text:
Questions about strong acceptance of rebirth?
In a nutshell, the Buddha's teaching is:

self-views ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self") must be avoided
craving is a precondition for suffering, thus we must train ourselves to gain control over craving and, finally, to eradicate it
nihilism ("non existence") and/or existentialism ("existence") must be avoided
being spiritual or having spiritual views is better than being materialistic or having materialistic views
extremes must be avoided (middle way)

I'm wondering WHY a strong belief in rebirth does not conform with the above Buddha's teachings? I really want to understand the WHY behind it. WHY a belief in rebirth does not lead to the cessation of suffering? WHY somebody who strongly accepts rebirth (read the below case to see what I mean by "strongly accepting rebirth") can't attain Nibanna?
Please respond to the below questions that I provided and then if you wish give your explanations/answers.

CASE a)
Suppose person X STRONGLY ACCEPTS REBIRTH by claiming: "There's NO WAY that after death there is no life. Life after death doesn't stop. Life after death is real. Life after death can't stop." When asked "Can life after death come to an end for an arahat?" person X would answer: "No. There's NO WAY life after death can come to an end. Life after death does not come to an end for all beings, even if a being is an arahat or attained enlightenment (Nirvana).". When asked "Is there at least any tinyyyy possibility life after death can come to an end for an arahat?" person X would answer: "No. There's NO WAY! I know there's no way! NO WAY.".
Suppose person X is very sturdy and close minded and there's no way person X will change his/her views about life after death, not even if somebody would threaten his/her life and would actually kill him/her.
Questions:
1a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of craving? Why?
2a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of nihilistic ("non existence") and/or eternalists ("existence") views? Why?
3a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of a view regarding self ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self")? Why?
4a. Can an arahat strongly accept rebirth, just like person X in the example above? Why?

@Lanka Ok. I hope it's better now.

@beginner. Thank you for the edit. Question reopened.

The question is basically, why is belief in literal rebirth (reincarnation) a problem. I won't address every OP point here, just make four theses:

Rebirth is self. Self is rebirth. Whenever there is belief in rebirth, there is attachment to self. You can't possibly believe in rebirth without having a notion of entity (identity) that is getting reborn. Having a notion of entity means you don't understand sankharas (assembly of phenomena), which means even your understanding of anicca is superficial, let alone of anatta or shunyata.
Rebirth usually (but not always, see next point) involves dualistic views about some "special" substance that carries on the entity's identity. That substance is imagined to be made from something principally different, a second kind of stuff (first being normal matter/energy) - hence "dual-ism". Whatever you call that stuff, it basically means "soul" - some spiritual supernatural essence.
Even if you define rebirth as arising of the new being on the basis of the previous being's karma (like the old candle transferring its flame to the new candle) - in other words if you define rebirth as transfer of information/causation - if you imagine this process going 1:1 from one previous being to one new being through some mysterious mechanism, you are still creating a cohesive entity where there is just a bunch of disjointed causation chains. The information/causation is transferred all the time, many-to-many, not at the moment of death or birth. So transmigration of sentient beings at large is real, the wheel is continuously in motion rolling in the rut from generation to generation. Karma is real. But individual reincarnation is not.
If you look deep inside you will see that rebirth is a byproduct of a psychological need. What need? A need to have something beyond THIS to look forward to, to hope for, because THIS is unbearable. But denying THIS is denying the first noble truth, it is escapism. No progress on the path can be made until we accept THIS with all its pain. We must fully come to THIS because THIS is where Enlightenment unfolds.

My recommendation is to meditate on the notion of entity. Think about a piece of wood and how it becomes ashes as it burns. Where are the spatial/temporal boundaries of an entity here? Same with ice/water/vapor. Same with an entity called "a river". Same with people, including both body and mind. Where does the mind come from? Where are its boundaries? Is there an entity here?

You are making a generalization statement with no.4.  I used to crave for annihilation.  I did not look forward to becoming, whether in this life or future lives. If it were not for my belief in past and future lives, I would have committed suicide many years ago. The belief in past and future lives gave me a strong will to practice this dhamma. Not experiencing anything at all is immensely superior to any kind of experience.

Only confirms my point, belief in literal rebirth is often a coping mechanism. Not saying it's not effective but as any skillful mean has its cons.

I agree as far as it being a coping mechanism, and in itself is a form of wanting, becoming. But, If there are no past and future lives, then what cons could there be?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation continues in chat.

'Suppose person X'..
1a. X = Self.
2a. No - 'life' ends for the Arahant at nibbana, not parinibbana.. that there is a remainder is nothing to do with the Arahant's striving/determination.
3a. 'there is NO WAY' - based on what direct observation? MN 27.
4a. Can't accept something without having a view of something.. well, you can, but not within the sphere of reason. The Buddha never strayed from that.
5a. Any truth that is Essential - absolutely paramount to all experience ("...
NO WAY ... "), is Essential/nihilistic (logic).. 'sabbe dhamma anatta', is the only objective truth to all experience, and even that is only negational.
6a. Depends how they know. If they know by direct experience, sure.
7a. Wrong views come about through a plethora of paths - judging on one from this little information is speculation.
8a. Accurate views? Multiverse theory is spiritualism/materialism free.. it's deterministic and not accurate, but it certainly has endless rebirth (of Self).
9a. No. 'ehipasiko' - 'inviting to come and see', verifiable/falsifiable in the modern tongue.. ending and beginning require Atta.
10a. An Arahant is empty of conceptualization, objectification, mental speculation. Any 'birth', whether 're' or not, requires an object to be birthed. The Arahant is beyond such conventions.
11a. Birth opposes death. Life opposes nibbana. The Arahant is beyond the conditioned experience of life. One can accept 'death', 'birth, 'continuation' as conditioned constructs, but if anatta is raised - where is X?
When rebirth is agreed to lack transmigration (as within only Buddhism (to my knowledge)), what is 'strong' and what is 'weak'? The Dhamma provides a path for the ending of objectification. Whether the human being that arises to become an Arahant at X point in time keeps arising over and over again for ever (in a deterministic setting), if they arrive at the end of objectification at time T of their life, then at any time after T, they cannot be objectified as 'human', or 'Arahant', or any 'thing', beyond their remainder.
Nibbana is the step after nirodha - cessation. One can't cease if one endlessly wanders on within Samsara/rebirth.
"WHY a belief in rebirth does not lead to the cessation of suffering?" 'belief' is unnecessary for the Arahant, as they have direct observational experience of dukkha (MN27). Rebirth is little more than the (n-1) of the Dhamma - it should be avoided until anicca, dukkha, anatta are understood.

