text:
About the compatibility between meditation methods, guides, trainings and teachers, and other questions regarding Samadhi
Being acquainted with Buddhism (although in a pretty shallow and intellectual fashion) since a few years now, I've just realized that I had almost no experience in meditation at all. It was only recently that I started training on and studying about Samadhi, and all this time without a teacher or proper guidance, mainly because in my country Buddhism is still "in diapers".
As I'm more inclined to Theravāda teachings, I'd like to have some advice from more experienced theravadin meditators (i.e. from people whose main source of information are the Pali Suttas).
A few questions (all coming from almost complete ignorance, so excuse me if I using some words in an incorrect manner):
1) What is the best way, according to the suttas, to cultivate the mind in right attention and right samadhi?
2) Should "noting" meditation be used when doing samatha or jhāna meditation?
3) (For those of you acquainted with the works of Upasaka Culadasa) Is the guide offered in The Mind Illuminated compatible with other Theravāda teachers' guides, such as those from Venerables Thanissaro, Brahm , Yuttadhammo, Mahasi Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah, Analayo and Goenka? I just bought this book and I like to know what to keep and what to ignore from it.
4) How do the methods from the above mentioned teachers differ from one another? And are these differences reconcilable?
I would appreciate any advice or knowledge from you. Even if only one question of these can be answered, I'd be grateful.
Thanks for your time and patience!

SO the summary is that you must not confuse the  noble 8 fold path with the humanism pushed by puthujjanas, you must not let the mind be afflicted by the body, you must not be blind to the danger of sensuality, you must judge your thoughts and sanna and vedana all day long, you must become sensitive to the sankharas in order to destroy them.
The hardest part is to be sensitive to the ''joy of renunciation'' and the samma smadhi will come by the usual formula:

''living thus heedfully, joy arises''

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html
It is mano which has piti and the kaya has passambhati then sukhaṃ vediyati, and the citta has sukhha then samadhi.
Like any humanist, The puthujjana Upasaka Culadasa confuses being a humanist, having compassion, with the ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma''. That's a typical mistake created by puthujjanas who refuse the nekhamma part of samma sankappa, whereas not having nekhamma is just as detrimental as having ill-will.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/05/an05-090.html
Those people  cling to sensuality and their typical behavior is that they feel sad when they see puthujjanas not having stuff, so they say that they are good people, because ''they have compassion'' and because they give'' stuff to destitute puthujjanas, because when the destitute puthujjanas has stuff, this puthujjana is no longer sad.
Of course, this behavior relies on craving, on kamma,  on sankharas and jayati so it never ever ends the dukkha of the puthujjana who gives stuff nor the dukkha of the destitute puthujjana.
This is explained here https://legacy.suttacentral.net/en/an7.52
The good thing about the doctrine created by the puthujjana Upasaka Culadasa is that even though you get wrong concentration by following his directions,  you avoid one of the most moronic & toxic idea ever created by a puthujjana :  to wit, mixing the dhamma with ''the dark night'' created the christian puthujjanas who develop the ''dry insight'' doctrine in the west, [christian puthujjanas who talk about the dhamma cling to their christian vocabulary]. Those people completely fail to understand that any insight into dukkha does not generate more dukkha. THis is because those puthujjanas are eager to declare themselves as ''having insights'', as ''reaching first path'', as ''cycling through insights'' and plenty of other toxic words expressing their toxic ideas.
Instead of talking about the various wrong samadhi invented by various puthujjanas, it is way better to focus on right sammadhi, or even better on rigth liberation.
The difficulty with the right liberation is that The right liberation can be expressed by the vocabulary used for the wrong liberations.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.41.007.wood.pts.htm#p1
but like the buddha says,  the best[=non-ambiguous] and unique way to speak of the right liberation is

Truly that unshaken heart's release is void of lust, void of hate,
  void of illusion.

For instance, there are plenty of wrong liberations and then puthujjanas wonder what is the difference between those wrong liberations and the right liberation:

"Housefather, this heart's release and this utterly unworldly[2]
  heart's release, and this heart's release that is by the void and that
  which is signless, - are these states diverse in spirit, diverse in
  letter, or are they the same both in spirit and in letter?"
"There is one view of the question,[3] sir, according to which these
  states are diverse both in spirit and in letter.
But there is another view, sir, according to which they are one and
  the same both in spirit and in letter.

Let's recall that the only goal of the dhamma is to end dukkha, and it turns out that ending dukkha is about viraga, nirodha, Paṭinissaggā and ''the letting go'' that puthujjanas misuse and plenty of other words like extinction.

"Householder, through the destruction, fading away, cessation, giving
  up, and relinquishment of desire, lust, delight, craving, engagement
  and clinging, mental standpoints, adherences, and underlying
  tendencies towards the form element, the mind is said to be well
  liberated.

The buddha had plenty of wrong concentration before getting the right concentration, which are the jhanas, and then later on ''turning the citta'' to the famous 3 knowledges which are the insights into kamma, jayati and dukkha.
So like he said after remarking his failure to end dukkha, he started from scratch. For a puthujjana, starting from scratch means judging thoughts and sanna-vedana, because puthujjanas crave basing their life and actions on their thoughts and sanna-vedana. The biggest problem for puthujjanas is that they do not know what are meritorious thoughts and meritorious vedana-sanna, and the demeritorious thoughts and sanna-vedana.
SO starting from scratch means judging thoughts and sanna-vedana each hour of each day of each week of each month. That's really hard for most puthujjanas. THe citta who watches and judges  thoughts and sanna-vedana has the samadhi called the sati sampajaanna http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html
Even though he claimed that nekhamma and metta are good, he still failed to get the citta into samadhi, precisely because he still lusted towards the opposite of those  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.041.than.html
Failing to see the dangers of the aggregates is the way to never have the joy of the nekhamma, to have the mind afflicted by the aggregates, like the buddha explains to Nakulapita, in the Nakulapita Sutta

"And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is
  the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has
  regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma;
  who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in
  their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as
  possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is
  not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is
  not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does
  not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its
  change & alteration.
"He does not assume feeling to be the self...
"He does not assume perception to be the self...
"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...
"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as
  possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self
  as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am
  consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with
  these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change &
  alteration.
"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in
  mind."

It turns out that the good thoughts and sanna-devana are the thoughts of nekhamma and metta and the good sanna-vedana are whatever sanna-vedana there is in samma samadhi. When the citta is in samma samadhi, ''you make merit'', like puthujjanas say, and the ''contact'' generating the sanna-vedana are meritorious. [and then when there is a jayati, , it is in the higher realms and the contact is good].
 The other way to make merit outside samadhi is explained here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.057.than.html
Having right samadhi is good and since a puthujjana who trains to end dukkha has sati, this puthujjana has memorized that right samadhi is the way to slide towards nibanna,  viraga, nirodha , Patinissagga, the ending of the sankharas, of the asavas, of whatever stems from ignorance.
https://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.53.001-012.wood.pts.htm
This is what sotapannas  have to do to finish the path, because right samadhi means to see properly the dhammas [puthujjanas speculate on this by wondering whether dhammas here means ''phenomena or the teaching, but it is not important]
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.005.than.html

The Blessed One said: "Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated
  monk discerns in line with what has come into being. And what does he
  discern in line with what has come into being? The origination &
  disappearance of form. The origination & disappearance of feeling...
  perception... fabrications. The origination & disappearance of
  consciousness.

THe way for a sotapanna to reach anagamin is the first jhana

even so in the Ariyan disciple arises the flawless, taintless eye of
  wisdom,[12] and along with this arising three fetters are abandoned,
  to wit:
The view of the person-pack,[13] doubt-and-wavering and wrong handling
  of rite and ritual.
Nay more, he departs from two things, coveting and malevolence.
This disciple, aloof from sensual desires, aloof from unprofitable
  states, entering on the first musing, which is accompanied by thought
  directed and sustained, born of seclusion, zestful and easeful, dwells
  therein.
[222] At such time, monks, if the Ariyan disciple should make an end,
  there is no fetter bound by which he would come back again to this
  world.'[14]

Once you are good at getting the citta in samadhi, you can try anapanasati, because The result of anapanasati is always nibanna.
In terms of sankharas, anapanasati means the destruction of sankharas, and reaching viraga and all that. Before destroying the sankharas, you need to tranquilize them and before tranquilizing the sankharas, you need to be sensitive to the sankharas. So it always goes like this
**

be sensitive to sankharas --->calm the  sankharas--> destroy the
  sankharas

**

This is a terrible answer, both in being inflammatory and incorrect in multiple instances

It's better to post "constructive criticism (that guides the author in improving the post)", or to post an answer of your own, if you can.

The author appears intent on a sectarian agenda, and the inaccuracies are many... Where to begin?

@yuttadhammo Bhante, I would appreciate any correction to this post, because it really seems convincing to my ignorance. What are your main complains against this answer? Thanks for your time!

judge your thoughts and sanna and vedana I'm not sure how this can be seen as a valid description of Buddhist practice, judgment of sanna and vedana at least seems outright improper. the christian puthujjanas who develop the ''dry insight'' doctrine in the west this is a bizarre, inflammatory, and absolutely false claim. toxic words expressing their toxic ideas a strange way to characterize talk about Buddhist insights. meritorious vedana-sanna neither vedanā nor saññā are ethically charged states.

the ''contact'' generating the sanna-vedana are meritorious contact as well is not ethically charged. right samadhi means to see properly the dhammas it really doesn't. THe way for a sotapanna to reach anagamin is the first jhana it really isn't. The result of anapanasati is always nibanna another bizarre claim. anapanasati means the destruction of sankharas nope. It means mindfulness of breathing. it always goes like this: be sensitive to sankharas --->calm the sankharas--> destroy the sankharas maybe? Not all sankharas are to be destroyed, some like sati are to be cultivated.

