
I can't even desire Nirvana , because I never get it. Here it states that I can not say Nibbana as mine or me  or myself( I can not say I am in state of Nibbana and I can not say Nibbana as mine):

“He directly knows Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having directly known Nibbāna
  as Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself as Nibbāna, he should not
  conceive himself in Nibbāna, he should not conceive himself apart from
  Nibbāna, he should not conceive Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he should not
  delight in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he must fully understand it,
  I say.

( I am asking this question to understand the depths of knowledge... I am trying not to take delight in asking such questions.Buddha says one should not even take delight in Nibbana.)

This is like asking, what can I eat? You should rephrase the question to something more meaningful.

Everything is impermanent. If I want food then that food will also be impermanent and cause of suffering. I want that which remains permanently with me.

Note it as "wanting... wanting... wanting...". Then you will realize that there's no 'I' to begin with.

@SankhaKulathantille "You" realize that there is no "I" to begin with. In other words "I" realize that there is no "I" to begin with. Therefore it will be foolish for me to want or desire anything. But can I say I don't want money or food ? -I don't want- also involves an "I".

I do not realize. Realization happens.

Let's forget for a moment about "I", and "wanting". Here are some:

Negative things:

Minimise or eliminate "suffering"
Minimise attachment, and craving, associated with suffering
Minimise defilements
Minimise fetters

Positive things:

Maximize wisdom
Maximise perfections
Maximise factors of enlightenment

Learn to practice the noble eightfold path.
Practice good deeds (and speech), and generosity, which are for example "a support for the mind".
I think that, when a monk is dying, another monk may be advised to remind him of his "attainments" -- perhaps it's such "attainments", and "good deeds", that are not (or that are less) impermanent.

As for "I can't even desire Nirvana , because I never get it" -- that seems like a contradiction, you know.
Imagine "I" is like a drop of water, and "Nibbana" is like an ocean. Then "I desire Nibbana" or "I can't desire Nibbana" is like saying, "I wish this drop of water would be as big as the ocean, as permanent as the ocean, but still be the same individual drop of water."
Then people around you are like, "Dude! Let it go! Put the drop in the ocean, already!" (or, depending on the school of Buddhism, maybe, "That drop of water is already like the ocean").
I think a reason why Buddhism teaches anatta is because it's the characteristics of "I" that are associated with suffering -- craving to have things is associated with suffering; seeing and being attached to (and wanting to be attached to) an impermanent "self" that's going to die is associated with suffering; and so on.
One advice, which I remember from long ago, is to treat your sense of self (or your body) like a wound -- you take care of it, you try to treat it so as to minimize suffering, but you don't love it, you don't become attached to it.  And you don't say "I can't want to be healthy because then this wound (my sense of self) would disappear."
Also there's some middle way, for example this sutta or this sutta imply that some wanting is "right".

Great!! It is by relying on craving that we abandon the craving. It is not an endless path.I found my answer.

Nibbana is not of the world. Nibbana is experienced by the mind & not by the self. In Buddhism, the 'self' is merely a thought (SN 22.81).

There is, bhikkhus, that base (sense experience) where there is no earth, no water, no
  fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base
  consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of
  nothingness, no base consisting of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another
  world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is
  no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed,
  not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.
Ud 8.1

You used to desire stuff from the world before you understood the Dhamma.
After you understood the Dhamma, you can and will still desire stuff from the world. The only difference is you do it in accordance with the Middle Way, the Noble Eightfold Path, the five precepts and principles of virtue (sila).
You don't suddenly stop desiring all stuff because they are impermanent. Rather, when you desire stuff, you do so with an understanding that they are all impermanent and suffering.
What is worth desiring? This understanding.

You can want to be strong instead of weak. You can want to be a master instead of victim of circumstances. You can want to learn to control your mind. You can want to help others feel less suffering, in both ways (external and internal help). You can want to know the truth from the myths.
This world is a dream and everything here is like a phantom, but you can use it as gym to practice. Even if impermanent, this is good exercise.

If I want to be strong then I will be strong but the strength will not last forever. If I want to be master then I will become Master but it will not last forever. If I want to control my mind then I will be able to do so but such a control will not last forever. Because Sabbe Sankhara Annica.

Now if you think like this and look at your mind, what do you see?

I see that there is nothing worth identifying as myself or mine. I better quit desiring anything from the world. My mind, if it follows the conclusion strictly, will become dispassionate.

That's right. Everything has one taste. Even one's thoughts come and go. There's comfort  in that.

There is no one taste. Taste is Anatta. Thoughts are Anatta.

No no, I mean, all phenomena have taste of impermanence and anatta, including thoughts. Right?

Yes. It has the taste of emancipation.

Maybe, upon further analysis of the terms of your question, the yearning  for an answer will just... fade away.
That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world—this is called the world in the Noble One’s Discipline.
SN 35.116
Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.
AN 4.45

Isn't a paradox to say everything is impermanent? Doesn't the view "everything is impermanent" remain in your mind until you die? So, there you have it, you can have something permanent until you die.
You can also permanently (until you die) abstain from killing, abstain from taking what is not given, avoid sexual misconduct, abstain from false speech and refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs. These precepts wouldn't have been given if it not possible to maintain them permanently. So, if you want these you have them permanently until you die.
But don't wish to be strong, rich or healthy permanently (until you die) that may not happen.

Edit: I misunderstood you, I thought you are asking permanence in this life, if you are looking for inherently permanent to be declared before you follow the five precept and the Nobel eightfold then the permanence you are looking is not declared by The Tathagata.

"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life
  under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The
  cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists
  nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still
  remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

You say I can get few things but only until I die. But do I die ever ? I either take rebirth or attain Niravana.

Buddhism does not each everything is impermanent. Buddhism teaches compounded things are impermanent.

@Dheeraj Verma ... in that case you're looking for inherent permanence, I have edited the response.

@ Dhammadhatu, in that case, please do declare to Mr. Dheeraj eternally permanent uncompounded thing.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can a person become a buddha after reaching nirvana?
There are answers here that suggest that being a buddha is not the same with entering nirvana.
Many people enter nirvana. Very few become buddhas.
So I wonder, say you enter nirvana. But then you want to "complete the mission", like replaying the whole game. Can you do that?
Let's say there is some bodhisatva that doesn't enter nirvana until he accomplish something.
So after he enters nirvana he can't accomplish what he wants to accomplish?
Are there buddhas that do not enter nirvana?

A Mahayana answer to this question would be very different from a Theravada answer.

According to Mahayana, a person can become a buddha after reaching nirvana. We hold that all sentient beings will, sooner or later, become buddhas - be it after they reached nirvana or not.
As to the hearers and solitary realizers, we say that while they dwell in abiding nirvana, the buddhas manifest to them and encourage them to enter the Mahayana path, so that they will in turn become buddha - thereby achieving their own benefits completely, and the benefits of others. This is the presentation of the Abhisamaya-Alamkara:

The arhat without the contaminated aggregates will hear the voice of
  the Buddha telling him or her something like “you are free from the
  suffering of samsara, but still you have not gained nonabiding
  nirvana. Therefore, you need to enter the Mahayana path.” With these
  words the Buddha wakes up the arhat from their blissful meditative
  state.

In this context, there are two types of nirvana:

Abiding nirvana. It is the nirvana of hearers and solitary realizers. We refer to it, in a somehow derogatory fashion, as "individual liberation".
Non-abiding nirvana. It is the final true cessation, the nirvana that bodhisattvas attain when they achieve full perfect enlightenment - the path of no more learning.

In his commentary to Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra Geshe Gyaltsen said:

Non-abiding, the nirvana of a buddha, is a nirvana not abiding in the
  two extremes. It is not the nirvana of a hearer or solitary realizer,
  but the nirvana of the highest state of development of a buddha.

The following passage also shows that the one who has attained abiding nirvana did not abandon all objects of abandonment.

Abiding nirvana is a temporal goal. Temporal has the connotation of
  being ordinary. This is because there is still something to abandon.
  But it is tricky because the term 'nirvana' is also synonymous with
  '[final] true cessation'. And the true cessation of a buddha is not
  something that is ordinary.

There are buddhas who did not enter abiding nirvana, but buddhahood is non-abiding nirvana. After a bodhisattva enters non-abiding nirvana, he abides in neither of the two extremes of peace (abiding nirvana) or samsara. This is because here, samsara is understood as the contaminated aggregates. A buddha is free from contaminated aggregates, and he can manifest countless enjoyment body and emanation bodies. For instance, we say that an already enlightened one showed the aspect of being born as Shakyamuni, and then showed the aspect of undergoing austerities and achieving enlightenment while he was, in fact, already enlightened. We say that Shakyamuni buddha was a supreme emanation body, one of the countless bodies a buddha can emanate so as to benefit sentient beings.