1a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of craving? Why?
Yes. A strong acceptance of rebirth is a result of craving, which was also confirmed by the Buddha in this sutta:

30."There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists, and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world
  to be eternal. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these
  honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim their views?
"He speaks thus: 'The self and the world are eternal, barren,
  steadfast as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. And though
  these beings roam and wander (through the round of existence), pass
  away and re-arise, yet the self and the world remain the same just
  like eternity itself.
38."There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to
  other things, and who on four grounds proclaim the self and the world
  to be partly eternal and partly non-eternal. And owing to what, with
  reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins proclaim
  their views?
"Herein, bhikkhus, recluse or a certain brahmin is a rationalist, an
  investigator. He declares his view — hammered out by reason, deduced
  from his investigations, following his own flight of thought — thus:
  'That which is called "the eye," "the ear," "the nose," "the tongue,"
  and "the body" — that self is impermanent, unstable, non-eternal,
  subject to change. But that which is called "mind" (citta) or
  "mentality" (mano) or "consciousness" (viññāṇa) — that self is
  permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and it will remain
  the same just like eternity itself.'
51."This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands. And he understands: 'These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such
  a future destination, to such a state in the world beyond.' He
  understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding
  he does not misapprehend. And because he is free from misapprehension,
  he has realized within himself the state of perfect peace. Having
  understood as they really are the origin and the passing away of
  feelings, their satisfaction, their unsatisfactoriness, and the escape
  from them, the Tathāgata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through
  non-clinging.
105.Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses and brahmins who are eternalists proclaim on four grounds the self and the world to be
  eternal — that is only the feeling of those who do not know and do not
  see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those who are
  immersed in craving.
106."When those recluses and brahmins who are eternalists in regard to some things and non-eternalists in regard to other things proclaim
  on four grounds the self and the world to be partly eternal and partly
  non-eternal — that too is only the feeling of those who do not know
  and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those
  who are immersed in craving.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
Thus, from this sutta it's evident that strong acceptance of rebirth (belief that rebirth never ends or that existence lasts forever) comes from craving. Whoever has the described view of rebirth is immersed in craving. It's confirmed by the sutta.
Please note that this does not mean that the self or being is annihilated after death. This belief/view of annihilation (non-existence) after death falls under the other extreme, which is annihilationism, which too must be avoided. I addressed this in the answer to this question Is the belief in no rebirth conditioned by craving? .
Furthermore, I also found this sutta (PLEASE NOTE: for clarity purposes I'm quoting only the parts of the sutta where the belief in eternal rebirth is mentioned) which says that strong acceptance of rebirth should be given up:

Bhikkhus, there are certain recluses and brahmans who declare views
  about the future. Such as there will be a healthy perceptive self
  after death. ... an immaterial self, or ... a self that is material
  and immaterial, or ... a self that is neither material nor immaterial
  ...
The Thus Gone One knows those recluses and brahmins who make known a
  healthy perceptive self after death, declaring of, a material self or
  an immaterial self, or a self that is material and immaterial, or else
  a self that is neither material nor immaterial ... whether material or
  immaterial ... He knows ... that these are compounded and coarse ...
  knowing the escape from this, the Thus Gone One overcame them.
There are recluses and brahmins who declare views about the past such
  as .... the self and the world are eternal, this only is the truth,
  all else is false. ... The self and the world are unlimited ... this
  only is the truth all else is false. ...
Bhikkhus, those recluses and brahmins who declare the view, 'the self
  and the world is eternal, this only is the truth, all else is false.'
  That they should by themselves realize this pure view without a faith,
  a liking, hearsay, careful thinking and without a pleased view is not
  a possibility. ...
Bhikkhus, the recluses and brahmins who bear the view ... [']the self
  and world is eternal ... unlimited ... this only is the truth, all
  else is false['] That they should by themselves realize this pure view
  without a faith, a liking, hearsay, careful thinking and without a
  pleased view is not a possibility.
Bhikkhus, a certain recluse or brahmin gives up views about the past
  and future, not intending any sensual bonds, abides in joy secluded,
  thinking this is peaceful and exalted. .... In the same manner a
  certain recluse or brahmin gives up views about the past and future,
  not intending any sensual bonds, abides in joy secluded, thinking this
  is peaceful and exalted. ...

Source: http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/102-pancattaya-e.html
2a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of nihilistic ("non existence") and/or eternalists ("existence") views? Why?
Eternalists views. Because it's a view about never ending existence.
3a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of a view regarding self ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self")? Why?
Yes. In question 1a we already concluded that a strong acceptance of rebirth is a result of craving. Whenever there is craving, there is also becoming:

Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One said to the monks: "In one
  who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena
  that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origin of this entire
  mass of suffering & stress.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.052.than.html
4a. Can an arahat strongly accept rebirth, just like person X in the example above? Why?
No. Why? An arahat knows that rebirth has ended, but for not yet liberated beings rebirth continues. That's why an arahat can't strongly accept never ending rebirth. He knows that rebirth can come to an end.
Furthermore, the Buddha said that anybody who strongly accepts rebirth by denying the possibility of ending rebirth (eternalism) is immersed in craving. Somebody who is immersed in craving is not an arahat. An arahat has eradicated craving.

The question(s) certainly state merely a view rather to ask something, how ever, this view(s) seems to confuse a lot, basicly two things:
Believe with fact. If one believes that his action has no effects, or at least hopes so, does not change the fact of it. So when mixing up, and stay just on theoretical ways, not really looking for one self, one tends to take on various views and turn around on them.

1a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of craving? Why?

Strong believe of the fact of rebirth comes from seeing. A firm believe is a matter of entering the stream. And no, seeing things as they arise and decay, is not a matter of craving but requires the opposit.

2a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of nihilistic ("non existence") and/or eternalists ("existence") views? Why?

Non of both, if it has been seen as it is. Of course the endless taking birth is caused by desire for becoming or not-becoming, but to see or to have firm faith in tgat fact, is not to be seen as wrong view, but actually as right view.

He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & 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 pure in three ways by mental action.
AN 10.176

3a. Is strong acceptance of rebirth in the above scenario, a result of a view regarding self ("I have a self" and/or "I have no self")? Why?

Not at all, if seen proper.

4a. Can an arahat strongly accept rebirth, just like person X in the example above? Why?

An Arahat does not accept, does not believe. He knows, has gained the knowlegdes, this seeing clearly are features of awakening, and to get disenchanted with any kind of craving ofter becoming or no-becoming.