@yuttadhammo - For what it's worth I'd agree that this is inflammatory, misleading and indicative of a sectarian agenda. I also find it judgemental, patronising, narrow-minded and distasteful.

Dear Nachtflug the way for a "sotapanna" to reach beyond sotapanna is to become a sotapanna first. This realization can make a huge difference.

2) Should "noting" meditation be used when doing samatha or jhāna meditation?

Noting is for dealing with hindrances. Refer to MN 19 & MN 20. Nothing is not for samatha & jhana.

3) (For those of you acquainted with the works of Upasaka Culadasa) Is the guide offered in The Mind Illuminated

Upasaka Culadasa's book is realistic when applied to the typical Westerner that hubristically pursues Buddhist meditation however his book is certainly not explaining Anapanasati (MN 118) as found in the suttas. I browsed the book and the tenth stage described in the book is basically the state of mind required to start Anapanasati.
I imagine Upasaka Culadasa's book is quite popular because students that follow the book imagine they are actually practising a path.

compatible with other Theravāda teachers' guides, such as those from Venerables Thanissaro, Brahm , Yuttadhammo, Mahasi Sayadaw, Ajahn Chah, Analayo and Goenka?

There is really little point in comparing modern "teachers" to the suttas because the primary goal of modern teachers is not teaching the Dhamma of the suttas but is inventing meditation techniques that appeal to common people. Of the above teachers, I would say only Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Chah teach meditation according to the suttas. The other "teachers" are just teaching mental exercises that keep people mentally pre-occupied.

I just bought this book and I like to know what to keep and what to ignore from it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with Culadasa's book for beginners to meditation; although it is often very  confusing and needed an editor to make it more orderly & readable. However, the major problems of the book are:

It does not describe Anapanasati as taught in MN 118.
It assumptions are too simplistic.
It jumps everywhere. For example, to following:

The defining challenge of this stage is finding a balance where there is neither gross distraction nor strong dullness. Subtler forms of
  distraction and dullness are tolerated and even useful at times.
  Another significant challenge is resisting the temptation to indulge
  in the powerful intellectual and emotional insights and visionary
  experiences that begin to arise at this stage. Invoking introspective
  awareness becomes a habit, and introspective awareness is what alerts
  the meditator to the presence of gross distraction and strong
  dullness. An increased vigorousness of intention to observe every
  detail of the meditation object raises the energy level of the mind to
  overcome strong dullness. Very closely observing the meditation
  object, but in a more relaxed way because by this time it has become
  quite familiar, overcomes gross distraction. The exercise of diligence
  overcomes the tendency to deviate from the practice.

The paragraph above contains a number of contradictions:

"Dullness" is often caused by "increased vigorousness of intention to observe every detail of the meditation object" therefore the later is often not a solution to the former.
"Vigorousness of intention" is the opposite of "in a more relaxed way".

The contradictions continue:

‘Striving for effortlessness’ is not a motivational type of
  activity, and it provides little basis for measurable progress and
  sense of satisfaction.

1) What is the best way, according to the suttas, to cultivate the mind in right attention and right samadhi?

The suttas say the best way is the noble eightfold path (Dhp 272), for which right view is the leader (MN 117). When right view (of the four noble truths) is the leader, this path makes the abandoning of craving (SN 56.11) or letting go (SN 48.10) the meditation object. The very end of MN 118 says right mindfulness relies on stopping craving (viraga & nirodha) and matures as letting go.
Upasaka Culadasa's book is realistic and prepares the reader for the hindances, including dullness. However, I did not read any compelling method for overcoming dullness & hindrances. The book appears to be: "Hang on for a bumpy ride and eventually it will miraculously work out".
The Buddhist path is basically one of learning to eradicate & abide free of defilements. A practitioner with the ability to abide free of defilements does not concern themselves with meditation techniques because the meditation objects (such as breathing, jhana, etc, arise automatically as objects of a pure consciousness).

Thank you for your detailed answer. Which book would you recommend (if possible, a book that follows the teachings of the suttas)? I read that in his book, Ajahn Brahm talks about nimitta. Is 'nimitta', as a meditation sign, taught in the EBTs?

Sutta is about eradicating unwholesome states and abiding in wholesome states. 'Nimitta' is another object & special effect that automatically arises. The suttas don't mention the nimitta because it is related to ekkagatta (one pointedness). The reason Ajahn Brahm teaches according to sutta is because he emphasises "letting go" as the path. The suttas emphasise "letting go" ('vossagga') as the path & object.

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


text:
Why is the Pali word 'sattānaṃ' in Dependent Origination plural?
In this previous question, I listed the results of my investigations into how each nidana (link) in dependent origination appears to be 'singular', except 'sankhara', which is plural.
The 'jati' ('birth') link also appears to be singular. However, what is unusual about it is the singular 'birth' that occurs appears to have 'plural' components. It is translated as follows by Bhikkhus Bodhi, Thanissaro & Sujato:

Katamā ca, bhikkhave, jāti (singular)? Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ (plural) tamhi tamhi sattanikāye (plural) jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ
  pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.
And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings (sattānaṃ) into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent, production,
  the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases.
  This is called birth. (Bodhi)
And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of
  [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings,
  that is called birth (Thanissaro).
The rebirth, inception, conception, reincarnation, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various
  sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings. (Sujato)

Now, each link of Dependent Origination appears to apply to the sense experience of an individual. Or, alternately, the Buddhaghosa interpretation over 3 lifetimes appears to be about the reincarnation of an individual.
This being so, why does 'birth' ('jati'), seemingly a singular process, seem to refer to the birth (yā jati) of multiple beings (sattānaṃ) into the multiple orders/groups of beings (sattanikāye)? Why is the plural Pali word 'sattānaṃ' contained in the definition of what appears to be a singular process called 'jati' ('birth') in Dependent Origination?

why does 'birth' ('jati'), seemingly a singular process, seem to refer to the multiple births of multiple beings into the multiple orders/groups of beings?

jāti is singular in the passage quoted, so it is not referring to multiple births. sattanikaye is also singular, so "in this or that group of beings".

Why is the plural Pali word 'sattānaṃ' contained in the definition of what appears to be a singular process called 'jati' ('birth') in Dependent Origination?

tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ is not an ordinary plural, the duplicated pronoun means "of these or those", so the whole phrase means "whatever birth (singular) in this or that being-group of these or those beings".
it were to mean "the multiple births of multiple beings" as you suggest, jāti would have to be plural, which it isn't; yā jāti refers to a singular birth.
The commentary to this clause says:

yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānan ti idaṃ “imesaṃ nāmā”ti niyamābhāvato sabbasattānaṃ pariyādānavacanaṃ.

Which I translated roughly as:

yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ: this phrase is the taking up completely of all beings, from not specifying "of these only"

In other words, it is used to make clear that birth is not specific to one or another group of beings, but refers to birth in any group of beings.
In summary, the entire phrase appears simply to be saying that birth refers to any of the many kinds of birth in any of the many groups of beings that exist.

Thank you for your answer Bhikkhu. Yes, "ya jati" is singular. I always knew this so I will modify the question slightly.

Avijjā and saṅkhāra of a past aggregates' rebirth cause a present aggregates' rebirth, present taṅhā&upādāna&kamma-bhava cause a future aggregates' rebirth. So, rebirth is singular is right.

It is "each being's rebirth of any beings in any being type".

It's similar to English "one of them go by bus". You can't say "one of him go by A bus".

Yā tesaṃ tesaṃ sattānaṃ (plural) tamhi tamhi sattanikāye (plural) jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho.
Each (yā) rebirth (jāti) of any (tesaṃ tesaṃ) beings (sattānaṃ) in any (taṃhi taṃhi) being type (sattanikāye) is jāti, sañjāti, okkanti, abhinibbatti (all is the synonym of rebirth), khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo (rebirth of viñnāna&nāma&rūpa in the dependent origination), āyatanānaṃ paṭilābho (the obtaining of saḷāyatanas in the dependent origination because of that rebirth).

I think the answer to his question is found in Wikipedia; however, since Buddhism has become distorted since the Buddha; the Wikipedia answer now falls under Hinduism:

Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ, Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities, and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
  Jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
  linguistic groupings may define some Jātis. A person's surname
  typically reflects a community (Jāti) association: thus Gandhi =
  perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc.
Wikipedia

Since MN 98 says all differences among human beings are merely "verbal designations" and since SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 say "a being" ('satta') is merely a "view" or "clinging", it appears obvious "birth" ("jati") in Dependent Origination refers to how a single mind gives birth to different views and categories of "people" or "beings".
Also, since the standard teaching of Dependent Origination (in SN 12.2) contains no teachings about "kamma" (such as found in AN 6.63), it is obvious Dependent Origination (in SN 12.2; unlike the dodgy DN 15) is not referring to physical birth as a "human", "god", "animal", "ghost", "hell being", etc.
In short, the reason why "jati" is singular yet "beings" are plural appears to be because "jati" refers to how the individual ignorant mind produces the various views & categories of "people", "beings" or "self-entites".
Examples of these produced "beings within categories of beings" include: good man, bad man, short man, tall man, good woman, bad woman, attractive woman, ugly woman, good monk, bad monks, obese monk, enlightened monk, etc. All of these specific individual beings and the categories or groups of beings they fall into are mind made; made from ignorance.
Note: Only one "being" is produced in each mind moment.
Thich Nhat Hanh provided a clear description of this, when he asked: "What do you call me without a pen?" Answer: "A monk". Then: "what do you call me when you see me drawing calligraphy with a paint brush?" Answer: "A calligrapher". The category of "being" called a "calligrapher" arises from the "appearance or manifestation" of aggregates (khandhānaṃ pātubhāvo) in a different way.