No! Once you attain Nibbana, mission is accomplished. There are no more ambitions. So it is technically not possible. It's like getting the PhD vs getting the PhD with highest honors. But once you get it, it's done.

According to MN 26, didn't the Buddha reach unbinding first, and then think about whether to teach?

@ChrisW He was disinclined to teach at first since the Dhamma is profound and not easily realized by those overcome with aversion & passion. But what is the relevance to this question?

The relevance was that isn't the question about, "Can someone who 'enters' nirvana decide to teach others as a Buddha?" Your answer seems to be "If they reach nirvana then it's too late, it's impossible." I suppose that's an orthodox (Theravada) doctrine, I was curious to see how that doctrine is or isn't applicable to the one example of "a Buddha" that we know from the suttas.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. My understanding of the question is if a person who becomes an Arahath can become a Buddha afterwards.

Deciding to teach is one thing and being a Buddha is another

Maybe? It becomes a little confusing trying to reconcile the Therevada four path model and the Mahayana bhumi model. The individual, after directly apprehending nibbana (becoming a stream-winner in the Therevada model), would just have to become a fully, self enlightened buddha within seven life times. One problem though is how can they be said to be fully self enlightened if they attained to a stage of enlightenment through a previous buddha's teachings.
If you are talking about parinibbana then it seems to go against the Therevada understanding to say that one could enter into parinibbana and then later be reborn in order to become a buddha.
The way you phrased this question though "So after he enters nirvana he can't accomplish what he wants to accomplish?" Implies that the individual won't be able to enter into parinibbana - since parinibbana is based on being free from wanting. By wanting to do other things the mind will incline toward a rebirth that allows for the fulfillment of those wants.
I would think that someone who has taken the bodhisattva vow and truly aspires toward that goal would not be able to directly apprehend nibbana until their final human life. Subsequently becoming a fully, self enlightened buddha.

There are two ways to reach Nirvana: the way of limitation and the way of total acceptance.
In the way of limitation, you simplify one's life to basically turn it into a controlled meditation environment. You live far from people, with few possessions, you don't watch TV, don't participate in projects - and in all these ways you minimize the chance of conflict between "should" and "is".
The Nirvana of total acceptance is when you open your mind, get rid of ego, and become completely transparent, so that you can live in the middle of civilization, do everything people do, and still have a mind with no conflict.
In Mahayana we say that the first type of Nirvana is temporary. At some point you understand this as limitation of your mind, an attachment. Then you exit that Nirvana and start training on the path of acceptance in the middle of people and without stopping all activities.
When you complete this second training, you achieve the second type of Nirvana. Doesn't mean you are Buddha yet, because to be Buddha you need to learn how to enlighten all different types of people. Luckily with this type of Nirvana you can keep working with people. Then after many many lives of training like that, someone is born and using all those previous lives as foundation quickly becomes Buddha.
P.S. To address user70's doubt about *self-*enlightenment, there's still taking advantage of all the hard work performed in previous lives on the basis of teachings of previous Buddha, it's not like new Buddha grows from zero in complete isolation. But the "self-" part comes in the form that in one life Buddha figures it out all by himself, no one explains it to him, no one trains him. He just gets bits and pieces here and there and very quickly assembles the puzzle all by himself.

Theravada answer for this depends on what do you mean by buddha. If you mean Samma Sambuddha, yes there can be only one for a very long period of time. However in therawada tradition all fully enligtened beings are buddhas.
Aharaths are callsd Shrawaka buddha as he/she become enligtened by followig teaching discovered by another samma sambuddha.
Either way thee is no more mission after fully enlightned.

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


text:
Vipassana sharpens my ability to feel the feelings of others, but I'm not yet sure how best to use that?
I've completed 5 10-day Vipassana courses, one Sati, and I've served a 3-day and in various other smaller capacities.  I'll be serving my first 10 day in about 6 weeks, and began regularly sitting 2 hours a day after completing my last course in early December 2017.
I sat a total of 28 days in 2017, and hope to do a similar amount this year as well.
So in short, I feel absolutely certain that this is the path; it's crystal clear to me.  I also have a clear sense of my purpose in this life as a householder, as an aside, but sense that I'll spend large portions of my life sharing with others about my experience with Vipassana to try and help to make them aware of it.
Recently, I've been noticing that my ability to feel the feelings of others, to see where they are, has become sharper and sharper.  I can really feel their pain, and transmute it, and I also see what could be done to really help them.  I feel love for them and want to help them, mostly, with occasional feelings of being negatively impacted by their pain creeping in, but that has lessened as my Vipassana practice has deepened.
The challenge I'd like to understand has to do with learning how to communicate these notions to people in ways that are helpful to them, in ways that aren't perceived to be self-righteous on my part, of know-it-all-y, or whatever.
I suppose this will come to be with more practice, eh?  I feel like that was always Goenka's answer to every question and I understand more and more so what that was the case.
That said, if anyone out there can relate to this and is open to sharing his/her thoughts and experiences, I'd love to hear them.
I am interested in replies from people who have practiced Vipassana and can relate to my experience here.
Thank you!

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

I also see what could be done to really help them.

I doubt the above very much. While I do not doubt you are more & more feeling & seeing the situation of others; it seems what you believe can help others is actually what has helped you; which may not actually be what can help others.
Its similar to you had cancer & took a medicine to heal your cancer and now you wish to give your cancer medicine to another person suffering from AIDS. Although you can see the suffering of the person with AIDS, your cancer medicine will not cure AIDS.

The challenge I'd like to understand has to do with learning how to communicate these notions to people in ways that are helpful to them,
  in ways that aren't perceived to be self-righteous on my part, of
  know-it-all-y, or whatever.

There is nothing special that can be communicated to others; just as nothing special was communicated to you.
Thousands of people do meditation retreats each year. Each of these thousands of individual persons receive the same teachings. Possibly 1% of these thousands attain a special benefit. This 1% success rate is due to the individual's disposition & readiness for meditation and not due to the teachings. Even the Lord Buddha was unable to enlighten every person he spoke to.
In short, your mind might be blinded by the results of your meditation, similar to being blinded when looking into the light of the sun. My answer to you is to simply keep practising what you are practising & keep helping the meditation retreats & Buddhism when you can. But nothing special is required to help others; apart from understanding meditation will not help everybody.
Many people do meditation retreats because they are suffering & confused. However, the help different people actually need is often different. For example, most people need help about the skills & attitudes required to have successful lasting relationships because this what they really want in life. I spent a number of years working meditation retreats & this is the problem most people had & wanted to resolve, namely, broken or dysfunctional family & personal relationships. They were not really interested in meditation & meditation was not really what they needed.

I was interested in replies from people who had practiced Vipassana and can related to my experience here, as I stated.  This is not that.

I have 100% related to your experienced because i have been thru it but when that i occurred to me i was completely blind & drunk on the results of meditation. Naturally, because your mind is the same, helping you is close to impossible. Just as I cannot help you; you cannot help them. As I said, these people are receiving the same instructions as you received. One person succeeds, ninety-nine people fail. That is how it is. You cannot help them because they must help themselves.

I don't know but you might get some (not specifically Buddhist) answers to this question, if you ask it on IPS.SE.
For example, one standard (but non-Buddhist) bit of advice is to talk using I-messages.
Instead of you-messages like ...

Your problem is X
You should do Y to accomplish Z

... it might be perceived as less "self-righteous and know-it-all-y" to use I-messages like ...

I like X
I find that Y has effect Z

Saying "my experience is ..." may be less likely to be perceived as "know-it-all", because it's only claiming to know (and share) your own (limited) experience.

I guess too that you want to talk in a way that gets the other person to participate in the conversation. A trivial (exaggerated) example might be to start the conversation with:

You know what?
No. What?
I find that X.
Really?
Yes: when I (etc.)

There's little point in lecturing someone, IMO; ideally they should want to listen, for some reason.

Another tactic I guess might be to praise someone other than yourself.
For example instead of saying ...

I'm great, because I complete Vipassana courses etc.

... you could praise someone else or other people, 3rd parties ...

I really like how generous Jane and Mary are.

I think that would be, kind of, not being self-righteous.

Another way might be to invite people to practice with you. If you get good at something and know how to practice it, then maybe you can actually practice it and invite people to join you.
I imagine that people might find that a low barrier-to-entry ... easier to come to your house for a few hours on Saturday than to go away on a retreat somewhere.
And it's not asking/expecting people to do anything you don't do yourself ... not making yourself out to be superior, just sharing.

Finally, you maybe try to avoid getting get the reputation of saying that Vipassana courses are the only solution to all of everyone's pains (even if you find it a solution to yours).