DN2
Recollection of Past Lives
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives (lit: previous homes). He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details. Just as if a man were to go from his home village to another village, and then from that village to yet another village, and then from that village back to his home village. The thought would occur to him, 'I went from my home village to that village over there. There I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I went to that village over there, and there I stood in such a way, sat in such a way, talked in such a way, and remained silent in such a way. From that village I came back home.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the recollection of past lives. He recollects his manifold past lives... in their modes and details.
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.
The Passing Away & Re-appearance of Beings
"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, and mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, and mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — he sees beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma. Just as if there were a tall building in the central square [of a town], and a man with good eyesight standing on top of it were to see people entering a house, leaving it, walking along the street, and sitting in the central square. The thought would occur to him, 'These people are entering a house, leaving it, walking along the streets, and sitting in the central square.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability — the monk directs and inclines it to knowledge of the passing away and re-appearance of beings. He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma...
"This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

Readings:

The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice (Thanissaro)
"Kamma & Rebirth" (Nyanatiloka)
"Dhamma Without Rebirth?" (Bodhi)
"Does Rebirth Make Sense?" (Bodhi)

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

The question is wrong. The Buddha taught the two self-views of: (i) "I have a self" and (ii) "I have no self"; must be avoided because both are self-views that include the belief of "I".
The true Buddhist view is the five aggregates are void of self (sunnata).
However, the questioner is asserting the Buddha taught: 'the self is void of self' is a wrong view and thus the idea of "voidness" (sunnata) is a wrong view.
The question is reflective of a misunderstanding of the teachings, similar to the wrong or "bewildered" views of the wanderer Vacchagotta in SN 44.10.

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the
  Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty,
  lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is
  empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty
  of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms...
  Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything
  pertaining to a self.
"The ear is empty...
"The nose is empty...
"The tongue is empty...
"The body is empty...
"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty
  of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that
  the world is empty."
SN 35.85

if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would
  become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not
  exist?' SN 44.10

The Buddha did not teach to be "open-minded", such as to keep an open mind about the possibility that pigs might be able to fly; even though in reality pigs cannot be observed to be able to fly. If a speaker of truth is asked the question: "Can figs fly on their own accord", the speaker of truth answers: "Pigs cannot fly".
In short, mental 'rebirth' can be observed & verified. Physical-post-mortem rebirth cannot be observed or verified. Those who have verified the reality of mental rebirth & who have especially tasted the peace resulting from eradicating mental re-birth adhere to the truth of mental re-birth and do not engage in unprovable speculations that there is another kind of re-birth.
There is only one type of 'rebirth' mentioned in the genuine Pali suttas therefore a student should choose one of two interpretations of re-birth. Students who wish for future lives should choose the common physical/materialistic interpretation & students who are able to give up self-clinging & who are interested in here-&-now enlightenment should choose the mental spiritual interpretation.

Everyday language vs Dharma language: In every day language the term birth refers simply to physical birth from a mother's body: in Dharma language birth refers to a mental event arising our of ignorance, craving, and clinging. Whenever there arises the mistaken idea "I," the "I" has been born; its parents are ignorance and craving. The kind of birth that constitutes a problem for us is mental birth.
  Anyone who falls to grasp this point will never succeed in understanding anything of the Buddha teaching. Another Kind of Birth

I'm wondering WHY a strong belief in rebirth does not conform with the
  above Buddha's teachings?

Because in the western history, the western people have suffering by some religious, that have a strong belief in rebirth through moreover 2000 years, so they hate that religious and that belief, together. when they catch the buddha's teaching, they bias the buddha's teaching by that hate. They try to cutting rebirth off tipitaka, although they never completely study throughout the buddha's teaching by an ancient study system.

WHY a belief in rebirth does not lead to the cessation of suffering? WHY somebody who strongly accepts rebirth (read the below case to see what I mean by "strongly accepting rebirth") can't attain Nibanna?

nihilism ("non existence") and/or existentialism ("existence") must be avoided.
In the middle way, we accept all possible situation such as kamma causes rebirths, next lives,  because we believe in causes and effects. But we do not believe in rebirth of self, because it is not the truth. It is just a rebirth of new effects, that may have the same look as in the past, but it is no self at all.

But you're not saying anything different than I am Bonn. When we shed this shell and some other space is entombed in a meat-bag it's not the same, but it is the same. The space awareness was all one - except now it is another space covered by another meat-bag. You're saying the same thing I am yet you guys call my "continuity" to be existence. If MY awareness, that in my shell right now, were to be swapped with that of another shell I would still feel like the same observer but with different memories and perhaps varied senses.

@KauvaAatma I said "It is just a rebirth of new effects", but you said "the same". New is not the same. Your self view make you see the same. But new is new, new is not the old. A cause can not be itself's effect. Self causes not rebirth, self causes not self, kamma causes not self. Just new causes cause, new effects, rebirth. No self at all. Self is just an imagination of mind that is not smart enough to analysis the very fast ( the all time fastest stuff in the universe) of aggregates rebirth. So non practitioner always see "old aggregates" is "the same of new aggregates".

I think you forget the cause and effect chain which results in karma. The end of the chain and its' beginning are the same.

No it is not the same kamma. In a second, we made over billion, uncountable, kamma. And in one person depend on uncountable kamma, and change every time. So it is not the same. No self at all. Don't try to keep self view.

For the example, one's eyes born by good kamma. Then these eyes are blinded by bad kamma, after birth. So is good kamma self? is bad kamma is self? are regular eyes self? are blind eyes self? Or it is just new causes (that maybe arose in the past, too, and it still possible to be a cause of new effects) and new effects arising and vanishing? This is the reason why paṭiccasamuppāda is very important in buddhism.


text:
Is there an anicca→anatta→dukkha description of the three marks?
That is to say, I only remember of the pattern of  anicca→dukkha→anatta (that which is impermanent and unsatisfactory cannot be considered Self, to paraphrase) in the suttas. Is there an argument that progresses from anicca to anatta (and then to dukkha), directly?

No. The idea of anicca→anatta→dukkha is common on the internet, particularly on DW.
The characteristic of 'unsatisfactoriness' ('dukkha') is directly related to impermanence (anicca) given the Buddha asked in SN 22.59: "Can that which is impermanent bring (lasting) happiness?"