Interested in why you said, "unlike the dodgy DN 15". What do you find problematic in that sutta?

Hi Linda. Good to see you again. What is dodgy about DN 15? It only includes 9 conditions and only 8 conditions of DO are defined. Death is not defined. Jati is defined differently to the other suttas, which define birth, aging & death as pertaining to "beings in a class of beings". The word "beings" refer to self-views (SN 5.10; SN 23.2). DN 15 is not clear about this, whether birth is biological or whether it is a self-view. DN 15 does not refer to the six sense bases. DN 15 is obviously a later text, unlike SN 12.2 which redefines nama-rupa from the Sama Veda (early Chandogya Upanishad)...

.... DN 15 includes a definition of namarupa from the later Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Then DN 15 has the very strange & late concept of consciousness entering the mother's womb. The notion of consciousness entering a mothers womb is only found in few & obviously late suttas, such as MN 123 (Jataka style) and two DNs about entering mothers womb with or without sati-sampajana. Also, while DN 15 later refers explicitly to the consciousness of a boy or girl; it is actually uncertain what consciousness is entering the mother's womb because it could be the mother's consciousness descending into...

...her womb to name the rupa in her womb as "my child", "my boy", "my girl". Since DN 15 certainly contains supramundane teacings about delineating self-views, it is possible this is the meaning of consciousness entering the mother's womb, namely, the mother generating nama-rupa (per Brihadaranyaka Upanishad meaning) towards the child in her womb. But the use of mothter's womb (mātukucchismiṁ) in the Suttas seems to rule this out. Sujato wrote an excellent intro to the DN, where i recall he suggested either the lateness of the DN or otherwise its purpose to preach to, convert & debate Brahmins

The bottom line is namarupa has an Upanashadic definition & namarupa & consciousness are supposed to be mutual conditions for eachother. Yet in reality if the consciousness entering into the mother's womb is a disembodied consciousness from a past life than how does this explicitly condition the naming of forms (namarupa)? A translation says: "If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?" This idea is nonsense. Namarupa is defined as the naming of forms & obviously per MN 64 an embryo is not doing this in a womb.

Sujato's DN intro https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-long-discourses-dhamma-as-literature-and-compilation/11523

Thanks. I used to find DN 15 dodgy too, but then two things happened. First, I deconstructed Sn 4.11 ("Quarrels and Disputes") and therein found the Buddha describing DA as all about, well, quarrels and disputes, making it very close to what's being said in DN 15. (My paper on it is available elsewhere on the Net.) And second, I noticed that DN 15 -- in which the Buddha is talking just to his cousin and close companion Ananda -- uses the word pariyāya eighteen times. It gets glossed over in translations as "the way to explain" but it more literally means "figuratively".

I now perceive DN 15 as a transitional sutta, between Sn 4.11's rendering of DA with dukkha as arguments and violence, and the Buddha reframing the same lesson in terms of rebirth -- the Prajapati creation myth, the rituals based on it, and what comes after death. In DN 15 he tries to hammer into Ananda that he's speaking figuratively, not literally, about descent into the womb, etc.  Blog post on this here: https://justalittledust.com/blog/?p=1439

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does Sotapanna have the fear of death?
Does Sotapanna have the fear of death?
Recently I spoke to a monk about Sotapanna. He said the best test to understand whether someone is Sotapanna is to see whether he has fear of death.

Possibly related: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

This seems like a valid and straightforward question... I don't see it to be the same as the question linked by @chrisw The question here is simply whether a sotapanna fears death.

@yuttadhammo I don't think it's the same question (I'm not proposing to close this one), I only thought though that the topics might be related, e.g. distinguishing a deliberate and held view from a residual/habitual tendency, and "lust for existence".

There is nothing I know of about the qualities arising from sotapanna attainment that preclude the arising of fear of death. A sotapanna has eradicated wrong view of self, attachment to non-essential practices and vows, and doubt about the triple gem. Fear of death as a view would not arise I don't think, e.g. "death is fearsome", but as an emotional reaction to thoughts of death, there is no reason to think it couldn't possibly arise.  Fear, according to the Vism Maha-tika, is based on anger, which a sotapanna can still give rise to. Only an anagami is free from anger entirely.

Nakula's mother was said to be a stream-enterer, who appeared to not fear passing away (kālakiriyā; the ending of life).

Now it may be that you are thinking, 'Nakula's mother will not reach firm ground in this Doctrine & Discipline, will not attain a firm
  foothold, will not attain consolation, overcome her doubts, dispel her
  perplexity, reach fearlessness or gain independence from others with
  regard to the Teacher's message,' but you shouldn't see things in that
  way. To the extent that the Blessed One has white-clad householder
  female disciples who reach firm ground in this Doctrine & Discipline,
  attain a firm foothold, attain consolation, overcome their doubts,
  dispel their perplexity, reach fearlessness & gain independence from
  others with regard to the Teacher's message, I am one of them. If
  anyone doubts or denies this, let him go ask the Blessed One, the
  worthy one, the rightly self-awakened one who is staying among the
  Bhaggas in the Deer Park at Bhesakala Grove, near Crocodile Haunt. So
  don't be worried as you die, householder. Death is painful for one who
  is worried. The Blessed One has criticized being worried at the time
  of death."

The above said, I trust there are many who do not fear "death" ("marana"), who are not stream-enterers.
Australia's richest man, who was a gambler and who also ran wrong livelihood business of gambling, seemed to die without fear:

AWARE that he was near the end of his life, Kerry Packer, the Australian media tycoon, told doctors not to intervene and asked to be
  left to “die with dignity”, it emerged yesterday. Mr Packer refused
  treatment for his failing heart and kidneys, choosing to stay at home
  in his mansion in Sydney rather than be taken to hospital for further
  dialysis and medication. “I think his words were ‘This is my time’,”
  said Alan Jones, a broadcaster and friend, after visiting his family.

When I was 14 years old, I was very close to dying by drowning, but my mind had no fear, but i was not a stream-enterer. When I was about to die & lose consciousness, the only & last thought of my brain was my mother would get angry at me. I think this shows I feared my mother more than I feared death.

For those who fear growing old and death, what would be a well thought out response be? This is a question that cries out for a mature, seasoned response as scared of growing old is a nagging kind of a fear. It is not like the fear for one’s future, one’s financial situation, one’s separation from a loved one, of having a terrible accident. These are false fears that never will happen. But death is inevitable and the fear of it is very real when people are possessive of their bodies.
There’s this old gospel song, “When I'm growing old and feeble, When the storms of life are raging, Stand by me”. Also, the key anthem of the Civil Rights Movement - the song "We Will Overcome" comes to mind. Unlike praying for this, or hoping for such, we can look to the scriptures for some advice as to what concrete steps that we can take to get rid of this nagging fear. The Buddha says there are four reasons why death scares us, as us in fear. First is attachment to the body. Second is attachment to sensual pleasures. Third is the knowledge that we’ve done cruel and horrible things to other people, to other beings, and fear that after death we’re going to be punished for it. And the fourth reason is not having seen the true Dhamma, having doubts about the true Dhamma. If we are to learn to overcome these four causes of fear, death won’t bring suffering. If we are to learn to deal with our fear of death so that it won’t freak us out, we must see these four points in ourselves. A Sotapanna is one such.
Even death is not to be feared by a Sotapanna. A Sotapanna (Stream Entrant) is not capable of doing any acts that could destine oneself to the apayas (the four lowest realms). The Sotapanna stage is attained purely via attaining Samma Ditthi.
In Angutthara Nikaya - AN.4.116 Buddha says that there is no fear of death when immorality is abandoned, and morality is developed. “When a bhikkhu has abandoned bodily misconduct and developed bodily good conduct, when he has abandoned verbal misconduct and developed verbal good conduct, when he has abandoned mental misconduct and developed mental good conduct, when he has abandoned wrong view and developed right view, then he doesn't fear death in his next life.”
Again in Angutthara Nikaya AN4.184 (Abhaya Sutta: Fearless) Buddha teaches us that we will have no fear if we attain “certainty with regard to the True Dhamma” and teaches us four types of people who do not feel fear — and how we can be like them. ("These, brahman, are four people who, subject to death, are not afraid or in terror of death.")

Sotapanna still has the attachment to sensual pleasures. so he may have fear of death.

The Nakhasikha Sutta (S.N.), describes the unimaginably large amount of defilements (and thus future suffering and stress) that a Sotapanna has removed compared to a normal human being. It is compared to the bit of dust on his fingernail compared to the soil in the whole Earth. Thus even if s/he has attachment to sensual pleasures, and will never be reborn in the four lowest realms, s/he will have only seven future bhava left, and those in the human realm or the realms above it.