I was interested in responses from people who can specifically relate to this situation, as I say.  What you say is the obvious Communication 101 stuff, applicable in any scenario, and, ironically, I found your tone self-righteous and mansplain-y, precisely what I'm interested in avoiding, and what these communication skills teach people not to do.

Perhaps you might find some other people's answers, e.g. to How to explain what Buddhism is?, helpful.

Ursula Le Guin's Bryn Mawr Commencement Address is a favourite piece of writing (or speech), by the way, not quite on the subject of mansplaining (nor Buddhism) -- "Offer your experience as your truth."

Without commenting on Vipassana, your intent to share with others may imply you might also be interested in what Mahayana doctrine teaches about developing and practising bodhicitta.

I have a friend who works as a psychotherapist and she also happens to be a (Dzogchen) Buddhist. Here are a few things she told me that might be relevant in your situation:
First, we have to understand that most people don't need our help. I mean, we may see that they need help - but they don't necessarily think they need help. In this case we can't force it. We may still be able to help but we must be as gentle as possible. Sometimes we can gently trick people in receiving help. In Mahayana this is considered appropriate. But in any case we must respect people's choices to live their lives as they want, with all their unneeded self-inflicted pains, illusory goals and silly joys (I'm exaggerating on purpose - but you have to beware of this phenomena called "the savior ego" that tends to see other people's choices as childish.)
Second, she said that (unlike me!) she never gives answers or suggestions. She insists people must come to their own realizations. All she does is asks questions to turn person's mind in the right direction - then they see it by themselves.
Most importantly, she said her goal is not to teach the person anything or to show them "the right way" - but rather to help them recover their own common sense and obtain sense of agency in their own lives, sense of ownership. Once the person can stop being a victim, afraid of judgement, trying to please others, etc. - they can usually figure out the rest by themselves.
So in her view, the best way to help others is to be simple, authentic and warm, and let conversations be natural, never driving any agenda. She said, when she is in the right state of mind, she can see that even small talk can have therapeutic effect. Situations come up by themselves and all we need is to let our own warmth and clarity respond gently and naturally.

I'm very glad for you to have found your path. Vipassana is absolutely not for everyone, but when it resonates in you, embrace it.
The process of dissolution has begun, and sometimes you'll begin to understand other people's process, as you deepen on your own. People will approach you feeling your peace. They will open up their lives, intimacies, etc. You will feel compelled to point them the way, to shine light in their darkness.
But there is a catch, a subtle line that should not be crossed, as we might overstep the other's process.
I will make a small list of pointers for you,
as my own experience has thought me,
sometimes the hard way:

From Karma's point of view, meeting a stranger who is in Fire for Truth can   mean that you are meant to share and/or learn from each other. These moments can become turning points in our lives, and if they are devoid of the "spiritual ego" also trigger awakening.
From the Relative point of view, sharing anecdotes, experiences, insights, will only touch that part of the conscious that wants to break free. It won't help directly, but for sure can be very inspiring for both. Just as this brief letter.
From the Absolute point of view, you will be talk to yourself, through
yourself, about yourself. There would be no conversation. Just your inner master doing a direct transmission of wisdom, from Heart to Heart. That is when you Are I and I, here and Now. No masks, no you and me... just One. This should be the only moment where you are not sharing you inner chaos, otherwise it's better to stay silent.
You can only touch the surface with words...

I would recommend you to combine Vipassana with Advaita Vedanta, known here in the west as Satsang (Ramana Maharshi, Nisardagatta Maharaj, Papaji). It will give you the other side of the coin, in Self-Realization.
Last year I had my first two courses in Belgium (Dhamma Pajjota), and as you, had the epiphany of it becoming my path. Finally, after 30 years, the search is over. What is left is practice. So this year, taking it to the next level, I began following Citta, just came back from washing dishes for 120 students. The 9th day I was offered to sit. That day I went deeper than ever in my whole live. Somewhere my heart opened up and I surrendered and it all was dissolved. The experience of Metta transcended to a whole new level too...
I know that this is not part of the teachings, but sometimes one has to step out the box. As human nature is so diverse, you won't find a technique completely suited for you. The combining the power of the Mind and the Heart just worked for me. It just felt right! It also humbled me to the fact, that I'm just a baby, a newborn (spiritually), and that I/we have sooo much to unlearn!


text:
Food and other cravings, and guarding the senses

How do I deal with food cravings or craving in general? According to the four efforts I should replace craving with the disadvantages. Can loving-kindness also work? I feel like concentrating on impermanence and on the disadvantages, in the midst of an emotion, works not as effective. I guess one needs to strengthen one's conviction in both?
I read the Buddha saying about guarding the senses -- but I doubt that the Buddha meant not looking, not hearing (etc) at things. While it can be advantageous, I think perceiving them differently is much more important. Can someone answer what "sense-guarding" means, or "not grasping at the beautiful", and how do I do it?

I feel like concentrating on impermanence and on the disadvantages, in
  the midst of an emotion, works not as effective.

Yes, that's because what impermanence is not the one and only thing which need to be considered to uproot the cravings. No matter how hard you try can you get satisfied with any kind of cravings? It can be food. If you are fully satisfied or
if you've reached ultimate satisfaction would you need to eat food again? No right. Our mind always looking for this satisfaction and it always get cheated by things like nice / delicious food etc. And then we keep running after that. It's true we feel happy when we eating that, but those doesn't full fill our mind's expectation of ultimate satisfaction. Why is that? That's because everything in this world is insatiable. That's the reality | truth of this world. Impermanence is just a one quality / attribute of that nature. Once you realise this, you should think twice before running after mirages. Because no matter how hard you run you won't be satisfied only thing you get is the tiredness and other occurrences while running. And then you should see danger of those kind of actions. Not knowing the gratification (assada), the danger (adinava) and how to escape from (nissarana) are the root causes for cravings. When you think about this and when you realise the uselessness of cravings it will start to get reduced.

I read the Buddha saying about guarding the senses -- but I doubt that
  the Buddha meant not looking, not hearing (etc) at things.

Again this links to the above. How you guard your senses is thinking about the uselessness of those by knowing the gratification (assada), the danger (adinava) and how to escape from (nissarana). This doesn't mean that not looking at things but controlling the attachment / craving / gratification (assada) towards the thing you look at and the action of looking by thinking of danger. Which will realise you the gratification (assada), the danger (adinava) and how to escape from (nissarana) the thing you looked at and the action of looking. And finally you start to escape from the part of attachment or the gratification of that. Because that's what drives you towards the danger.
If you think about the bait given to a fish. Is the food in the bait given pain to the fish? or the hook (used to catch the fish with the fishing rod) given the pain?
If you the answer is hook, then if you just place the hook without the food (bait) does the fish get caught or the fish get pain?
No right. Then if you think deeply you will understand that the food (bait) is given pain to the fish. Like wise gratification (assada) gives the danger (adinava) to us. We can't blame fish because it doesn't know that it's a trap. It's called Avidya (ignorance). For us it's the same. Poor us! we are covered with Avidya (ignorance) so we don't realise the truth, we don't realise it's a trap, and we get attached to things and keep running after gratification (assada) of those, thinking those will give us ultimate satisfaction. But it will never happen. Because the world is insatiable. Once you see this you will find a
to escap (nissarana) from gratification (assada). Don't misunderstand this escape is not from the outer world things, but from the attachment / cravings.
Where does the ultimate happiness and satisfaction actually do exist, which is looking for by our minds? -> It's called Nivana, Nirvana or Enlightenment
With Metta..!

Simply note your cravings as they arise. Note them arising and note them disappear. If you keep doing this, you will stop taking actions based on your cravings. That will lead to cravings arising less frequently. If you keep doing this as a habit, one day you will experience the end of craving.

I think another factor is an attiudinal one: One should welcome the thoughts and curiously observe the phenomena (noting can help). So often one can get the impression that desire, ill will etc. is bad. But by labeling it bad one doesn't get rid of it. It actually gets even worse and if one lapses into these states one could become guilty of oneself. What pops up into our consciousness is largely based on causes and condition, but how we react is much more in control and trainable. Only after time do these automatic thoughts decrease or even diminish.

However, I just notice that just noting doesn't go in line with right effort and its four exertions. So merely watching wouldn't be the teaching by the buddha.

Noting is Samma Sati(right mindfulness). The effort you put to right mindfulness is the right effort indeed. You do not welcome thoughts. Thoughts arise and you simply notice them.

What I meant by welcoming is that you do not resist them. That you see that all the causes and conditions are met for them to arise. If your react with aversion you are already in a bad position. Isn't that what apammada kind of implies within the context of thoughts and emotions? That one is vigilant and uses clear discernment and then to cut them off

Resisting is also the right effort, but it's just a different technique. Doing Metta and then Vipassana instead of pure Vipassana.