Yaṃ panāniccaṃ, dukkhaṃ vā taṃ sukhaṃ vā'ti? SN 22.59

Also, the realisations of anicca & dukkha were used to support the realisation of anatta.
Also, the realisation of 'anatta' brings liberation rather than 'dukkha'.
Therefore, the idea of anicca→anatta→dukkha has no basis in the teachings.
To be free from doubt here, the following suttas which mentioned dukkha with anicca, alone:

If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
  form is impermanent; what is impermanent is dukkha (unsatisfactory); what is
  dukkha has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is dukkha; what is dukkha has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
“Good, good, friend Yamaka!
SN 22.85

Yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ; yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā
What is impermanent is dukkhaṃ. What is dukkhaṃ is nonself.
SN 22.45 & 46

Soṇa, when any ascetics and brahmins, on the basis of form—which is
  impermanent, suffering, and subject to change—regard themselves
  thus....
SN 22.49

Bhikkhus, attend carefully to form. Recognize the impermanence of form
  as it really is. When a bhikkhu attends carefully to form and
  recognizes the impermanence of form as it really is, he experiences
  revulsion towards form...
SN 22.52

He does not understand as it really is impermanent form as
  ‘impermanent form’ … impermanent feeling as ‘impermanent feeling’ …
  impermanent perception as ‘impermanent perception’ … impermanent
  volitional formations as ‘impermanent volitional formations’ …
  impermanent consciousness as ‘impermanent consciousness.’
Dukkhaṃ rūpaṃ ‘dukkhaṃ rūpan’ti yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti, dukkhaṃ
  vedanaṃ … dukkhaṃ saññaṃ … dukkhe saṅkhāre … dukkhaṃ viññāṇaṃ ‘dukkhaṃ
  viññāṇan’ti yathābhūtaṃ nappajānāti.
He does not understand as it really is painful form as ‘painful form’
  … painful feeling as ‘painful feeling’ … painful perception as
  ‘painful perception’ … painful volitional formations as ‘painful
  volitional formations’ … painful consciousness as ‘painful
  consciousness.’
SN 22.55

“Bhikkhu, you should abandon desire for whatever is dukkhaṃ.” … SN
  22.67

(thank you for the '(lasting)', clears up the tiny bit of the original link that I was (un)consciously wobbling with! :) ).. given that all three marks are accepted as true (for their respective domains), is it possible to reasonably present anicca→anatta→dukkha? .. the law of transitivity still implies anicca→dukkha.. 'sabbe sankhara anicca....' doesn't work as neatly, but I was thinking from the point of view of modern science - anicca and anatta will be conceived as 'broader', more 'of physics', than the conscious perception of unsatisfactoriness.. Is such a reasoning implausible?

Thanks Ilya. I can't answer your question. As I posted, the view is common on Dhamma Wheel however I do not know the basis/rationale of the view. Kind regards

Thank you, I will check out Dhamma Wheel for their thoughts!

You may not find the answer in Dhamma Wheel , but keep searching, and have an open mind. The answer is there. You must have heard of the phrase "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." The day that you are ready for it you will get it. Dhamma is like a double edged sword. So in future I'll be extra careful when answering questions on Dhamma, as if it is taken as something of little worth, my answer will do more damage than good.

anicca→anatta→dukkha is not the dhamma. The adherents to this on DW are incorrect therefore there is no teacher to appear. See here: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=12219 (1st post) And here: https://dhammawheel.com//viewtopic.php?f=41&t=4210&start=160 (3rd post) and here: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=11402 (2nd post). Notice most of the posters are the moderators. Its like a cult of wrong view (miccha ditthi). Maybe Saptha can join.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If I reach absorption concentration are the hindrances fully gone?
I am studying the jhanas and it says you can enter jhana without fully purifying the hindrances. I thought you can't reach the jhana without first fully suppressing the hindrance. How does one do that?
Here's what the book said.

When a bhikkhu enters upon a jhána without [first] completely
  suppressing lust by reviewing the dangers in sense desires, etc., and without
  [first] completely tranquillizing bodily irritability37 by tranquillizing the body,
  and without [first] completely removing stiffness and torpor by bringing to
  mind the elements of initiative, etc., (§55), and without [first] completely
  abolishing agitation and worry by bringing to mind the sign of serenity, etc.,
  [152] and without [first] completely purifying his mind of other states that
  obstruct concentration, then that bhikkhu soon comes out of that jhána again,
  like a bee that has gone into an unpurified hive, like a king who has gone into an
  unclean park.

We need a full resource.

The quote is from the Visuddhimagga, probably.

I'm going try to answer one of the five hindrances, Kāma or the 5 sensual pleasure. Buddha talked a lot about 5 sensual pleasures;
Kāma chanda = satisfaction in 5 sensual pleaures
Kāma sanna = perception in 5 sensual pleasures
Kāma sankappa = intentions for sensual pleasures
All of above is called Kāma raga or joy in sensual pleasures.
Jhanna helps suppressed Kāma chanda, and Kāma sanna.  However, intentions for them are still there.  Buddha said that those who are not an Ariyan would not know a method to remove Kāma sankappa or intentions for sensual pleasures.
Buddha also gave an example of jhanna is like a deer avoiding farmer's vegetation (sensual pleasures) and go in the forest to eat wild berries or roots (absorption in meditation), so that deer would be safe from farmer trying to protect his field.  But as soon as wild berries are gone (out of Jhanna), it would think about farmer's that and starting to get pulled that way.  This is because kamma sankappa is there.  And only when 4th fetter is broken, then one is free from 5 sensual pleasures for good.
Method to remove kamma raga is called nisarana which is one of two; meditation of an Ariyan level which as strength to remove defilement or see raise and fall of all nature of things.

Kāma (Sensuality), Kamma (action).

another analogy that might interest you is that someone who still consumes 5 sensual pleasure but know a right way (my own word: "a trick") to remove self from them (nisarana) is like a dear feeding around trap set by a hunter or poacher but smart enough not to get trapped.  And it would jump away as soon as a hunter or poacher approaches. and thank you Tan Samana Johann.

It depend on whether you practice Samatha or Vipassana.
In Samatha practice you suppress the hindrances.
They are fully eradicated by Vipassana practice and following Noble Eightfold Path.

There won't be any hindrances while you are in jhana. But it doesn't mean that once you come out of jhana, the hindrances are completely gone. They will be back every now and then, with full force. What would happen is once you have tasted the jhanas, the sensual pleasures will become less and less interesting. Because the pleasures of jhana seem much more refined, and you become more interested in what jhana has to offer.
Ajahn Chah used to teach lay women - simple Thai villagers, these women were able to attain jhana. So yes, a householder can reach jhana.
May you be well and happy.