I am answering this with most respect to the Monk you had conversation with.  Hey might have spoken from personal experience which may not be entirely correct (as we all).  Only Buddha has that quality.  I think some Sotapanna may or may not fear death.  Buddha was the only one who could say things with absolute certainty because he was mindful of every word he said.  As far as I know, Buddha did not use fear of death as a measuring tool to evaluate your own accomplishment.
Example: Mahanama sutta, when Mahanama Sakaya was contemplating death and was uncertain of his destination after death. He later shared his weariness with Buddha, which Buddha responded with "Have no fear, Mahanama! Have no fear! Your death will not be a bad one.."
and if you look at upadanaparitassananca sutta, only those without Upadana have no fear of anything.
my understanding:
upadanaparitassananca = upadana (clinging) + paritassana (worry, excitement, fear)
anupadanaaparitassananca = anupadana (non-clinging) + aritassananca (no worries, no excitement, no fear)
Upadanaparitassananca sutta
only those without clinging (to 5 skandas) have no fear of anything.
Mahanama Sutta

Only an arihath will have no fear of death. A sothapanna can intalectualize the fact that he/she is never going to hell after death and as a result not worry about it. But he/she will be attached to many things and will fear loosing them at death.

Nyom SarathW, and interested,
To answer short: No. One having been arrived at the Dhamma does not fear death, as for what actually dies?
As Yuttadhamma Bhikkhu possible desired to state in his answer is that there might be short confused moments where one might experiences certain "emotions" (with can be not ecxlusively traced back to "anger", but are all rooted in "thist") arising.
Having one freed of macchariya (stinginess/"holding firm on occupied") there is less till no ground for what one usually calles "fear of death", jet certain pain might be feared, unpromted.
In any case a Dhammika would/does not have such thought arrising when in the moments of letting the current body behind. He/she might leave the realm confused but open and destinated to be reminded in the following existence.
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought to be used for any usually trade, exchange, stackes and possible needs to be deleted if the place is not given therefore here]

Sotapanna is in the transition period and he/she is not free from the effects of negative mind states except impermanent good mind states. Only when the transition from Sotapanna to Sakadagami happens, their continous awareness  makes the weak negative mind states harmless for them.

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


text:
Do all words belong to conventional truth (Sammuti Sacca)?

"Sanketa vacanam saccam - loka sammuti karanam
  Paramattha vacanam saccam - dhammanam tathalakkhanam"

According to the above quote, all the words (cenventional truth) made by living beings using any language considered as truth because they are enacted by living beings.
We use words to mention ultimate truth. For example when we say "Nibbana", the real dhamma or actual Nibbana exists but the word "Nibbana" has been enacted. The actual dhamma and the word used to refer it are two different things. The word may not contain the actual characteristics inherent to Nibbana. I suppose Shakyamuni Tatagata Lord Buddha used many words to explain ultimate truth (Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana) because of this reason.
So my question is: Does the word "Nibbana" (as well as the other words used to mention ultimate truth) belong to the conventional truth while only the actual dhamma belong to the ultimate truth?

I'd say yes, words are always conventional and cannot describe truth. We can follow Lao Tsu's advice and speak in a seemingly contradictory way but while this may allow us to speak rigorously our expressions are still conventional. It would remains the case that truth is beyond conceptual or linguistic fabrication. We can say, with Heraclitus, 'we are and are-not' but this 'two truth' approach is still in the realm of convention and not an expression of ultimate truth. So I'd say the answer to your question is yes.

There is both a conventional truth/meaning and a higher truth/meaning to every key word in Buddha Dhamma. Nirvana is the incorrect usage of the word. The true word is Nibbana. It’s higher meaning is clipping at the roots the three Bana’s - rāga, dōsa, Mōha.   “rāgakkhayo Nibbānan, dōsakkhayō Nibbānan, Mōhakkhayō Nibbānan”  Thus cleansing our minds is the only way to Nibbāna.

All words are like sign posts. The meaning of it is an idea that is in the mind of the person who is speaking it. And the communication will take place if the person who hears it has assigned the same meaning to the word in his/her mind.
Therefore the shared meaning has to be previously agreed upon or communication will not be very effective. As a result it is extremely difficult to communicate an idea (ex: enlightenment/dhamma) when the receiver has no data points to relate to. They become merely words.
So yes, the words don't have the properties of what they refer to. For example Alan Watts once said that "You can't get wet from the word 'water.'".


text:
Is Buddhism a religion without God?
In a recent article titled "America’s New Religions
" which is concerned with political fundamentalism, the respected American journalist Andrew Sullivan  makes a passing remark that "Buddhism’s genius is that it is a religion without God". How appropriate is that statement?
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/andrew-sullivan-americas-new-religions.html

This question or one like it has been answered before -- see e.g. Is Buddhism a religion?, Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?, Does God exist in Buddhism?, and other questions about God.

I feel this is unanswerable without a definition of 'religion'.

I think it's more a comment about other religions than about Buddhism, i.e. it's saying that:

Some people find other religions unsatisfactory
Part of that dissatisfaction is with religions' doctrines about God

As an aside I think that some of the same people may disparage, resist, or ignore elements of Buddhism which say seem supernatural or requiring faith, including e.g. rebirth, karma, psychic powers, other realms.
Some people find a lack of religion unsatisfactory too, e.g.  that might imply immorality or what people disparage as moral relativism, and various other missing doctrines.
Conversely I don't think it's especially Buddhism's being without God that is its genius -- I think it's its being beneficial, practical, perhaps humanistic, offering hope, and so on.
Actually maybe "hope" isn't a standard Buddhist doctrine (i.e. "faith, hope, and charity" are overtly Christian, rather, and part of Buddhism may be to lose unwarranted hope in the wrong sort of thing, to become disenchanted) -- instead Buddhism might say something more like this about its own doctrine, i.e. that it is "visible in this life", "timeless", "conducive (to the cessation of suffering)", and "for the wise to know for themselves".
Of course that's not the only thing that Buddhism (e.g the Buddha) says about the Dhamma, e.g. another formula (i.e. description of it) is "good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end" (see also e.g. this answer).

From AN11.12 we have:

You should develop this recollection of the deities while walking, standing, sitting, lying down, while engaged in work, and while at home with your children.

The above was spoken to a poly-theistic culture 2500+ years ago. And preceding that statement we have:

When a noble disciple recollects the faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom of both themselves and the deities their mind is not full of greed, hate, and delusion

Note the qualities mentioned: faith, ethics, learning, generosity and wisdom. These are qualities with self-less tendencies upheld by many global religions. The suttas also emphasize a teaching that is:

realizable in this very life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that sensible people can know them for themselves

As such, the Early Buddhist Texts (EBT) suttas are quite compatible with many global religions. Oddly they also apply to atheists who have zero deities. One may need to substitute God for deities, however that substitution of interpretation does not really change what is taught: faith, ethics, learning, generosity, and wisdom. One might, for example, study Buddhism to strengthen a Christian faith in God.
Where things get a bit tricky is with discussions of souls. When discussing souls, we leave the domain of immediate effectiveness that characterizes many of the suttas and head deep into personal experience and faith. In such discourse there will always be argument. In Buddhism, identity view is a fetter. And yet we have saints being un-self-ish. How are these different?

Buddha didn’t say, “There are no gods.” Gods exist because of their past karma.
But Buddhism does not teach that “there is a god who is eternal” and he can give you eternal life.
Buddha taught that you are the only one who can be born in a god realm or achieve Nirvana. Buddha is here just to teach you that path.
So, God doesn’t decide your life, you decide your life.


text:
About mental diseases and kamma
This question is built on top of another questions asked in this site (not all by me).
Based of these premises:
1) Kamma is not the only phenomena/process responsible for the current condition of beings. There are other processes apart from those borned from anthropologic interactions or from any kind of will/intention (e.g. weather conditions, geological events, biological diseases, etc.), which can affect our lives and states.
2) I heard from one user that ghost and other 'paranormal' entities (let's assume for a moment that they exist, and let's just consider what the suttas tell us) can control other's minds. And even if is not "the person itself" the one doing an action, the kamma will be ripen for that person eventually (and I insist, even if that person didn't have the intention of doing an unwholesome deed)
And the question: for those who believe in literal rebirth (i.e. the continuation of certain mind states and kammic seeds from one life to another after the break up of the body), what do you think it happens after biological death to those whose brains begin to malfunction as a product of some biological conditions or fortuitous event, such as a tumour, dementia or a lightning striking on someones head?
What if those persons begin acting impulsively and heedlessly, even if before those misfortunes they had completely normal -or even wise- behavior? Will they rebirth in hell or something like that?
Thanks in beforehand for your time and patience!

I knew someone who was diagnosed as psychotic for most of her adult life. Psychiatric medicines were semi-effective in her case (so the psychiatrist called her "one of the lucky ones"), so apparently the symptoms were brain-related -- even if etiology is too complicated i.e. physical and environmental.
A couple of comments based on that...
It took years before finding how to get medical treatment, because she was never "an imminent danger to self or others" which is the usual legal requirement for imposing medical treatment. I interpret that as evidence that her intentions toward others were invariably or mostly kindly, even when her thinking was very confused (disordered in form and content). To the extent that "kamma is intention", I think that counts for a lot.
She expected to be reborn; but she didn't say where nor for how long.

MN 57 says something about being reborn as an animal -- given her great sympathy for ("mind of goodwill towards") animals, perhaps that (rebirth in the animal realm) is a possibility.
Conversely her "sins", such as those ever were, were all too human -- perhaps that means a human rebirth.
Perhaps she visited other realms (brahma- and otherwise) "in this life", experienced "paranormal entities" -- to that extent perhaps she developed some equanimity about future experiences.

There was also this video, in case that's relevent -- Ask A Monk: Karma in a Holocaust -- which explains that because of "kamma" different people have different experiences of the same event.