Feeling leads to craving:

Source: Introduction to Mahā,nidāna Sutta by Piya Tan
To guard the sense door know what feelings arise and then eventually see the empirical level that they arise and pass away at the level of Rupa Kalapa. The method is simply:

i. On seeing a form with the eye,

one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.

ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,

one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.

iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,

one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.

iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,

one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.

v. On feeling a touch with the body,

one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.

vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
To prevent your mental reaction to sensation becoming unwholesome you can try:

“Nothing is worth clinging to”
When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One: “In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”
“Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to. And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all]. Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all things.
Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant.
As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]
he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).
When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating ending in them, contemplating letting go, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.

Pacalā Sutta
Another rendering of the same is as follows:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
This technique is taught over 10 days at the following centres and many benefited with deep insights in the 1st course itself:

Vipassana Meditation: As taught by S.N. Goenka in the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin or
International Vipassana Meditation Centre: In the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin and Mother Sayamagyi

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


text:
Getting confused by various methods
I have been practicing meditation for quite a long time now and sadly I haven't entered any jhana(which I want to enter).
I think the reason for me not progressing is because I switch between methods of meditation a lot, for example if I'm practicing meditation where I simply see my mind wandering and after a week or so I stop and look for another method, like focusing on nostrils and same happens for a week and then I start to look my muscles moving while breathing(I do that because I think I'm not good at this, maybe another one will work), as a result I don't get anywhere and day by day my faith that meditation is helpful gets less and less.
I don't want to do that! But I simply can't get any sort of guarantee that I am practicing right mindfulness.
So my questions:

1) Is this the reason I'm not progressing? Do I have to choose a method and stick to it, when my mind tells me to change?
2) While doing routine work, do I have to do work while being mindful or stick to my meditation object(nostrils, these days :((()? or being mindful and having focus on meditation object will have same effect?

perhaps joining a meditation retreat might help, one whose theme is jhana, were you are all day dedicated to the practice in silence for many days and there's an experienced teacher guiding the retreat, giving instructions and answering questions.

Few suggestion I can give.

Don’t set the goal to get Jhana, No goal at all.
Don’t change the methods, Every methods was right it just a tool make you focus.
Do consistently. At least once a day and same time of the day.
Do anytime when you regcognize, Not just sit and shut your eyes.
Do when sleep until last moment you slept and do at very first moment you wakeup. This is an indicator that your meditation is progress. If you can continue the meditate from slept this indicate you are likely near Jhana.

Jhana is nothing special.
It's a state you can really control your concentration.
At initial step it's quite hard for people who are high skeptic or thoughtful with everything.
You don't need to take many hours everyday to sit and meditate.
You should try to take every seconds as meditate without distracting your work life.
Do until familiar then you reach Jhana.
Even it take 10 years still worth.

There's a nice online guide by Leigh Brasington called "Entering the Jhanas". It teaches how to enter the first jhana. Leigh Brasington studied under Ayya Khema and Jack Kornfield. Do take a look at this guide and read it completely. I think it will answer your questions satisfactorily.
Leigh Brasington also wrote a book called "Right Concentration: A Practical Guide to the Jhanas".
Another book on this subject is "Practicing the Jhanas: Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw" by Stephen Snyder and Tina Rasmussen.

I have been practicing meditation for quite a long time now and sadly I haven't entered any jhana

Jhana is a supernormal state. Very few people enter real jhana. Only Ajahn Brahm provides detailed teachings on real jhana.

(which I want to enter).

'Wanting' is the obstacle to jhana. The Buddha taught in SN 48.10 that jhana is reached by making 'letting go' the meditation object.

I think the reason for me not progressing is because I switch between methods of meditation a lot, for example if I'm practicing
  meditation where I simply see my mind wandering and after a week

If the mind is still wandering, it is pointless to think about reaching jhana. To reach jhana, the mind must have no wandering at all & even then it may take months of full-time practise to reach jhana.

**or so I stop and look for another method, like focusing on nostrils and same happens for a week and then I start to look my muscles moving
  while breathing (I do that because I think I'm not good at this, maybe
  another one will work), as a result I don't get anywhere and **

To reach jhana, the mind must not have any of the five hindrances. Then, if that is so, the mind must let go and give up these techniques. The only way to jhana the Buddha taught was 'letting go'.

day by day my faith that meditation is helpful gets less and less.

It appears you have wrong faith. Right faith in Buddhism is jhana is a supernormal state attained by extremely Noble & Virtuous Individuals, such as the Noble Sangha, who put supernormal effort & sacrifice into their practise.
It sounds like your want for jhana is due to internet or consumerist advertising. Jhana is not like going to the department store to buy a fancy I-Phone or believing in Jesus for Eternal Life.

I don't want to do that! But I simply can't get any sort of guarantee that I am practicing right mindfulness.

Wanting is the opposite of Buddhist practise. To reach jhana, there must be no hindrances, such as sexual desire & fear.

1) Is this the reason I'm not progressing? Do I have to choose a method and stick to it, when my mind tells me to change?

The mind must be pure to reach jhana; particularly without sexual desire & sexual activity.

2) While doing routine work, do I have to do work while being mindful or stick to my meditation object(nostrils, these days :((()?
  or being mindful and having focus on meditation object will have same
  effect?

To reach jhana, full-time practise is required, such as meditating for 8 hours per day.

Thank you for comprehensive answer and it is quite sad :p but I think you misunderstood my second question. It is about general practice, do I have to be mindful about my work or I have to focus on one single thing(nostrils in this case)?

Jhana is not reached by watching nostrils but by making the mind clear. I suggest to read Ajahn Brahm's book: https://www.dhammaloka.org.au/files/pdf/Ajahn_Brahm-Mindfulness_Bliss_and_Beyond-Chapters1-4.pdf  Therefore when doing your general work, you should aim for a clear still mind; a mind that is open & awake but free from craving & hindrances.

This is not how it works. It's not that you sit, sit and then boom! and you suddenly enter Jhana.
Jhana is something you deliberately do. And in order to do it you need to know what exactly to cultivate.
The first Jhana is the self-generated state of joy, as simple as that. You generate it by thinking about your accomplishments in Sila (dharmic discipline). You go over your (hopefully) perfect mind qualities and that gives you energy to enter the first Jhana.
From this, obviously, it becomes clear that you need to practice pure mind in real life, so you have something to review for the first Jhana.

Do I have to get rid of five hindrances first?

Not all five, no - that happens at arhanthood. First two, yes, you have to suspend them. They won't be eliminated completely until the root is out, but you can put them on hold. The other three are actually weakened by the very effort of generating the Jhana.

I believe kamachanda is my main hinderance. Although I have stopped some parts of it, but it doesn't feel like I overcome it to a reasonable level. Do you have any resource or suggestion for overcoming this one? Thank you!

Well in this context kamachanda refers to the momentary impulses to engage with worldly pursuits and objects, arising during meditation. For example you sit and suddenly want to buy the nice new shoes that you saw the other day. Or you start thinking about renovating your house. When anything like this happens, you just have to let it go. It is as simple as that. Some ancient texts suggest thinking about grim topics like death as an antidote, but in my experience they can just be let go, if you make that determination. Again, we only need to stop them for the duration of meditation for now.

I think first of all you have to meet a Buddhist monk, someone who really practices meditation and will talk about your problem. Because as far as I know "kamatahan" is given by the monks according to a person's behavior, character etc. If you don't follow the correct path you won't be able to succeed.
Please keep in mind that "jhana", as you called it, doesn't exist forever though you achieve the goal. It's a temporary state, but way better than being usual. So make effort correctly.

1) Is this the reason I'm not progressing? Do I have to choose a
  method and stick to it, when my mind tells me to change?

It is good to be consistent, but the most important factor is confidence that you're doing the right thing, regardless of which method you choose.
Check out the "five hindrances"- the list of five tendencies that subside as you approach jhana. They are:

wanting
ill-will
restlessness and worry
sloth and torpor
doubt

The first four will subside (at least a bit) as you sit. But the fifth is hard because you will feel a lot of self-consciousness about sitting and a lot of worry about if your method is correct.
So take note when those doubts arise- don't try to suppress them, just take note- and forgive yourself. An attitude of kindness and forgiveness toward yourself is the key to overcoming doubt.
The fastest way to overcome doubt is to find a teacher who inspires you. It's hard to meet the right one in person, but in the meantime, there are many good teachers who have resources on the web. There are many excellent videos from Ayya Khema on YouTube. Leigh Brasington is very good. Ajahn Brahm is very inspiring but he has an extremely dogmatic and difficult-to-attain definition of jhana that many practicioners don't agree with. Take inspiration from his instructions on how to practice, but tune out his lectures about what is and isn't really jhana - you can decide that sort of thing for yourself later.