As long it is seen that "even this state is fabricated, subject to decay and therefore suffering", (e.g. leads to disenchantment, no-craving at least) doing Jhāna in excess gives release. Note, that for this "simple" approach, all Jhānas need to be inspected, all kinds of places of existance, even the most refine, should be known, so that what ever kind of being is not confused with release.
Upāli Sutta as one of many example.
It would not be ease for a householder to ever reach Jhāna, since he/she is by nature stingy in many regards, grasping after a home, not able to travel far and get the world known as it actually is. A feartue that is prerequisite even for the first Jhana.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low kinds of gain by means of trade and exchange.]

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


text:
Do the english user translate "monk making it his object to let go" as "monk knowing nibbāna", right?
I ask this question because in pali, "to let go (nibbāna)", in this context, is known by monk. It is not just a target. The (ariya) monk thinking of nibbāna in his concentration, in this context.
I just wanna make sure that english translation is right, because when I translate that english sentence, by my terrible english, it look like "to let go " and "object" means "target", not "something is known by monk".
In the pāli: ārammaṇa means "something is known by consciousness", "something is thought by consciousness", "external sense-fields". It doesn't means target/object.

"And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn48/sn48.010.than.html

Edited:
It should to be:

"And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making "to let go" as his mind's focus, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.

It seems to be not clear what Nyom Warapol tries to ask, but maybe there are some who can follow his current ārammaṇa. Maybe worthy to point out the point another time.

I have asked, so I asking here again, because they gave me 2 answers that are not the same: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/143659/why-making-it-his-object-to-let-go-translated-as-making-to-letting-go-to-be-h

Maybe it's general good to know that what is meant by ārammaṇa, western use consciousness or awareness for it. So its general not easy.

it look like "to let go " and "object" means "target", not "something is known by monk".
Yes, I think the English is a bit ambiguous, and it could be understood to mean either (or both).
The word "object" has many meanings, of which two are:

a person or thing to which a specified action or feeling is directed.
  "disease became the object of investigation"
synonyms: target, butt, focus, recipient, victim
  "he became the object of fierce criticism"
a goal or purpose.
  "the Institute was opened with the object of promoting scientific study"
synonyms: purpose, objective, aim, goal, target, end, end in view, plan, object of the exercise

So an English reader might understand it as the focus of meditation (what you're attentive to), or as the purpose of meditation (what your aim or ambition is).

"Focus" is obviously better than "object". Thank you very much.

Focus is the opposite of letting go because letting go is making the mind "open & expansive" and focus is making the mind narrow.

@Dhammadhatu Is there a (single- or multi-word) translation you prefer instead of "focus"?

"Target" is also wrong because "target" is craving (tanha). BonnWarapol is attempting to distort the transmission of lokuttara meditation practice and replace it with worldly yogic meditation. The instruction in SN 48.10 is making vossaggo the sense object or pre-occupation of the mind. "Vossagga" means "giving up" targets, goals & ambitions.

Taking object in it's second meaning here, is fine "objective". Focus is a synomym of concentration. But the main point here is maybe that Nyom Warapol likes to point out, that Nibbana in this case is not just an idea but know, is that right?

@SamanaJohann Yes the main point is that he's saying that ārammaṇa means "known, a sense-object" (and maybe not "just an idea" or a not-yet-attained target) -- although, as to 'what' is known, the sutta says Vossagga not Nibbana.

@ChrisW 'what' is known, the sutta says "vossaggārammaṇaṃ (ārammaṇa that is called vossagga)". It is avadhāraṇa-samāsa in pali-language.

@ChrisW In āpaṇasutta said paññindriya thinking of nibbāna, so vossaggārammaṇa of concentration in the same context must have the same thinking, too. Therefore commentary translate vossagga as nibbāna. It is because of āpaṇasutta, https://suttacentral.net/pi/sn48.50.

Let my person give an answer that might be releasing in many ways :-)

Carrying a Rock
"Letting go" actually means this: It's as if we're carrying a heavy rock. As we carry it, we feel weighed down but we don't know what to do with it, so we keep on carrying it. As soon as someone tells us to throw it away, we think, "Eh? If I throw it away, I won't have anything left." So we keep on carrying it. We aren't willing to throw it away.
Even if someone tells us, "Come on. Throw it away. It'll be good like this, and you'll benefit like that," we're still not willing to throw it away because we're afraid we won't have anything left. So we keep on carrying it until we're so thoroughly weak and tired that we can't carry it anymore. That's when we let it go.
Only when we let it go do we understand letting go. We feel at ease. And we can sense within ourselves how heavy it felt to carry the rock. But while we were carrying it, we didn't know at all how useful letting go could be.

One might fear to try it, but than it's known, possible to make it a valide direct perception again.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange, directed to Nibbana, to simply let go]

"having made release the object"... Bhikkhu Bodhi

Idha, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako, vossaggārammaṇaṁ karitvā, labhati samādhiṁ
Here, monks, a noble disciple, having relinquished sense objects, attains concentration,
Ānandajoti Bhikkhu

I asking for an english translation's meaning. I can translate pali and I can read thai. I have no doubt about the pali or thai meaning. Also, you copy wrong quote. It should be above paragraph of your quote.

This answer is out of topic.

I think maybe you want 'purpose'?
"And what is the faculty of concentration? Consider where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, chooses "letting go" as his purpose, whereby he attains concentration and attains singleness of mind."
Maybe I am missing something, but in order to let go, you must also remain vigilant to whether or not you remain in a state of letting go. Therefore, and regardless, letting go is a valid object of concentration.


text:
Is the belief in no rebirth conditioned by craving?
Suppose somebody strongly believes in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly denies the possibility of the existence of rebirth.
Is such a belief/view a result of craving for views regarding rebirth?
Is it possible to attain Nirvana with such a belief/view?
Does an arahat strongly believe in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly deny the possibility of the existence of rebirth?

It's a very modern view, actually a very materialistic view at least, coming in camouflages of emptiness (e.g. householder equanimity, that like to deny effect of deeds)
It falls mostly even into one of the three 'evil views':

From: Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, by Ven. Nyanatiloka
The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:

(1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),
(2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),
(3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

(1) was taught by Makkhali-Gosāla, a contemporary of the Buddha who denied every cause for the corruptness and purity of beings, and asserted that everything is minutely predestined by fate.
(2) was taught by Pūrana-Kassapa, another contemporary of the Buddha who denied every karmical effect of good and bad actions: "To him who kills, steals, robs, etc., nothing bad will happen. For generosity, self-restraint and truthfulness, etc. no reward is to be expected."
(3) was taught by Ajita-Kesakambali, a third contemporary of the Buddha who asserted that any belief in good action and its reward is a mere delusion, that after death no further life would follow, that man at death would become dissolved into the elements, etc.