A small incorrect assumption you have made is that brain somehow is storing kammic seeds or even memories or even responsible entirely for proclivities of a human. It's not entirely true. If you go through current alt-scientific literature, (just to give you an analogy), brain is more like a remote control, not the controller itself.
...such as a tumour, dementia or a lightning striking on someones head? What if those persons begin acting impulsively and heedlessly, even if before those misfortunes they had completely normal -or even wise- behavior? Will they rebirth in hell or something like that?
What happens after biological death is that those kammaic seeds which have deepest sankaras will determine the next rebirth.
If a mentally ill person for an example say commits a murder, it will not be a bad kamma on his part because as the Buddha repeatedly says kamma largely depends on 'intention'. A mentally challenged wont have a bad intention while killing. It will just be an accident on part of the victim. No hard feelings.
So they wont be rebirth in hell. Whatever kammic seeds at time of death will determine the next birth.
Consider it like a mathematical surface with 'intentions' as 'dimensions' and 'actions' as 'magnitude' of vector and the 'self' as a 'position vector'.
With no intentions, actions will not contribute to magnitude of the vector.
When the body dies, whatever resultant that vector has produced it will go fit in similar mathematical surfaces in the spaces of Consciousness.

Thanks for your answer. I disagree on the example of murderer and the mental disease. When affected by such illnesses, all the brain is rewired to adapt to its new chemical and biological situation. It's not like "he" is being controlled by someone else; "he" is doing the act for a reason of "his" own.

There was a famous medical case a few years ago where a person had a brain tumour which induced pedophile behavior and thoughts. There was no separation between the tumour and the person; the tumour was part of that person. It was "his" intention. After surgery, his behavior changed drastically, and according to him, he no long had sexual desire for children. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/a-40-year-old-developed-an-obsession-with-child-pornography-then-doctors-discovered-why-a6893756.html

@BrianDíazFlores In national criminal law, for what that's worth, people can be judged not guilty e.g. because they didn't know that what they did was "wrong", or didn't know what they were doing, etc.

@ChrisW Thanks for your answer. Yeah, I understand that too, and deeply agree with its underlying philosophical argument. But those matters are issues of the conventional world, of society. The law seems to be making the distinction between 'the person' and the 'disease', when in fact those bounderies are non-existent. Empirical data shows us that if the brain is affected, the mind will be affected as well, and intentions are part of the mind too. That difference between what biological processes are part of the self, and what are not, in artificial and conventional.

@BrianDíazFlores as I said,'just to give you an analogy'... its a very fuzzy area at the moment to conclude how much is actually controlled by neurons in brain and the chemicals.

@BrianDíazFlores I am not saying "he" is controlled by somebody else. I am saying "intentions" have a major role to play in karma....the intentions of a mentally challenged person are in question....is he having evil intentions of anger or illwill while murder or is "he" just out of his mind...

@BrianDíazFlores also, yes tumors in brain affect behaviour as explained by ChrisW...but the kamm8c seeds are not stored in brain....so your example of lightening strike was under incorrect assumption...

@BrianDíazFlores   The first part of my answer was for different reason, altough I respect your disagreement I hold that neural circuitary in brain is not controlling anything...even when you consider that tumor case...as I said it is a very fuzzy area ...the second part is the important bit about kamma and rebirth....its about "intentions".

@XIkkyuX I think that a distinction between "inner emotions" and emotion caused by someone being "out of his/her mind" is artificial and conventional. Maybe this reasoning is beyond the ortodox theravāda doctrine, but I think 'beings' are cannot be defined or delimited. There are way too many factors that play a role in determining how we behave and how we experience the world. That being said, I agree with the Buddha's statement that intention is the most important factor when studying the inner consequences of our deeds.

@BrianDíazFlores there was a semantic error...'by 'out of his mind' I meant not in a right frame of mind to judge between good or bad...yes u are right in saying...there are way too many factors involved.

Please do understand that every human has a physical brain and a mind. According to Buddhism the physical brain dies every time we end our current life. However, the mind continues its energy (Caring Khamma seeds)  base on the good and bad added on to it in each life during your endless lifetimes. One main Khamma seed decide your next life.
In the case of sudden death or death during an operation or a person in coma the person does not have consciousness to control the mind.
During sudden death – No time to think and you will not know anything -Lightning strike
Death during an unconcise situation – your Physical brain and mind is disconnected temporary that’s the only reason you can’t feel or remember anything happen during this time.
This type of death is somewhat dangerous to a person who practice Buddhism or live a good mindful life. On the other hand, a person who practice Buddhism correctly or live a good mindful face this type of situations rarely.
LOGIC
When you are unconcise the mind is still active and however you have no control over it or no feelings as it’s disconnected from Physical brain. Therefore,  one of the Main Khamma seeds form millions of Khamma seeds stored in your mind automatically gets  activated without your consent (You have no control) and decides your next birth.


text:
Why can't we reason or logic our way to NIrvana?
I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason. ONLY meditation is the way. Why is that so? thanks in advance.

You might like to check out the view for which meditation IS enlightenment. For instance -  https://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-z-cohen/meditation-is-a-metaphor-for-enlightenment_b_1112021.html

really good question. i'd be surprised if it never came up in the history of buddhism

@PeterJ That's a bit like this answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/192/254

@ChrisW - Yes. A useful link.

Because all logics included in 62 ditthi already. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

Let's take it like this. Process (Sequence of Citta Veeti) used for reasoning = bicycle. Process (Sequence of Citta Veeti) appear in insight meditation = space shuttle. Nibbana = moon. Will you be able to reach the moon by a bicycle? Or do you need a space shuttle? Note: Most appropriate simile is Rocket not Space shuttle. Because the journey is one way.

I have read at various places that Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason.
I think that's two questions: 1) described, 2) reached.
I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving -- not just a temporary pause or lull, but uprooting the "tendencies" and "effluents" which result in the arising of craving -- so changing or undoing habits (if craving is a kind of habit, and results from habits, etc.).
And you can't do something, or accomplish something ("reach" something), just by thinking about it -- you have to do it!
I suppose that's true of everything -- mundane things too not only Nirvana -- e.g. you can't learn to play piano or guitar just by thinking about: you'd have to do it, practice it.
Maybe that's true even of describing something -- I can't describe playing guitar or piano, nor even describe hearing piano or guitar  -- i.e. you'd have to actually do it yourself, play it or hear it, to know it for yourself.

"I think Nirvana is defined as being the end of craving" --  Sir, In my humble opinion and according to my knowledge and understanding, this is not true. Craving will be uprooted as an effect of attaining Nibbana. Nibbana is an ultimate truth which has been the object for 8 supermundane consciousness. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

"There's a case when a bhikkhu attains tranquility based on insight, and there's a case when a bhikkhu attains insight based on tranquility" - said in the sutta. Tranquility is end of craving. Insight is seeing the truth. In practice, tranquility and insight develop together step-by-step, I think.

@Damith Perhaps you're saying that Nibbana is more than the uprooting of craving. I think it's at least the complete uprooting/extinguishment of craving -- and that that doesn't happen only by "logic and reason" and without meditation. I'm not familiar with the Eight Consciousnesses model, which Wikipedia says is "the Yogācāra school of Mahayana Buddhism", only the Pali suttas.

Great question!
It is possible to use logic to arrive at a conviction of the truth of the dhamma, as Nagarjuna demonstrates and others such as Francis Bradley, Spencer Brown and (ahem) me. But this is map-reading. You can read a thousand books about fire and not know what it feels like to be burnt.
So while logic and reason are useful and trustworthy they are not a carriage that will carry us to Heaven. The Old Testament tale of the Tower of Babel is a teaching story.
Reason and logic applied to metaphysical questions must work by abduction, by the elimination of unworkable views. This means that metaphysical analysis can be a valuable guardian against error, as Aurobindo characterises it, but while it can proscribe truth by ruling out false views it cannot reveal truth or give it meaning for us. Revelation requires burning the maps and undertaking the journey.
It is much the same in physics. Most interpretative theories can be ruled out on the basis of analysis but no theory is provably 'true'. Reason and logic produce theories and having a theory of the existence of a holiday resort is not the same as going on holiday.
Meditation is necessary because truth outruns the intellect and cannot be discovered intellectually. For Mahayana the true nature of reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication and the categories of thought, so no amount of thought is able to take us there. As all the teachers say...
“Man can partake of the Perpetual. He does not do this by thinking he can think about it.”
Jan-I-Janan
Sentences of the Khajagan

Nirvana can't be described or reached by logic or reason

Logic and reason are functions of the intellect-mind. Nirvana is beyond the intellect-mind.
What is the intellect-mind? The mind that works on and understands mathematics. The mind constructs the equations, then goes on verifying the left and right sides between the "=" are equal; then designs experiments to prove the equations. In brief, intellect-mind is a self-sustaining system, it goes in a loop of generating hypothesis then re-assumed the hypothesis to evidences, that become facts - which condensed and constructed the world. Say, the stone is solid and heavy. But to generate the stone is solid and heavy - the phenomena, it requires the intellect-mind to recognize the concept of stone, then recalls the attributes of the stone; then the physical body, sensory system and brain, etc., of the human will response to the totality of it, by not able to lift it, or not able to walk pass if it is blocking the road...