2) While doing routine work, do I have to do work while being mindful
  or stick to my meditation object(nostrils, these days :((()? or being
  mindful and having focus on meditation object will have same effect?

Don't try to force a classic meditation object while you're doing work (or relating to other people, generally).
Do your work, and just practice coming back to your task every time your mind wanders. If you can slow down mind-wandering and ruminative thinking in your regular life, you will be well set-up to concentrate when you meditate formally.
You'll never be able to make regular life the same as meditation. But the insights from calm and meditation will start to feed back into your regular life.
When you start to feel spontaneous, uncaused, calm happiness and physical comfort while meditating, you are either near, or in, jhana. You may have already experienced this. People are often "better" at meditation than they think they are. Try not to feel bullied by intra-Buddhist arguments about what exactly jhana is, and accept these as signs that your practice is good, and as motivation to keep going. When you have firm confidence within yourself in your practice, then you can start to explore the details of exactly what jhana is.

The only thing to do is to change your »tendencies«, going from bad tendencies to good tendencies. First you must know what happens in »your world«, which as usual for the dhamma is what you experience. It turns out that you change your tendencies mostly by stopping  to associate yourself with people who have the bad tendencies, and you begin to associate yourself with people who have the good tendencies.
The concrete advises are at the end.
Once you know what happens in your life, you identify the tendencies which are bad, the ones which are good ; then you refrain from doing again the acts [actions, talks and thinking] which are deemed bad and you pursue the acts which are called good [it turns out that you do not know which tendencies are good since your remain a »normal people«, so you just follow the guidelines of the buddha on what are the good actions ].
It turns out that the principal, if not the only one, source which leads you away from nibanna is mental and not physical. [such as when athletes claim that the limit of their effort is the mind and not the body]
As usual , The beginning is, first, to stop going on the opposite of the path. SO that means to stop caring about what you have always been caring about in all the years you can remember living [since you are not at the stage of nibbanna, you know that whatever you did so far during the few decades of your life has been mediocre at best, if not totally pathetic and stupid. You must be sincere about your skills [you have none since you are miserable] and about the goal you want to reach. So far The only good thing about you, your behavior, your life is that you dislike some of your life and want to reach nibbanna and you have few hours of practice which are not effective according to you].
The usual objects of worry are about comfort, entertainment, the fear of missing out on pleasures and the worry being a good person as thought by people who do not care one bit about reaching a state where they are no longer unhappy once and for all [that is to say that there is nothing else to do after reaching this state of non-unhapinness and there is no dissipation of this new state ever].
The fear about missing out on pleasures is mental and is fed easily by other people who claim that »it would be a pity not to experience this ''happiness''« that is the experience when, let's say, you enjoy a yogurt or be on a cruise with a person you love, or Parachuting and so on.
The worry about comfort and a few other objects of habits is called »biological« by the same persons above, but it is not. It remains mental and you learn later on about managing them [ex: you learn tummo to stop being cold, instead of working to get money, then going shopping, then spending the money on cloths to get you warm, then washing the cloths because they stink, so you need other cloths while the last ones dry and then storing them].
Then the morality from those same toxic people. They claim that you must worry about money, worry about getting a house, worry about attending such event, worry about listening to the people they admire, worry about opinions, worry about who is here and who is not here, worry about the news and so on [it never ends with these people]. This part is also obviously mental.
So far all those worries are fed by living, and worse, listening to those people have bad habits. The first step is then to identify those people, typically by what they claim and what they do [since you do not have access to what they think] and to stay away from them as much as you can.
[ex: your friends bugs you off with going to the cinema to watch a movie? you do not follow them, otherwise you would become absorbed in the movie and experience the emotions that the actors try to make you feel. Perhaps if you were skillful at attending to the senses, you could go, but it turns out that once you are good at it, you would not want to go]
Once you stop  cognizing about all those objects fed by those people, there is not much to do in your daily life. All those intellectual activities that so many people praise are exactly what must not be pursued.
The daily life will be about getting  the money that a few people demand from you, to carry out the tasks that a few people demand from you, and more intimately, it will be about food and cleaning the body and the  house, sometimes talking to a person who wants to know more about the dhamma.
Far fewer speculations will be generated once this life is led. Once most speculations disappear, you stay on the level of the »body« to know »what you experience« which really means »to know what happens through the 5 usual senses«.
The first step is to relax the body, then the mano and the citta. When the speculations appear, you know they appear and when they do not disappear at once, you follow the sutta by recalling that their pursuit is bad and you go back to the body and its relaxation to make them disappear and know that they disappeared by this way. Do this as long as the mind is not relaxed. It turns out that the most natural and the only relevant  way to analyze the body is through the »elements«:

find what is soft and hard
find what is dry and wet
find what is cold and warm
find what is airy

Beforehand, the explicit advices are as usual:

with other people: do not lie, do not create stories and drama, settle disputes even if, from the point of view of you and other normal people, you appear to be losing
do not eat too much, especially too much meat
do not ejaculate semen
to not sleep too much, so as soon you as you are awake you start knowing what happens until the moment you fall asleep
hold on even when the sensual experience is not pleasant and never  succumb to the sensual experience when it is pleasant
change the postures if you want to : go from being sit, to standing up, to walking, to laying in bed [on the back or on the right side] and when you are bored with that, you can clean the house and keep continuing to know what happens.

Knowing what happens is the basis, the beginning. Once you know what happens, you begin to reject whatever leads  you to bad acts and you steer towards the good acts.
Once the mind is relaxed and pliant, you either dive into the jhanas and leave them and or you turn your mano and citta to the discourses, especially the most important sequence to recall at any experience: whatever is experienced about the senses is anicca, what is anicca is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta [NOT what is anicca is anatta].
Let's recall that Nibbanna is the only experience  that is anatta and not anicca and not dukkha.
Let's recall that anatta has nothing to do with ''self'' and the specualtions that people put bedhing this word.
The atta is not a concept, not an idea, not an opinion, not a belief, not a speculation, not a fantasy, not a dream, not a thought, not a theory, not an observation, not an operation, not a reasoning, not a game, not an information, not an illusion, not a vision, not an hallucination, not a chimera, not a mirage, not a lie, not a ghost, not a fiction, not a simulation,  not a charm; atta is and  always will be first and foremost about the experience of ''I''', of ''mine'', of ''me'' which projects, it turns out, whatever experiences them towards the opposite of the goal.
For instance, the ''me'' in ''I, mine, me'' is not an idea, it is an experience and perhaps you even have a few records of it, typically when you said, without thinking, the word ''me'' when acting with and talking to other normal people. [same situation with '''I'' and ''my''].
The next natural step is to stop worrying about the actions and goods  remaining from the old daily life with normal people, which are, let's recall, »about getting the money   that a few people demand from you, to carry out the tasks that a few people demand from you, and more intimately, it will be about food and cleaning the body and the  house«.
Having a house and taking care of it is a burden, finding food is burden, storing food is a burden; so it is the ideal time to become a bhikkhu and continue to attend what happens in your world.
Once this is done, It is the ideal time also to lose whatever appeal remains towards any of the »five aggregates«, and any form-ation involving them, like the jhanas which  neutralize only temporarily only a few bad tendencies, which mean that they cannot be the end.


text:
Difference between Pin (Punya) and Kusal(Kushala)?
I have seen people using the words Pin ("good deeds") interchangeably with Kusal; and Paw ("bad deeds") interchangeably with Akusal.
But there are clear differences between them -- per my understanding:

Pin (Good deeds) - Actions done physically, verbally or with mind that has good karmas
Kusal - Anything that would lead you in the path to nirvana.

(Paw (Bad deeds) and Akusal are the opposites of the above.)
But I'm not sure about these definitions. I would like to know the exact meaning of these and how they are related to each other?

Pin(Punya) and Kusal are both same. Pin means that which purifies the mind. Kusala means that which is born of wisdom or that which counters defilements. The good deeds that lead to birth in heavenly realms are called Wattagamini-Kusala and the good deeds that lead to Nibbana are called Viwattagamini-Kusala. Here's an explanation by ven. Nauyane Ariyadhamma Thera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ5Sn2n8pVI

Kusala, wholesome, is an advantage mind and mental factors. It is the advantage because it must causes both present and future advantage resultants, KusalaVipāka.
Kusala can arise without Puññā, i.e. a boy gives a gift to a poor man just on demand, but Puññā can't arise without Kusala because Puññā without Kusala is the ignorant, Aññāṇa. Aññāṇa is the root of Akusalā, unwholesome, and causes the advantage resultants.
Paññā = understand the fact: causes&effects, the dependent origination, Paṭṭhāna.
Paṭivedha = Paññā.
Paṭivedha = understand through the fact relation: causes&effects.
Ñāṇa = Expert Paññā.
Dassana = View, Understood, Diṭṭhi (vision), Cakkhu (eye).

very much appreciate your answer.