Table I - Consciousness-States (viññāna kkhandha)
    karmic unwholesome (akusala), Rooted in attachment (lobha):

accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, unprompted
accompanied by joy, associated with wrong view, prompted
accompanied by joy, dissociated with wrong view, unprompted
accompanied by joy, dissociated with wrong view, prompted
accompanied by indifference, associated with wrong view, unprompted
accompanied by indifference, associated with wrong view, prompted
accompanied by indifference, dissociated with wrong view, unprompted

29.accompanied by indifference, dissociated with wrong view, prompted

See also: How to address wrong view?
Usually they deny mundane right view and excuse their action by transcendent right views means.
How ever, it does not mean that everybody who does not firm believe in rebirth is destinated to low reals!
If one holds on a liberal perspective while being vituose in a mood "what ever may came" or "for now, I do not know but also can not exclude" like suggested to the Kalamas:

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

Because not acting unwholesome out of any believe, seeing the benefit of virtue in all cases, one is good protected to be not destinated upwards as well.
So it should not be understood in a way that the Buddha or his disciples force you to take on a believe or that someone not believing on rebirth, maybe even never gave it a thought, althought he/she is a virtuous person, acts in good and harmless way, is destinated, out of missing a conscious believe, to unpleasant states.
It all comes down to the actions by mind, speech and bodily deeds one performes of where he/she would find him/herselves later on.
If starting to keep the five precepts firm, you will see for your self that youR welbeing increases and states "as if in hell" do no more accure that often or even fade eternally. Then, later, you see cause and effects for youself, knowing that your current existence is not just something that happens accidently or by power of others or ends with that done today and that you future is designed by previous and current deeds. Here you are for now and there you could be, or there. Own choices design the path where to go and they can not be made undone.
Once you came till here you can be Comfortable with the truth
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

It is amazing that the contemporaries of Buddha explain so clear what right view is not!

Post-mortem rebirth? Isn't post-mortem implied in the common understanding of the word rebirth? Sounds like you are trying so hard to be in conformity with someone's custom usage of words. :)

Is such a belief/view a result of craving for views regarding rebirth?

Belief in no rebirth or the belief in termination of the mental-physical process at death is caused by ignorance. It comes under pernicious false beliefs (niyata micca ditthi, natthika diṭṭhi). Having strong belief in such views is considered even worse than committing the five heinous crimes. It is said that such beings are born in a hell called Lokantarika-niraya.

Is it possible to attain Nirvana with such a belief/view?

No. That is why such views are called Saggavarana and Maggavarana - blocking the path to heaven and blocking the path to Nibbana.

Does an arahat strongly believe in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly
  deny the possibility of the existence of rebirth?

Arahats do not believe this. They know that they will not be born again since they have eliminated craving. They also know that beings are born again after death if they still have craving left.

Yes, it is called vibhava-taṇhā (craving in not existence, included rebirth) in sacca-pabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta.
In kītāgirisutta, nibbāna is known by wisdom of insight meditation. The trust is just a base of wisdom, but the trust can not enlighten nibbāna by itself without wisdom.
Several sutta in tipitaka show that arahanta never deny post-mortem rebirth of non ariya people. In contrast, they accept the possibility of the existence of rebirth, you can see in every nikāya of tipitaka.

Vibhava-taṇhā is a self-view. Where as no belief in rebirth is the view the five aggregates end at the end of life.

View is not craving. Craving is not view. Craving is attachment, but view is the attitude. Your must try more to recite and memorize pali. You have many confusing in pali word.

I knew it! I found the answer in the suttas!
Is such a belief/view a result of craving for views regarding rebirth?
Yes. A belief in no rebirth is a result of craving, which was also confirmed by the Buddha in this sutta:

74."There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the future, who hold settled views about the future,
  and who on forty-four grounds assert various conceptual theorems
  referring to the future. And owing to what, with reference to what, do
  these honorable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations?
84."There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists and who on seven grounds proclaim the annihilation,
  destruction, and extermination of an existent being. And owing to
  what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins
  proclaim their views?
85."Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form;
  it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
  and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
  with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
  point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
  the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
103."This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands. And he understands: 'These standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such
  a future destination, to such a state in the world beyond.' He
  understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding
  he does not misapprehend. And because he is free from misapprehension,
  he has realized within himself the state of perfect peace. Having
  understood as they really are the origin and the passing away of
  feelings, their satisfaction, their unsatisfactoriness, and the escape
  from them, the Tathāgata, bhikkhus, is emancipated through
  non-clinging.
114."When those recluses and brahmins who are annihilationists proclaim on seven grounds the annihilation, destruction, and
  extermination of an existent being —
115."When those recluses and brahmins who maintain a doctrine of Nibbāna here and now proclaim on five grounds supreme Nibbāna here and
  now for an existent being —
117."When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, speculators about the past and the
  future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future,
  assert on sixty-two grounds various conceptual theorems referring to
  the past and the future — that too is only the feeling of those who do
  not know and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of
  those who are immersed in craving.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
Thus, from this sutta it's evident that the belief in no rebirth comes from craving. Whoever has the described view of no rebirth is immersed in craving. It's confirmed by the sutta.
At last, I'm not insane. Now it's confirmed also from the scriptures,
that a belief in no rebirth is coming from craving!
I bow to the all knower, the Buddha.
Please note that this does not mean that the self or being continues to exist after death. This belief/view of existence after death falls under the other extreme, which is eternalism, which too must be avoided. I'll address this in the answer to this question Questions about strong acceptance of rebirth? .
Furthermore, I also found this sutta (PLEASE NOTE: for clarity purposes I'm quoting only the parts of the sutta where the belief in no rebirth is mentioned):

Bhikkhus, there are certain recluses and brahmans who declare views
  about the future. Such as ... the annihilation, destruction and the
  non existence of the conscience. ...
Those recluses and brahmins, who declare the annihilation, destruction
  and the non existence of the conscience, fear the self loathe it, and
  run round that same self. ... those recluses and brahmins, who declare
  the annihilation, destruction and the non existence of the conscience
  of the person, fear the self, loathe it, and run round that same self.
  This is compounded and coarse ...
Whoever recluses and brahmins declared views about the future did so
  declaring one or the other of the [above]. ...
There are recluses and brahmins who declare views about the past such
  as .... the self and the world are not eternal, this only is the
  truth, all else is false. ... The self and the world are limited ...
  this only is the truth all else is false. ...
Bhikkhus, the recluses and brahmins who bear the view [']the self and
  world is not eternal ... limited ... this only is the truth, all else
  is false['] That they should by themselves realize this pure view
  without a faith, a liking, hearsay, careful thinking and without a
  pleased view is not a possibility.
Bhikkhus, a certain recluse or brahmin gives up views about the past
  and future, not intending any sensual bonds, abides in joy secluded,
  thinking this is peaceful and exalted. .... In the same manner a
  certain recluse or brahmin gives up views about the past and future,
  not intending any sensual bonds, abides in joy secluded, thinking this
  is peaceful and exalted. ...