ONLY meditation is the way

No. Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana. Those meditation teachers if telling you Nirvana is by reaching certain grade of Jhana, or certain Vipassana, they are just selling you a consumer product with catchy marketing slogan.
Even Vipaśyanā requires getting beyond the intellect-mind. Don't confuse it with the marketed "Vipassana" of Mr. Goenka's or many meditation "teachers", just like a motel with the neon sign "Paradise" doesn't mean it the Paradise. The Buddha's Vipaśyanā is about reaching high level Dhyana, where the sensory inputs are all cut off, the intellect-mind is surpassed, by then insight, the vipaśyanā, can operate.
Therefore intellect-mind is the mind of reason and logic, it is the mind we most familiar with, we use it all the time. No matter how intelligent one owns her/his intellect-mind, how high the IQ score, it doesn't give a slightest edge to this type of person for reaching Nirvana. Though being intelligent is a remarkable gift. Nirvana is removed from reason and logic.

While the less fluid mindset may easily misinterpret the above demoting the unique gift of human intelligence - logic and reason, how it contributes to modern scientific and technological achievements, it is misreading the meaning of this post. Hellenistic civilization after shaped by Aristotle is dominated by seeking analytical/empirical knowledge procured by the intellect. But it is not the totality of the mind. The mind is more mysterious contained much richer facets: such as how a maths genius conceived numbers.

Why Meditation cannot bring one to Nirvana?
Errr... often too advance an answer is not easy to comprehend :)))
I assumed most Buddhists understand that Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. Apparently it's not the case.
a) The Buddha himself said so and demonstrated it, in the very beginning of his search. Let's go back to Chapter One -
The young Gautama became an ascetic first learnt from Ārāḍa Kālāma, whose specialty was dwelling in the "Sphere of Nothingness" which he regarded was Nirvana - the 7th Dhyana. After acquired the skill and dwelt in it Gautama immediately knew it was not.
He then learnt under Udraka Ramaputra, specialized in dwelling in the "Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception" - the 8th Dhyana. He thought that was Nirvana. After training 3 years Gautama skilled in it, but, to his disappointment, it was still not. He found there still subtle and fine "perception/consciousness" remained. And, when the power of Samadhi subsided, the practitioner would still fall back to the cycle of birth-death.1
b) If still not enough to convince, let's look at Buddha's unique discovery - the 9th Dhyana.
The 9th Dhyana is called Nirodha Samapatti (想受滅定), meaning, cessation of thinking and perception. Practitioner entering this Dhyana is virtually dead, read the description of it in the Vinaya (probably not available in Pali text) about Utpalavarṇa and the 500 cow-robbers. Entering this Dhyana one loses her/his autonomy, say, if someone has destroyed her/his body, s/he wouldn't be awaken to stop it. S/he couldn't emerge from this Samadhi without a skillful one "called" her/him. Usually practitioner needs to give her/himself a hint before entering, so that s/he can emerge from it in time. From these characteristics, it hardly can be associated with Nirvana.
c) Nirvana is like someone who removed the headgear and exited from the AR game. Meditation is just the pause in the game, which allows the player to take a break, returns to her/his senses that s/he is just in the game. But to be released from the game, one needs to disengage in it. This analogy also gives better understanding to my two beginning paragraphs.
Or, meditation is like washing a broken dish, it can clean it to see the fracture more clearly, but it can't mend the crack. The Buddha said, the unenlightened's life is with effluence, only an Arhat has ceased the effluence.
footnotes
1. 《佛本行集經》: 「仁者此法不能究竟解脫 (cannot reach ultimate liberation)... 大涅槃 (great Nirvana)。此法還入於生死 (this method still enters back into birth-death；所以者何？既生非想非非想處 (after born in the Sphere of neither Perception nor Non-perception)，報盡還入於生死 (when the effect subsides, [one] still enters into birth-death)。」

Why did you say meditation cannot bring us to nibbana? It is by medition that one results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise.

Yes, I found this an odd remark. Perhaps it needs a little explanation.

You can't be "letting go of all ignorance", like darkness can't be letting go to make disappear. Ignorance will not arise again if removed, just like if you've learnt calculus, you will not be ignorant to calculus again. The Buddhist doctrines are too subtle and profound I'm afraid too many pretenders ("teachers") giving incorrect interpretations. The Buddha himself said Nirvana cannot be realized by meditation. If it could, Gautama didn't need to search the Path for 6 years. The source you relied (Pali) is too limited. I've tried editing my post to give more info @Val + PeterJ

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

@Mishu米殊 - I would be keen to further understand the context of the Vipaśyanā and achieving such as state.

The simplest way (but really very hard) of vipaśyanā is in practicing ānāpānasmṛti by approx. reaching beyond the 3rd stage (not the Theravadin 16 stages)... @Motivated.

@Mishu米殊 - I'm aware of breathing meditation however i am unclear how it differs to a constant meditative state.

Do you read the link @Motivated? What do you mean a constant meditative state? As I understand, normally practitioner cannot even enter the meditative state, not to say "constant". What stage of breathing med. you've arrived at?

@Mishu米殊 - Could we possibly chat (https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/88675/buddhist-enlightenment)?

In the book chapter entitled "Boiling and the Leidenfrost Effect" (an excerpt is quoted below), physicist Jearl Walker discussed the Leidenfrost Effect and explained how it may protect a firewalker from burns to the feet.
Eventhough logic and the scientific method had led him to have complete conviction in physics, he still had sweaty feet and had to clutch a physics textbook to bolster his faith in physics, while demonstrating the effect himself.
Similarly, logic may give you conviction in Buddhism, but logic may not free you from suffering.

The Leidenfrost effect may also play a role in another foolhardy
  demonstration: walking over hot coals. At times the news media have
  carried reports of a performer striding over red-hot coals with much
  hoopla and mystic nonsense, perhaps claiming that protection from a
  bad burn is afforded by ‘‘mind over matter.’’ Actually, physics
  protects the feet when the walk is successful. Particularly important
  is the fact that although the surface of the coals is quite hot, it
  contains surprisingly little energy. If the performer walks at a
  moderate pace, a footfall is so brief that the foot conducts little
  energy from the coals. Of course, a slower walk invites a burn because
  the longer contact allows energy to be conducted to the foot from the
  interior of the coals.
If the feet are wet prior to the walk, the liquid might also help
  protect them. To wet the feet a performer might walk over wet grass
  just before reaching the hot coals. Instead, the feet might just be
  sweaty because of the heat from the coals or the excitement of the
  performance. Once the performer is on the coals, some of the heat
  vaporizes the liquid on the feet, leaving less energy to be conducted
  to the flesh. In addition, there may be points of contact where the
  liquid undergoes film boiling, thereby providing brief protection from
  the coals.
I have walked over hot coals on five occasions. For four of the walks
  I was fearful enough that my feet were sweaty. However, on the fifth
  walk I took my safety so much for granted that my feet were dry. The
  burns I suffered then were extensive and terribly painful. My feet did
  not heal for weeks.
My failure may have been due to a lack of film boiling on the feet,
  but I had also neglected an additional safety factor. On the other
  days I had taken the precaution of clutching an early edition of
  Fundamentals of Physics to my chest during the walks so as to bolster
  my belief in physics. Alas, I forgot the book on the day when I was so
  badly burned.
I have long argued that degree-granting programs should employ
  ‘‘fire-walking’’ as a last exam. The chair- person of the program
  should wait on the far side of a bed of red-hot coals while a degree
  candidate is forced to walk over the coals. If the candidate’s belief
  in physics is strong enough that the feet are left undamaged, the
  chairperson hands the candidate a graduation certificate. The test
  would be more revealing than traditional final exams.

Nirvana or enlightenment can't be reached by logic because enlightenment is inside us, within us, and not outside.

Its simple Nirvana is a state that you mentally realize .You can be convinced by it intellectually but it requires that you go through a transformation ,when that transformation occurs you will mentally realize it.Its like being able to see when you where blind.
A man once came to Buddha and told him I want happiness .Buddha replied first remove the I thats ego then remove want thats desire ,then all what remains is happiness the quality itself :).The quality is in-explainable like the beauty of a flower , the greatness of a mountain or the depth of sadness.
So Nirvana is simply recognizing the quality of your receptions in this moment whatever they are done by desire-less intention and diligence till there is nothing else but the quality......You can be convinced by this statement intellectually but taking it as instruction for your meditation and everyday life can lead you to mentally realize it.

Well reason, inferences, logic and all that are not knowledge. Only a few puthujjanas claim that there is such a thing as ''intellectual knowledge'' or ''intellectual understanding''.
Those puthujjanas qualify themselves of rationalist. In fact any puthujjana is a rationalist or an intellectual or a philosopher. This is what is natural for a puthujjana.
They claim that truth is reached through debate or truth is reached through inferences of some axioms through some rules of inferences that they themselves invented.
For those people, truth is a quality of a statement: a statement is true, like a banana is ripe or yellow and a true statement means that the statement ''accurately describes'' some event or experience.
All those inferences are fantasies and Those puthujjanas know that they are at sea among all those fantasies that they create.
Those puthujjanas still try to create a way to discriminate among the fantasies that they create: today the most famous discrimination is the one of the scientist where some statement is inferred either form a previous ''proved'' statement or from ''statistical evidence''.
This is for the puhujjana who is a ''secular rationalist''. For the religious puthujjana who is a rationalist, ''reason'' is the way to understand their gods [like the christians] and morality.
Typically, the ''secular rationalists'' claim that the ''inferences'' of the ''religious rationalists'' are fantasies (because ''not grounded in reality'') and that only the ''inferences'' of the ''secular rationalists'' ''make sense''.
Of course those puthujjanas are completely wrong. Truths are not how good a statement describe reality. Truth is at best an event and in terms of event, that's what stops you from ''searching truth'', meaning what appeases you,  which precisely means nibanna.
That's called dhammakaya.
So in terms of knowledge, there is only ''direct knowledge'' (in opposition to ''intellectual knowledge'' whose existence that puthujjanas crave so much, but which really does not exist, no matter what logician, philosophers, intellectuals and other ''pragmatic people'' claim) and the task is to know directly dukkha, the origin of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha.
It turns out that knowing directly anicca, anatta, origin of vedana, cessation of sanna and all that requires a calm citta, which is called ''a citta which has samadhi'' and also sati.
THis is why a non-puthujjana can reach the destination of the path while the citta is in samadhi, since non-puthujjanas know already what to look for.
Puthujjanas must memorize the word of the buddha and get their citta into samadhi. And to get the citta into samadhi, what is required is to judge your thoughts as either thoughts of illwill and lust and thoughts of good will and renuncitation and follow only those latter.
Here are plenty of dualities to contemplate and make you an arhant or once returner.