See puñña and kusala, Nyom Achala Dissanayake
And no, it's not right to say that all kusala is or leads to the, or is on the path. The word Puñña, in and of it self, as well.
Both words should be seen in relation to the world and/or beyound, can be used for very worldily thing as well.
Puñña actually (lit.) means what gives/makes joy (long term).
Kusala: ku (wrong) sala (uproots, cuts off) => that what uproots bad (in ones heart)
See also the different kinds of kamma, kusala on the path included: Ariyamagga Sutta: The Noble Path
And what kinds of puñña are there?

កាលទានសូត្រ - Question about Dana
[៦០] ខ្ញុំបានស្ដាប់មកថា ពាក្យនុ៎ះ ព្រះមានព្រះភាគ ទ្រង់ត្រាស់ហើយ ព្រះអរហន្តសំដែងហើយ។ ម្នាលភិក្ខុទាំងឡាយ បុញ្ញកិរិយាវត្ថុនេះ មាន ៣។ បុញ្ញកិរិយាវត្ថុ ៣ តើដូចម្ដេច។ គឺទានមយបុញ្ញកិរិយាវត្ថុ ១ សីលមយបុញ្ញកិរិយាវត្ថុ ១ ភាវនាមយបុញ្ញកិរិយាវត្ថុ ១។ ម្នាលភិក្ខុទាំងឡាយ បុញ្ញកិរិយាវត្ថុ មាន ៣ នេះឯង។
លុះព្រះមានព្រះភាគ ទ្រង់សំដែងសេចក្ដីនុ៎ះហើយ។ ទ្រង់ត្រាស់គាថាព័ន្ធនេះ ក្នុងសូត្រនោះថា
កុលបុត្រអ្នកប្រាថ្នាប្រយោជន៍ គួរសិក្សានូវបុណ្យ ដែលមានផលបរិបូណ៌ មានវិបាកជាសុខ គឺគួរចំរើនទានផង ការប្រព្រឹត្តិស្មើ គឺសីលផង មេត្តាចិត្តផង លុះចំរើនធម៌ទាំង ៣ នេះ ដែលមានអានិសង្សជាសុខហើយ រមែងចូលទៅកាន់លោក ដែលជាសុខ ឥតមានការបៀតបៀន។
ខ្ញុំបានស្ដាប់មកហើយថា សេចក្ដីនេះឯង ព្រះមានព្រះភាគ បានត្រាស់ទុកហើយ។

What ever kusala or puñña is not based on "maha-metta", means is not based on right view, has no foot on the path to Nibbana for now.
[This gift, not given for trade, exchange or stacks, and commercial purpose, should be deleted is shares for liberation are against the owners objectives]

very much appreciate your answer.

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


text:
What makes someone take rebirth with non heterosexual inclinations?
How can someone take rebirth with non-heterosexual inclinations? What specific karmic acts will lead to rebirth with this trait of non heterosexuality?

I think the question is unimportant because Buddhism does not provide an answer for this question & because in Buddhism there is a path for laypeople that can be practised by both heterosexual & homosexual people. I personally know gay people who are very spiritual, very moral, very faithful to their partners & extremely compassionate. In short, there is no inherent correlation between casual sex, infidelity & homosexuality.

1/ The dharma is about training the mind to see things as they actually are. Within that context, ALL questions are important and punishing people for pursuing truth is contrary to the dharma.

2/ One evolutionary theory is that homosexuality is caused when the mother is very stressed during pregnancy. This turns on an epigenetic switch. The evolutionary reason for this is to produce a child who will not reproduce but will help to protect and provide for his or her siblings who will.
Source: Ted Talk: Homosexuality: It's about survival - not sex: James O'Keefe

@AlexRyan, that has been debunked: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2059147/ neither between-family nor within-family analyses revealed a maternal stress effect for sexual orientation

My first teacher taught how different types of attachments lead to certain karmic situations. According to that system, homosexuality comes from attachment to high ideals and high standards.
Different types and levels of attachment to high ideals lead to different scenarios, some lead to cancer, some to immune system problems, some to mental illness, while some end up growing into positive achievements. There all kinds of karmic scenarios, in one life or spread over multiple lives, so it's hard to be more specific, but generally speaking there's connection between attachment to high ideals and high standards, and homosexuality.

Any reasons why attachment to high ideals and high standards may lead to homosexuality?

They are co-supporting tendencies. I more or less understand how it works but not well enough to be able to explain it.

People say, and I suspect it's true, that there's nothing on that topic in the suttas.
And given that the workings of karma are difficult to explain, to predict, to know (i.e. perhaps only the Buddha is able to do it), I mistrust non-canonical opinions on that subject.
For what it's worth, here for example is a quote from a book Sexuality in Classical South Asian Buddhism by José Ignacio Cabezón:

I post that as evidence that people do find (and/or have written) that kind of attitude or explanation in some scriptures.
I'm unable to identify exactly what he's quoting, though (The Scripture on the Benefits of the Five Trainings), or to find that translation elsewhere.
Anyway, according to that you may be reborn as "queer men" for the same kind of reason as you may be reborn as "women"; or as animals, in hell, or as ghosts.

I voted this post down because it does not link to an authoritative source

Does "not authoritative" mean that you don't believe the author of the book, or is it that you don't believe the author of the quoted "scripture"? I tried to answer something like, "There is some scripture (e.g. as suggested by Sankha's answer), but I'm not sure everyone would consider that scripture as reliable ...  e.g. this author writes that the scripture is late, postdating early Pali suttas."

Yes it is hard to believe every scripture, isn't it, or to take it literally. And, there are reasons (doctrinal and historical) why you might conclude that "Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood". I think it might be counterfactual though to pretend that no scripture (doctrine) like this exists. Also I don't think it's possible to heap contempt on Buddhism.

When refuge is taken in the Triple, the Dhamma is regarded as visible in the here & now. That is the official refuge. Best wishes

I also down voted. This, because I believe the original and main question of the top was not answered. Also feel that since there is nothing to back up the Canon interpretation you’ve mentioned, it should have been stated as your opinion if true or confirmed otherwise. All the best

@CSmith It's not my opinion. It's an attempt to provide some scriptural reference e.g. for Sankha's answer as requested in a comment under his answer.

@ChrisW Fact remains that first reason was not approached. Please reconsider. All the best

Upvoted for scripture reference

@CSmith I think this reference (and Sankha's answer) does answer the question: i.e. it states a reason for being born gay, doesn't it? It's not something I use, though, as personal opinion.

Human society as a whole has a deep and abiding attachment to the concepts of masculinity and femininity. We see it in every culture, every time period, every place and nation. Nothing creates tanhā and dukkha as quickly or effectively as thoughts about one's place in the sexual pecking order. If we rid ourselves of those attachments, then the world is no longer divided into gay people and straight people; there's just people, who love as they see fit.
There's no sense trying to suss out how the karmic world brought us to where we are. All we need to do is release ourselves from the attachments we are subject to.

Well, how we are born is due to past Kamma (among other natural laws as well).
While that is said, Buddhism goes much deeper than the physical appearance, ones sexual orientation, political preferences etc.
Buddhism is about ending suffering. Its about cultivating and purifying the mind and eventually becoming free from Samsara.
One can practice the Path no matter what ones sexual orientation is. These things are not important. What is important, is the quality of mind in an individual.

I looked for 'homosexual' and 'gay' in more than six hundred Dharma e-books I have, and found no more than three mentions on the topic:

Geshe Tenphel says:

Attachment is to be abandoned, whether it occurs in a heterosexual or
  homosexual person.

Again Geshe Tenphel:

However, is it the case that gay people are born gay? Is it not that
  due to circumstances later on during someone’s life that he or she
  becomes homosexual? I myself am not sure how this happens.

And being a geshe, he studied for at least twenty years.

A mention that homosexual actions are non-virtuous in the same way that sodomy (between a man and a woman), cunnilingus (between a man and a woman), masturbation, etc. are.

This being said, one of the issues of my approach here is that 'homosexual' and 'gay' are fairly recent terms. However, I could imagine contemporary translators using it in translating even traditional texts. It is shorter than "men who are attracted to men" and the like. Still, my finding or lack of it thereof is partial.

Now, to give you my own answer: Generally, we say that a state results from negative karma only insofar as it hinders one's Dharma practice. For instance, being born blind or becoming blind... being a woman in a society that makes it difficult to achieve anything and access Dharma, etc. as a woman... being gay in a place where homosexuality is an issue, etc. On the other hand, being gay does not hinder one's practice in and of itself. From this viewpoint, I would think that being gay does not result from negative actions. It might result from negative actions if it is completed by being born in an intolerant society where we do not have access to education, Buddhist temples, etc. as a gay. In addition, the suffering feeling that arises in dependence on being gay would result from negative actions. But:

Such a feeling does not necessarily occur.
One might have suffering feeling in relation to eating an ice cream. The feeling itself says nothing of the object.