Source: http://awake.kiev.ua/dhamma/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima3/102-pancattaya-e.html
Is it possible to attain Nirvana with such a belief/view?
No. In order to attain Nirvana, this belief/view must cease.
Once Nirvana is attained and after, this belief/view will cease. Why? Because when Nirvana is attained, craving ceases. Since the person who has this belief/view was immersed in craving, and this craving ceased, the belief/view will cease too and right view will arise.
Nirvana is attained when craving is eradicated. Craving is eradicated when ignorance is eradicated. Thus, one must eradicate ignorance in order to eradicate craving. This same eradication of craving is Nirvana, which is attained by the arahat.
Does an arahat strongly believe in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly deny the possibility of the existence of rebirth?
No. Why? An arahat knows that rebirth has ended, but for not yet liberated beings rebirth continues. That's why an arahat can't strongly believe in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly deny the possibility of the existence of rebirth.
Furthermore, the Buddha said that anybody who strongly believes in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly denies the possibility of the existence of rebirth is immersed in craving. Somebody who is immersed in craving is not an arahat. An arahat has eradicated craving.

I beg to disagree. What Buddha meant IMHO is the wrong view that states that everything ends with death. As I said the concept of information is key to understanding rebirth and this concept unfortunately did not exist in Buddha's times. Information and karma does not disappear with death, because what we call "being" is a conventional designation, not an entity. This position is free from the extremes of existing or not existing after death and is the correct view.

Thanks for commenting. Can you point to the part in my answer where you disagree? From your comment I don't understand exactly where is the disagreement coming from. Is it maybe my answer to the 2nd question "Is it possible to attain Nirvana with such a belief/view?" and the 3rd "Does an arahat strongly believe in no post-mortem rebirth and strongly deny the possibility of the existence of rebirth?"?

idk, it was kind of ambiguous... I thought you were interpreting Buddha's words as saying that self or being is not annihilated. But if you are saying, like I'm saying, that self or being has never been an entity to begin with, then we agree.

@Andrei Volkov "I thought you were interpreting Buddha's words as saying that self or being is not annihilated" no, I think that's another extreme, eternalism, which too must be avoided. I updated my answer to reflect this.

@AndreiVolkov One of the questions in the OP is whether "having a view" is conditioned by "craving" ... the last sentence of the first sutta quoted is being presented here as evidence of that. The second sutta quoted doesn't mentioned craving, but perhaps is presented as evidence re. the second question (whether belief in non-rebirth is compatible with nibanna -- the sutta's calling it "compounded and coarse" suggests it isn't). I think beginner's position is that it's incorrect to have a position on this subject.

Non-belief in post-mortem rebirth arises from the realisation that "jati" is the birth of creating the idea of "beings" or "self-identities". Therefore, non-belief in post-mortem rebirth arises from realisation, liberation, truthfulness & honesty (rather than from craving).
If the questioner is unsure what the words "truthfulness & honesty" mean, they can ask the question: "Does telling children there is no Santa Claus arise from craving or from honesty?"
Belief in post-mortem rebirth is a significant obstacle to Nibbana, which is why the Buddha did not teach about post-mortem rebirth in those suttas that lead to enlightenment, such as SN 22.59, about the three characteristics. The Buddha's final words were: "All conditioned things are subject to vanish".
Any teachings that infer (via worldly interpretation) post-mortem rebirth were given for the purpose of fostering morality (refer to MN 117) & not for Nibbana. These moral teachings are about "kamma" and include the assumption of "self" ("upadhi" - refer to MN 117).
In DN 31, it is taught the duty of monks is to teach householders the path to heaven (rather than the path to Nibbana). In his 1st sermon, the Buddha taught 'The Middle Way' is for those who have left the household life (rather than for householders).
In Buddhism, there are two levels of teachings, namely: (i) moral teachings, particularly for householders; and (ii) Nibbana teachings, particularly for monks & aspirants (refer to MN 117).
Not discerning the two levels of teachings results in illogical questions, such as "rebirth" & "Nibbana". Nibbana and rebirth have no relationship to each other because Nibbana is the here-&-now end of greed, hatred & delusion, including the end of self-view.
If self-view & self-conceit are not completely eradicated, no type of Nibbana can be realised.

And how is the bhikkhu a noble one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is unfettered? Here a bhikkhu has abandoned the
  conceit ‘I am,’ has cut it off at the root so that it is no
  longer subject to future arising. That is how the bhikkhu is a noble
  one whose banner is lowered, whose burden is lowered, who is
  unfettered. MN 22

But why deny rebirth its proper place in the Path?

Your comment has no merit. The proper place of "rebirth" in the path is mental rebirth. Every arising of a self-belief is a rebirth and every abandonment or cutting through of self-belief is the path. There is no path wiithout cutting out the birth of self-belief. Please refer to SN 22.81, which states it is the assumption of "self" that is born. Good luck.

I believe the Buddha teaches the rebirth of suffering and the way out.

@DH this reminds me how a few years ago I was trying to explain to some practitioners that there is no Nirvana or Enlightenment in the vulgar escapist sense of the word, and was getting the same Santa-Claus-Is-Real knee jerk reaction. Please do not be discouraged. I, for one, am in agreement with your phenomenological explanation as the key to liberation, although I still like to add cosmological information-centric explanation as well, as a conceptual aid to letting go of phenomenological self but that's entirely optional and not strictly necessary. Your position is complete as far as I see.


text:
Mindful driving
I often found that driving to work and back to be the most stressful part of my day.
And, to combat this I started to drive without the radio on and tried to focus my mind to the vibrations felt by the car, and the sounds of the engine and other cars.
Now obviously some could consider this as dangerous.
However, I feel it actually makes my driving safer, just wanted to know if anyone has ever read anything on this subject ? Obviously there are no teachings of the past on this subject

Why/how is it stressful?

@ChrisW I feel as if I am completely different person when driving, I sort of see every other car as an obstacle, and even challenge at times. I only ever swear when i am driving, and I feel anger in myself at times. Obviously this is something I want to change.

Why do you think driving with less distractions and more focus would be more dangerous?