For the sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.’
  Which duality are you speaking about? ‘This is stress. This is the
  origination of stress’: This is one contemplation. ‘This is the
  cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the
  cessation of stress’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk
  rightly contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, &
  resolute—one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right
  here-&-now, or—if there be any remnant of
  clinging-sustenance—non-return.”
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One
  Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:
“Those who don’t discern stress,
what brings stress into play,
& where it totally stops,
without trace;
who don’t know the path,
the way to the stilling of stress:
lowly
in their awareness-release
& discernment-release,
incapable
of making an end,
they’re headed
to birth & aging.
But those who discern stress,
what brings stress into play,
& where it totally stops,
without trace;
who discern the path,
the way to the stilling of stress:
consummate
in their awareness-release
& discernment-release,
capable
of making an end,
they aren’t headed
to birth & aging.1

here is another one

“Now, if there are any who ask, ‘Would there be the right
  contemplation of dualities in yet another way?’ they should be told,
  ‘There would.’ How would that be? ‘Whatever is considered as “This is
  bliss” by the world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this
  generation with its contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty &
  commonfolk, is rightly seen as it has come to be with right
  discernment by the noble ones as “This is stressful”’: This is one
  contemplation. ‘Whatever is considered as “This is stressful” by the
  world with its devas, Māras, & Brahmās, by this generation with its
  contemplatives & brahmans, its royalty & commonfolk, is rightly seen
  as it has come to be with right discernment by the noble ones as “This
  is bliss”’: This is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly
  contemplating this duality in this way—heedful, ardent, & resolute—one
  of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here-&-now, or—if
  there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance—non-return.”

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/StNp/StNp3_12.html

It is with meditation that results in seeing clearly. Seeing clearly (vipassana) non-self & impermanence, one gets diapassioned. Getting dispassioned, one lets go. This is precisely the reason why one cannot reason out one's way to nibbana because nibbana is not something to acquire, but it is the letting go of all ignorance which doesn't happen by just intellectually understanding certain teachings, but by understanding plus practise. With intellectual knowledge the causes & conditions are still in place for ignorance to arise

Dr. Dev Pradhan – Intellectually we have wandered too much, The simple question was, Why can't we reason or logic our way to NIrvana?, needs at first instance the same way of answer. When asking by group., as we, its simple answer is that Nirwana is void of any kind self of any group or individual. Hence there you can not use I, you or we.  Its very appearance is possible only with the alignment of understanding of ANATTA. Where you have to drop I you and we with the realization of not only DUKKHA, nor ANICCHA, but  ANATTA, means no self.There you have to drop thinking, mind, and logic also. You remain only in a state of experience of universe. Buddha already said do not reveal para human things to laymen. Scientist are spell bound about universe, and at a loss to know even black holes. Our state of mind is like that. We with out the guided  path try to explore universe. This is what happening with us. When you want to know universe you have to leave earth planet. Without leaving earth if you want to know universe it won't be real experience. Hence if you want to know Nibban you need to learn how to drop the self to view the window of nirwana. After the dives of eight times and fully acquainted, then you will be able to reach the height of NIBBANA. That's why throughout the world people become Bhikkus. It needs practice of nine stages, along with the armor of SILA SAMADHI, PAYYAA. And this only can be explored by individual Buddha, Bodhisatwa, or Arhat.  What Peter J says puthujjanas means laymen, the have to be acquainted and trained of primary knowledge of Sil and Samadhi. Once they acquired foundation they can be taught Pragya, Abhidharama and Parmarthdharmas.

Why Nibbana can't be described?
This is my simple answer:
How would you explain something that you've already experienced to someone who has never had that experience (not even in his/her dreams)? First you may try to explain its attributes. you describe its shape. But what if that thing has no shape?? Then you try to describe its colors, what it smells like, what it tastes like, what sounds it makes, what it feels like, etc... But what if that thing has none of these attributes?? You may try to explain its location. But what if that thing has no location?? What if that thing only experience through your consciousness? i.e. What if that thing only visible to your mind? How would you describe such a thing?
All the above mentioned statements are also applicable to Nibbana. Words are formed by people to describe worldly things. Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha preached this Dhamma (which describe ultimate truth) with the help of the words used in conventional truth. One should understand ultimate truth only through the help of conventional truth because we (five aggregates) are in a conventional world. In tipitaka Nibbana is described as much as possible with its features and attributes because Nibbana has no similar dhamma in this entire universe.
For further explanation see this answer which describes Nibbana.
Why Nibbana can't be reached by logic or reasoning?
Every consciousness arise with the help of an object. If there is no object there will be no consciousness. Two things cannot be the object for one consciousness at the same time and only one attribute of one object can be taken as the object of one consciousness. Nibbana is an ultimate dhamma. Nibbana is the object for the eight supermundane consciousness. It cannot be the object of any other consciousness. The supermundane wholesome path consciousness arise in mental processes (citta veeti) when someone enter four stages of enlightenment [Stream-enterer (Sotapanna), Once-returner (Sakadagami), Non-returner (Anāgāmi), Arahant]. Different consciousness arise according to a defined sequence in mental processes. (Note: This is not defined by an almighty god but merely happened due to the citta niyama.) No one has the ability to change this citta niyama. (This also prove the anatta mark of existence in every dhamma) So you cannot suppress some consciousness in a mental process or generate supermundane consciousness in another mental process which is used to reasoning or logic. Meditation is the only way to follow this sequence of mental processes and finally attain Nibbana.

Nirvana is the "formless". Opinions, words, beliefs are concepts, forms.  All of the opinions, beliefs, judgements, desires are obstacles in the way of reaching Nirvana. Thich Nhat Hanh said that Nirvana is "Freedom from views". So trying to reach Nirvana with views, logic etc.. is the opposite direction. But the concepts can be helpful If you use them as pointers to become free from your attachments to concepts. Just like "I have to meditate for many hours" thought can change your life entirely. So there is also an irony here.
Meditation can be done in many ways. Meditation can be done in sitting in a meditation posture, or during a bus trip etc..The choices are many. So doing "meditation" is absolutely necessary unless the person has a spontaneous enlightenment. But that doesn't mean that a person can only experience Nirvana during a meditation session. The experience of Nirvana comes through seeing impermanence suffering and non-self clearly. Practising mindfulness doesn't lead you to think about the future but still is like making  reservation in the higher realms of existance. Also If a person really does meditation with effort in proper ways, s/he enters to a temporary stream of awareness which makes that mindfulness continous temporarily even when the person isn't doing anything to be mindful. So seeing the meaninglessness of all forms that will cause the experience of Nirvana can come anytime in daily life for the meditator.  But unless the person is very lucky to have a spontaneous enlightenment or unless the person already experienced Nirvana before and attained Stream Entry or other enlightenment stages, it is impossible to experience Nirvana without practising meditation/mindfulness.

That which is beyond conjecture is such because it is not like anything else and therefore can not be explained or understood in terms of anything else. It is somewhat akin to explaining electro-magnetic forces in terms of rubber bands but worse yet.
It has to be realized by investigating and understanding that which is conditioned, when the theme is well penetrated with understanding an escape from the conditioned is realized and the unconditioned is discerned.
If someone was to say 'come, explain the unconditioned in terms of the conditioned' - that just wouldn't be possible.

"Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. MN22

Can we describe not-suffering in terms of suffering?
One can not imagine what the not-made is like descriptively nor explain it in terms of it's color, shape or dimensions.

There is, monks, an unborn[1] — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. Ud 8.3

Also an excerpt from the Questions of King Milinda;

"Then, Nagasena, is Nirvana unconditioned?"
"So it is, O King, unconditioned is Nirvana, not made by anything. Of
  Nirvana one cannot say that it is produced, or unproduced, or that it
  should be produced; that it is past, or present, or future; or that
  one can become aware of it by the eye, or the ear, or the nose, or the
  tongue, or the body."
"In that case, Nagasena, you indicate Nirvana as a dharma which is
  not, and Nirvana does not exist."
"Nirvana is something which is recognizable by the mind. A holy
  disciple, who has followed the right road, sees Nirvana with a mind
  which is pure, sublime, straight, unimpeded and disinterested."
"But what then is that Nirvana like? Give me a simile, and convince me
  by arguments. For a dharma which exists can surely be illustrated by a
  simile!"
"Is there, Great King, something called wind?"
"Yes, there is such a thing."
"Please, will Your Majesty show me the wind, its colour and shape, and
  whether it is thin or thick, long or short?"
"One cannot point to the wind like that for the wind does not lend
  itself to being grasped with the hands, or to being untouched. But
  nevertheless there is such a thing called 'wind'."
"If one cannot point to the wind, one might concluded that there is no
  wind at all."
"But I know, Nagasena, that there is wind, I am quite convincted of
  it, in spite of the fact that I cannot point it out."
"Just so, Your Majesty, there is Nirvana, but one cannot point to
  Nirvana, either by its colour or its shape."