Association is the first outwardly condition to tend toward something and it's by not associating that one does not cling toward something. With who or what one goes into relation, tends toward it, there one arrives and it might also explain why more global trends work like-a-like. The more touched by pattern and possible not knowing backwards, the more inclination toward such.
So may one take care with what and whom one goes into relation, falls step by step into debts and good to maintain always moral and shame, at least if addicted, to do prevent others from dangerous touch.
The Mahanaradakassapa-Jataka, btw., gives some view on effects of sexual missconduct, counting such as main cause of sexual stranger and other miseries.

Not all gay people are alike and there is no definitive designation for gayness.
In a qualified sense, id say there can be many causes for with or without difficulty developing same sex attraction or having a strong inclination; like being another sex not too long ago, developing an unbalanced fascination with masculine or feminine faculties, perhaps looking down on feminity altogether & extolling masculinity much, or acting in femine or masculine ways much with thoughts & action for some reason.
Sutta say that one who is successful in emulating a dog or an ox is born in their company and has their sexuality.
It's a matter of conditioning and nobody remains unchanged over time.

Some people are extremely lustful towards the opposite sex that they wish to become like the opposite sex. This may lead to being born as lesbian or gay.

Would you happen to have scriptural references?

@TenzinDorje There's a reference to breaking the 3rd precept and being born as gay. Cannot find it at the moment.


text:
Karma and one's own belief about the event
Suppose I yell at a person and I hold a belief like: "I made a mistake and I try my best not to repeat that fault again" vs "I'm such a bad person for doing that bad deed. I should feel ashamed of myself" then the kamma is completely based on my sincere beliefs I hold about the situation and the less anger, greed and delusion they have the better the karmic results, right?

In my tradition we recognize three ways to do repentance.
On the basic level, we should feel ashamed and guilty, tell someone about our misdeed, then decide not to repeat same mistake. Then stop beating ourselves about it, since that only makes things worse after certain point.
On the medium level, we should understand that our mistake was because of a particular delusion or reification that manifested as some sort of attachment, which then produced the behavior. We should make an effort to really see our preconception or overgeneralization or attachment that gave rise to the misdeed, and make an effort to let go of it.
On the highest level, repentance consists in simply recovering the stable and pure state of mind and staying in that.

Revisiting your past bad deeds with wisdom and determining not to repeat is good Karma. Regretting your past actions is bad Karma.

The Parable of the Salt Crystal from the Lonaphala Sutta:

"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
  water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
  the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
  to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
  Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
  Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
  to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
  one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
  where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
  hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in [contemplating]
  the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e., painful
  feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
  discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
  trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

And more explanation in MN36:

"And how is one developed in body and developed in mind? There is the
  case where a pleasant feeling arises in a well-educated disciple of
  the noble ones. On being touched by the pleasant feeling, he doesn't
  become impassioned with pleasure, and is not reduced to being
  impassioned with pleasure. His pleasant feeling ceases. With the
  cessation of the pleasant feeling there arises a painful feeling. On
  being touched with the painful feeling, he doesn't sorrow, grieve, or
  lament, beat his breast or becomes distraught. When that pleasant
  feeling had arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain
  because of his development of the body. When that painful feeling had
  arisen in him, it didn't invade his mind and remain because of his
  development of the mind. This is how one is developed in body and
  developed in mind."

Always chethana(thought) is the karma. The thought when you are yelling already brought you a karma. If you are going to think about it again in a good way or bad you just sum up new karma. Every thought belongs to one of six fundamental thoughts loba, dhwesha, moha, aloba, adhwesha ,amoha.


text:
Is Meditation a cure or just fighting of symptoms?
I meditate daily for 30 minutes, and right after each session my mind is very calm, centered, stable; I just exist in the present moment without much thinking.
However, after a while, the compulsive thinking comes back, wants to drag me towards unhappiness. I feel this is like an illness. Therefore, is meditation a cure to this illness (will it go away one day if I meditate more/longer? What should I do?) or is it just a temporary easing of symptoms? I want to cure the illness. Thanks.

That depends on the type of meditation you do. To most people, meditation is all about focusing the mind on one thing and enjoying the bliss that comes with it. This type of meditation is called Samatha(tranquility) meditation. There are many forms of Samatha meditation. Ex: breath meditation, loving kindness meditation, repeatedly chanting a word etc.
Samatha meditation is taught in Buddhism too, but the meditation type that is unique to Buddhism is Vipassana(insight) meditation. Samatha meditation is mostly about fighting off the symptoms and looking for a temporary relief. Vipassana meditation is about curing the sickness that causes the symptoms. Here's a handbook on how to practice Vipassana.

To think means to divide!
Stopping thinking does not stop suffering!
Have you ever tried to listen to your thoughts? The mind itself is trying to tell you something. Listen! The fact itself that you can only meditate for 30 min is its a sign that you don't have inner peace.
Dzogchen Practice in Everyday Life by HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche:

We should realise openness as the playground of our emotions and relate to people without artificiality, manipulation or strategy.
We should experience everything totally, never withdrawing into ourselves as a marmot hides in its hole.  This practice releases
tremendous energy which is usually constricted by the process of maintaining fixed reference points. [more ...]

Now learn true meditation and don't stop a minute!
Love!


text:
Literature on ending Samsara on micro scale
I believe in patterns, and patterns of patterns, where scale is of secondary importance. Much like a fractal. The formula is more fundamental then the form.
From there on, I believe that the mind will always be delusional. That is inherent to the formula by which it operates. The hypothesis is supported by the following: an illusion arises when the mind perceives something with an error. Hence the mind will never have a 100% accurate map of reality, and thus will always be delusional to some extent.
Bridging to Samsara: I do not believe that there is an end stage, that it is boolean like: you either are in samsara, or you are not. I believe that to be true for very specific 'mental puzzles' though (more on that later). So I think, like with all things, that samsara is a concept. If you think of samsara to exist by itself, it is an illusion.
Moving forward from this point of view I think that samsara can be experienced on a micro scale and macro scale. Macro scale would be to exerperience the end of samsara on the level of a life time. In the reality frame from which we now both view this webpage. Micro scale would be to experience the end of samsara during a meditation session.
Let me give an example of ending samsara at micro scale. I am meditating on the feeling of my body which is reflecting mental effort. Then suddenly I find myself inside this story (my mind is wandering). The theme of the story is aligned with the bodily feeling that I was focusing on. The central theme is that I am trying to do something, I try to solve something like a mental puzzle. I am trying to do this inside a context which hosts a 3D environment, full of visual and other sensory perception, a memory and entire past, etc. So it looks like a life-time. Not 'my' life necessarily. I may even be in a complylety different role or life than the one I am currently experiencing. Now the crux is: when I come to realize what I am mentally doing, and that there is no need to do it, I let go. That moment the entire environment fades, or I stay there and be in control of keeping it alive (only for a while). Much like a lucid dream. I can choose to wake up out of it, or just enjoy the scenery while being freed from this mental strain. That what I was doing, comes forth from craving and desire and illusions. So the moment I realize myself and fully see what I am doing, I can let go. No moment earlier, because when I do not see fully what I am doing, and I would attempt to let go, I would fool myself. With that, the environment collapses or when I put effort in, I can keep it alive for a while. The thing is: I am freed from the mental strain.
The reason I am relating all this to the cycle of birth and death is that: the entire environment, experience of self, the role I have there and what not, seems to be in function of self-reflecting. To find out what I am doing and learn about myself. And as soon as I let go, I die there. The environment goes away or I am no longer in the role that I was in.
Now my understanding of ending Samsara from a Buddhism perspective is that it is described at the scope of a life-time. I am wondering, is there any literature that talks about ending samsara at a more micro scale level. Like the example experience I gave above? From my personal experience I come to the conclusion that there are too much similarities between the meditation experience described above and my life, that is likely for them to have their root in the same formula, only on a different scale, like a fractal pattern.

First of all, let me confirm that your perspective is valid. Most of my teachers held similar views. For example, my Zen Master used to say that rebirth occurs every second. My Tibetan Buddhism teacher said that rebirth in the higher worlds occurs when we enter Jhanas, and that an entire realm is created right at that moment - just like you said. At least two other teachers said things that amounted to the same idea: the world is a hallucination being constructed by our mind and in order to exit samsara we must stop constructing it. I remember one teacher saying the biggest challenge with students was to achieve what he called "immediacy", getting them shift attention to their mind on the moment-by-moment scale.
(I used to think that this sort of explanation was an upaya, a clever trick designed to lead people to psychological realizations. However, the further I go, the more I see for myself that this "reality is a construct" explanation is not a metaphor but is true in the literal sense. In my recent encounters I was demonstrated some very advanced techniques that put some strain on my structure of reality, to put it mildly.
Whether this world is real and dharma is ethical and psychological, or this world is a dream we dream and dharma is literal, the moment-by-moment phenomenological perspective remains valid. This is what Buddha called "the safe bet" - his teaching remains an invariant that is correct regardless of the exact interpretation.)
There is not much literature on the topic however. The closest I've seen are the works by Buddhadāsa, a Thai Theravada reformist. He held that "dhamma is akaliko" (timeless) means it plays out on moment-by-moment scale. He insisted on phenomenological explanation of rebirth. Among his books there is a rather detailed analysis of Twelve Nidanas done from this phenomenological perspective.

Is this Yogachara's vijñapti-mātra or citta-mātra? The so-called mind-only school?

This answer seems to be referencing works which talk about the "macro/micro" equivalence. Just to check, is some of that literature about ending the micro-wanderings?

@ChrisW - yes Buddhadāsa speaks about ending the construction of "self" and ending of samsara on the micro scale.


text:
Why does the third noble truth not include the ten fetters?
The Four Noble Truths are defined in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta as:

"The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is
  suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is
  suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation
  from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is
  suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are
  suffering.
"The Noble Truth of the Origin (cause) of Suffering is this: It is
  this craving (thirst) which produces re-becoming (rebirth) accompanied
  by passionate greed, and finding fresh delight now here, and now
  there, namely craving for sense pleasure, craving for existence and
  craving for non-existence (self-annihilation).
"The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering is this: It is the
  complete cessation of that very craving, giving it up, relinquishing
  it, liberating oneself from it, and detaching oneself from it.
"The Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering is
  this: It is the Noble Eightfold Path, and nothing else, namely: right
  understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right
  livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration.

From this, it is widely assumed that to end suffering, we must end craving and that's it.
However, according to SN45.179 and SN45.180, it is not just craving that must be ended, but also the ten fetters, through the Noble Eightfold Path.

“Bhikkhus, there are these five lower fetters. What five? Identity
  view, doubt, the distorted grasp of rules and vows, sensual desire,
  ill will. These are the five lower fetters. This Noble Eightfold Path
  is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five lower fetters,
  for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for
  their abandoning.”
“Bhikkhus, there are these five higher fetters. What five? Lust for
  form, lust for the formless, conceit, restlessness, ignorance. These
  are the five higher fetters. The Noble Eightfold Path is to be
  developed for direct knowledge of these five higher fetters, for the
  full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their
  abandoning.

So, why is craving singled out in the third noble truth, rather than including all of the ten fetters?

Craving cannot be eliminated at will. You need to do something to eliminate it. That is what the fourth noble truth is about. In other words, one needs to cultivate wisdom to eliminate craving. Elimination/weakening of fetters are the mileposts of developing wisdom.

raga, tanha, nandhi, (or desire) is reason in rebirth, renewal, becoming-and that is the direct cause of suffering.
Desires for things in 3 categories:

sense pleasures,
craving for existence,
and vibhava(craving for non-existence) (Buddha didnt explain in detail of what craving for non-existence is, tho many teachers tried to fill in .

I believe desires in three categories can be explained with ten fetters.   craving for sense pleasures is about lower fetters, and craving for existence and non-existence is all about higher fetters.

Ending of fetters is included in the Fourth Noble Truth - the Eightfold Noble Path leading to cessation of suffering.
Unsatisfied craving (tanha) and clinging/sustenance (upadana) are singled out because they are the immediate causes of dukkha, while everything else (illusion of self and the fetters) serves as the support/foundation but is not the direct cause.
In other words, craving is singled out because suffering is singled out. And suffering is singled out because it's the most obvious difference between Samsara and Nirvana, it is what we all have in common, so it's a good point to start.
However, cessation of suffering is just one aspect of The Goal. The other aspect is Bodhi - awakening. If we remember awakening we can see that cessation of craving is not enough, there has to be realization or insight. And achievement of that insight is what most of the Noble Path is about.

This is definitely a Mahayana answer as opposed to Sankha's Theravada answer. From my understanding, the Theravada purpose of Bodhi is using wisdom to end suffering. There is no other purpose. And the only difference between Samsara and Nirvana in Theravada is anicca and dukkha.

The third noble truth explains the nature of the cessation of suffering, which is the cessation of craving. When craving is absent, the mind is cool & peaceful (Nibbana) because craving is hot & agitated.
Each fetter, except ignorance, if not a form of craving, is a form of attachment & thus has craving has its preceding condition. Dependent Origination explains the preceding condition of attachment is craving. Therefore, naturally, ending craving will end of each fetter (except ignorance).
As for ignorance, as explained at the end of SN 22.59, the sole purpose of ending ignorance is to end craving, i.e., manifest dispassion, as follows:

Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards
  perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards
  consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate.
  Through dispassion his mind is liberated.
SN 22.59

It follows Nibbana is the destruction of craving. There is actually no other way to describe it.

Dhp 154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
  mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
  craving.

Above, the house-builder is 'craving' & the house built is 'ego-existence' ('jati'). Yet the view of the questioner is probably 'backwards', i.e., the questioner probably believes ego produces craving rather than craving produces ego. If this is true, the questioner should urgently refer to SN 12.12:

Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and
  craving is the condition of clinging.'
SN 12.12

These confusions arise when there is belief in reincarnation, such as believing 'bhava' & 'jati' are reincarnation. When this reincarnation belief is held, there is the belief a 'self' reincarnates and a 'self' produces craving. But in the true teachings, 'bhava' & 'jati' are mere 'self-views', which are products of craving; and which is why each fetter (except ignorance) has craving as its preceding condition. Thus by ending craving, each fetter is ended; which includes ending ignorance because, when the mind sees with clear wisdom that having no craving is peaceful, ignorance also ends in respect to what real Nibbana is.
But in Buddhism today, especially in Mahayana but also in Theravada, there are all kinds of erroneous wrong views that 'non-thinking' or 'non-conceptuality' is Nibbana. This shows when the end of craving is not seen clearly, ignorance remains. Thus the end of craving also ends ignorance.


text:
Concentrating on Breathing
I have been experiencing energy flow on my head,especially at the tempels,  even after meditation. I have only started on Breathing concentration. What is it? I have stopped meditation for fear of something wrong might have happened.
Thank you.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

Are you sure it's not hyperventilation (breathing too much)?

According to my experience in meditation, first time it was happened to me. Do not fear to do the mediation.
These are the steps for Anapana-sathi meditation.
1.Concentrate your mind into breathing process.
2.In that time,try to think about only breathing patterns.
After you do it more times you feel relax in your mind.
It gives you to easily concentrate for your work.

Now I don't know the technique you had been practising...and the problem you are facing might be related to the way you practise too...but, in general, the mind has fallen into the habit pattern of wandering around here and there. And hence once you start trying to concentrate your mind it is natural for the mind to resist and this resistance is felt on the body in the form of unpleasant sensations...So, I would request you to continue the practice for at least 7-8 days for 10-15 minutes and see if the problem persists...Here is an excellent video by Ven Goenka on 'Mindfulness of Breath/Anapana Meditation'. It is also necessary that you start in small chunks of 15-20 minutes. Life on the path of liberation is like training for marathon...you start with warm up and then keep on adding to it consistently.

I have been experiencing energy flow on my head,especially at the tempels, even after meditation. I have only started on Breathing concentration. What is it?

Nothing to worry about. Some people experience such phenomena when concentration increases. Its just a sign (nimitta) that concentration is being strengthened.
If you practice Samatha meditation, then just return attention to the breath at the abdomen or the entrance of the nostrils.
If you practice Vipassana meditation, then just note the sensation a couple of times and return attention to the abdomen.
Do the same if fear arises.
Try not to get caught up in sensations or the interpretation of them. That removes focus from the practice. I would also recommend finding a good teacher that can help you on the Path.

Obviously, your mind is concentrating in the wrong way, causing stress to your temples & brain.
Buddhism does not teach to concentrate on breathing. Buddhism teaches to give up craving. When you can give up craving, your mind will be quiet, silent & still. When your mind is quiet, silent & still, your mind will naturally, without any effort or intention, feel & know the breathing.
The meditation in Buddhism is called 'Mindfulness With Breathing' rather than 'Mindfulness of Breathing'. 'Mindfulness' means 'to govern' the mind & 'keep it' free from craving.
If you practise the right way, you will get the right results.