Isn't it a question of purifying the mind sufficiently to see the ever apparent truth of suchness? If someone asks "why can't I reason my way to Nibbana?" isn't it the fault of the questioner's mind and not a shortcoming in Nibbana? If a high school students asks his Physics teacher "why can't I understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity?" Wouldn't the teacher respond "this subject takes a lot of learning and applied thought to understand. If you persist in trying to learn it you might succeed in 10 years upon successful post-doctorate work."
The noble Eightfold path prepares the mind and the heart for not only the experience of Nibbana but also its understanding. But the Buddhadhamma is logical, if the mind is pure enough it can see the truth directly, renounce completely and experience Nibbana immediately. I think there are examples of the Buddha teaching the dhamma to one of pure mind, they going into seclusion to reflect on it (reason it out for oneself) and becoming an arahant in a very short time.

People actually do try to reason their way into Nirvana. Many think it works, and if they are clever and intelligent, they can defend it quite well. But actually Nirvana is the view taken when subject and object are (subjectively) seen as nothing more than a figure/ground problem. Our ordinary consciousness contains the hand drawing the hand drawing the hand, etc. It's Nirvana that only sees the hand drawing. But we possess a bias ("me") which causes seeing things and not understanding that at the center is our blind spot. Everything about Nirvana is totally logical, but it's a logic that without it, we can't see. Observer bias. Without actual facts, we can't validate anything. We interject a fake "me" into every perception, the result  will always be wrong. The absence of a subjective self has to be experienced before one can understand that is is in no way illogical. Yet, it can't be grasped with the mind that contains the self. Meditation or some other rigorous training is necessary to prevent the mind from by reflex imposing a false projection of the problem in the first place.


text:
Is there a free (libre or open) version of Visuddhimagga in a digital text or HTML format?
I can't use the Path of Purification PDF version of AccessToInsight.org because ...

I want to restructure/retranslate Visuddhimagga into english.
I want to add the reference link in each word of Visuddhimagga to the source in tipitaka.
I want to make the link directly to the expected page of Visuddhimagga and make the highlight to the expected text when I answer or make an article.

... so I want the computerised text version, to publish in HTML format on the internet.
It requires a very long time to do a new translation of it all, because English is not my native language -- and I require a very long time as well to translate pāli even in my native language -- and so I think it would be faster and more effective to restructure from another's version/translation.
Therefore:

Is there a free (i.e. libre or open) version of Visuddhimagga in a computerized text format?
Is there a computerised text version of the Budaedu's Visuddhimagga version?

Or can you tell me about obtaining permission (and the data) from a copyright holder?

I'm principally looking for something like a license which allows:

Distribution and
Creating a derivative work

... and a corresponding text format which can be converted to e.g. HTML.

The two versions of the PDF (i.e. Budaedu and Access to Insight -- and actually the copy on Access to Insight's was published by the Buddhist Publication Society) are both based on similar text (i.e. translated from the Pali by Bikkhu Nanamoli).
I know approximately what PDF format is (i.e. it's a container for data) but don't know it well (e.g. I don't know the many software tools available to work with it) -- based on that, I think that:

Budaedu's PDF appears to contain images (photographs of the pages, not text)
The A2I/BPS PDF seems to contain text (you can select words), but you can't copy words -- I don't know why, e.g. if that's because it's copy-protected or some other reason. I'm sure it is text, though, e.g. because I can search for (and find) words in it like "edition" -- and because there's a "Publisher's note" which thanks volunteers who converted a "previous edition to digital text".

If you only have images of pages, one possibility might be to use any OCR software to convert it to text. That (the "recognition" process) isn't error-free but may be good, i.e. if you can read the image easily then so can a computer. Apparently the BPS already did that in their edition.
It was translated in 1956 -- I don't know who has the copyright or whether it was e.g. copyleft somehow by the author. Normally (i.e. in law) the author would automatically have the copyright -- unless they assign it to someone else, e.g. to a publisher, or to the public domain.
So I think you have two problems:

Discover the copyright status. You cannot ask the author (i.e. the translator), perhaps you can ask one of publishers e.g. http://www.bps.lk
Get a file with suitable format -- in that file doesn't already exist someone might create one, whether using OCR or a PDF conversion library or something I don't know -- a solvable problem, a non-trivial problem however, but maybe a software problem, one that might require volunteers.

I guess that any publisher might have copyright of their own version -- e.g. even if the underlying text is public domain, possibly the BPS have copyright of their version because they went to the effort of converting it to a more usable format, or something like that.
So, theoretically, unless you find data which says "free to redistribute and modify" or "public domain", it may be best to get permission from whichever publisher it is before you base your further work on their publication.
I'm not certain that your use-case is covered by the permissions granted which are quoted in Damith's answer (which allow you to copy the whole PDF unaltered -- or, to reproduce parts of it in other publications).
Some people disagree with the whole concept of copyright, but if you're not one of them you might want to ask the publisher -- explain what you want and try to get their permission.

BPS used to nearly sue people who did ignore Silas, starting what Chris ebcourages to (akusala! not to speakof breaking laws), just for the case if respecting laws... horrible here...

I've seen people argue about whether Buddhist text can and should be copyright. I don't want to reproduce those arguments here, or take sides, nor even give detailed legal advice about whether and which copyright laws might be applicable in theory and in practice. Many publishers say, "If you're not sure about your intended use, ask us". I've no particular experience with BPS.

When you have no ideas and respect of Silas why moderating Buddhism? When having no respect for laws and intention of owners, why moderating and advice at all? To accumulate akusala? Silas are clear, taking in trust as well.

Copyright has been discussed (argued about) in other topics on this site (some of which you might remember). It's not my job as moderator to take sides, i.e. to decide who's right and who's wrong on any topic (my job as moderator is rather to end or to delete arguments, not to participate in them).

on archive.org you usually get several file types, for the text alone
https://archive.org/download/Visuddhimagga-ThePathOfPurification

I suppose the "Path of Purification" available at AccessToInsight.org is the third online edition of the Visuddhimagga which you've mentioned as "Budaedu's Visuddhimagga version". So, it's better if you use the most recent edition.
Under the terms of use in the PDF book, "Path of Purification" it has mentioned:

Copyright revised, third, online edition. Copyright © 2011 Buddhist Publication Society.
You may redistribute this PDF file in an unaltered form provided that:
  (1) you must only make such unaltered PDF copies available free of charge;
  (2) you clearly indicate that any passages of this work reproduced into other publications (printed as well as digital) are derived from this source document. Otherwise, all rights reserved.

So, whenever you use any passages from this book always keep in mind to give references to the source document. It's much better to contact Buddhist Publication Society before you start the work and get a written approval as such copyright notices can be interpreted differently.
Address:
Buddhist Publication Society,
P.O. Box 61, 54,
Sangharaja Mawatha,
Kandy,
Sri Lanka.
Email: bps@bps.lk
Tel: +94 81 2237283
Fax: +94 81 2223679

@Bonn Sir, If you're not altering the book and your intention is to link the contents of it to Tipitaka and make "Visuddhimagga" a more credible source of dhamma, I can call BPS on behalf of you and let you know what's their opinion about this.

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

@Damith could you please call them, thank you ^.^

I converted the pdf to html some years ago using pdf2html but due to copyright issues it can't be shared publicly. When I posted it on our website, the publisher (a Buddhist monk) promptly threatened to sue. I doubt getting permission from the publisher would be easy, unless leadership has changed in the meantime.
Nyanamoli's original translation should enter the public domain soon, I think... Since it was published in Sri Lanka, you'd have to figure out what that means for using it in your country. I think the current pdf would be considered a derivative work of the original.
If you just want an html version without actual legal permission, I still have the html version I made.

There is no such as free (libre, open ... which are just advertisements to catch fools to get them in debt), a Abhidhamma-Student should be clear about, so it's just a question of "debts, but to whom" (incl. Silas or not) of whom one, best personal, asks (to get not in trouble of assumed wrongly that the other is happy, alive, has offered for certain purpose, when taking in trust).
Maybe ask Nyoms friends (Nyom often talked about), the virtuose Mahavihara-Monks if up to do a gift or service for the Sangha. As for a "public domain" version (a Sangha deprived version) you would need to ask those not fearing a pārājika or not carring of such. Or any of the many traders if you can offer a deal.
The Dhamma-trade-center BPS had made (as far as aware) already a crosslinked digital version. Maybe you have upanissāya with them.
Seeing the need:

"In four ways, young householder, should one who flatters be understood as a foe in the guise of a friend:
(i) he approves of his friend's evil deeds,
(ii) he disapproves his friend's good deeds,
(iii) he praises him in his presence,
(iv) he speaks ill of him in his absence.
DN 31

Since without understanding thieves find their mutual support as compassionate, calling misdeeds for ones sake as act of friends.
Based on wrong view fools act for their demerits:

...He takes, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them...
"And how is one made impure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is covetous. He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made impure in three ways by mental action.
Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta

See also Monks on copyright material and violating the second precept, here for this case of parisa leader.
[Note: that's a dhammic advice and not thought for trade, exchangs, stackes... for wordily purposes and may be deleted if place is not given for Dhamma-Dana]