The thing I concentrate on when driving is good-will and the desire to avoid hurting other people.
See also for example,

How to get over anger at inconsiderate drivers
My 16 year old daughter got a speeding ticket

My experience as a driver tells me it's possible to do so (i.e. I've been driving for years without an accident, not all the time but on a variety of roads), and so I'm not too stressed (about being unable to do what I want, which is to drive without hitting people). If I begin to feel unsure then I slow down.
This attitude might simplify the job of driving: I'm not trying to get there as fast as possible (which is impossible because of "obstacles"), instead I'm trying to drive safely, lawfully, cooperatively, politely.
Another reason maybe why I don't feel anger is that, instead, I feel gratitude towards the large majority of drivers who I meet on the road, who are competent and safe and cooperative, kind.
In particular, what I concentrate visually on is the empty road which I intend to drive onto, plus the other things (cars, people, whatever) around it which might move to block or fill that empty space.
I tend not to use the radio (and don't much want people talking to me when I'm driving) because my attention is limited and I want to keep my mind of what I'm seeing rather than on when I'm hearing.
When I'm riding a bicycle rather than driving a car, I am listening too, for cars behind me.
Sorry to hear you're stressed. Once I got really used to it, I found that commuting to and from work, by bicycle, was the least stressful part of my day.
I got in the car just today, trying to get to a store before it closed for lunch; and finding myself a bit stressed as I set off I told myself, "don't stress, don't speed, keep your car in lane on the road, refrain from hitting anyone".
I guess I am also listening to the sound of the engine, to help me know that I'm maintaining the speed limit without cruise control and without keeping my eyes glued to the speedometer.
Also FWIW I see other cars as people not as obstacles; I know that their senses when driving are a bit limited though, that they can't hear well, that they're more likely to be looking ahead than sideways or backwards, so I try not to assume they've seen me.
To a certain extent I suppose I let my feelings control my driving, i.e. I drive in a way that doesn't arouse (or that minimises) stress (stress in me and/or in a passenger).
Also to the extent that "mindful" means "remembering" I suppose I try to remember the traffic laws (speed limit, right-of-way, signalling) and driving lessons, and to pay attention to what I'm seeing and to my speed.

It's good to reflect Dhamma while driving and be mindful.
Let my person tell a merely personal story:
Once my person was still a householder, a young successful employer, enjoyed to compfortable drive in the "bigges" car of his town, smooth, relacted, V8, no need to push the gas, just driving to the next meeting, 100 of thousand km a year, he got much aware of that * flap * * flap *, on the windows surface on a lonly road.
Reflecting a little more of what is the case of such disaster, he reduced his drives an seeks for more.
Later even took on the bike and focused on work not to far.
After he actually left this all behind, he saw, that if he uses others for a ride, it is sometimes even more worse, so he thought, what if not greed, would one hinder just to simply walk.
Even later, he observed the struggles people have with shoes and how less one in shoes, compfortable, "protective", takes care of his steps. Of course it gives certain freedom to look here and there, but what does one looking for, while under the shoes other are just smashed?
At least, it carries a lot of freedom, if not depending on "protection" and "compfort" and not only that one mostly is much more flexible, much more able to move and even faster as an aeroplain in calculating right, one able to train mindfulness by each and every step, has, if not more, the gain of freedom of remorse made his possession, a liberty not easy to gain, but just step by step.
Of course the "story" is much deeper, but maybe this short cut gives good reason for possible less build on "equanimity" but take on the road of letting go, reduce and sacrifies, step by step.
Maybe some inspirations are also found in some words my person wrote some times ago: Who is the winner in the Traffic of life?.
As for the question again: being mindful on the frames of references, even while driving, is not dangerous but actually good. If it how ever, does not lead to certain insight about the drive behind the drive, does not really lead to disenchantment in regard of having a nice drive, certainly the task might be not right made and can, in this case, be of course dangerous in all aspects.
A nice first step into Dhamma might be also "Step by Step, by late Ven. Ghosananda.

The Buddha called the practice of mindfulness „the only way.“ Always in the present. At this very moment. From moment to moment. In all activity. In this very step.
This is why we say, “Step by Step. Each step is a meditation.” When the children in Providence see me off at the station, as I walk up to the train, they shout, “Slowly, slowly, step by step, each step is a prayer!” and all the passengers look and smile. This saying has become famous!
The children do not know English well, but they know this sentence by heart. They are the new Cambodia, and already they know the way to peace.
In Cambodia, we say, “A journey of 10.000 miles begins with a single step.”
Slowly, slowly, step by step. Each step is a meditation. Each step is a prayer.

If coming across such saying like that of the Batchelors: "You know if a person is really enlightened, when he/she has at midnight a car problem, strong raining and the cell-phone does not work...", than one can be sure that he/she gained the wrong guidance...
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by trade and exchange]

Instead of viewing every car as an obstacle try to shift your mind to see each as sentient being(s), just like you, with the same goal as you, to reach their destination safely.
If your anger stems from being in a rush or late, try to leave earlier to give more time to reach your destination.
Driving with the radio off and with your focus on the road, your car, and other cars is actually safer in many regards.
If a driver does something that arouses anger in your being, ask yourself,

"Will I remember this in 5 years? Is it worth being angry about?"

Nine times out of ten the action or event is inconsequential and effects us only in a minor fashion if we can find the comedy in the situation to focus on our drives will be much more relaxed.

You are on the right road, mindfulness is helping. This is because it occupies your mind with what you are doing instead of your wants.
The point of driving is to drive, not to get somewhere.
There are plenty of teachings on Vipassana. Start anywhere. Walking and driving are not different.

I am tempted to ask if you intentionally used 'the right road' as a pun, but will not. More importantly, I think your comment on the point of driving is very much to the issue. Many times we get too involved with the minutia of the steps we are taking rather than understanding that what is most important is the reason for the journey.

Re-reading my above comment, I realized that I might not have been clear. What I was trying to say was that I feel Mindfulness does not just involve being mindful of the manner and details of individual actions that we take, but also - perhaps more importantly - involves being mindful of the fundamental reasons we are taking these actions in the first place.

@GVCOJims yes, I think I understand you. After decades of contemplation on my actions and the world at large, the statement which I would stand behind is, "The collective enterprise is worthwhile." To venture more than this seems to me to be developing concepts, ideas and thus, errors.


text:
Ultimate Lack of Discipline
I noticed that despite all my resolutions and intentions, I am still not much better than when I attempted to change. Therefore, I ask the following:
What could a person particularly lazy and unmotivated, who cannot stick with things long term, and who only has good intentions do in the short term to get out of their situation? I'm asking about any tiny step, initiative, or behavioural change that could help.
I tried exercise, meditation, dietary change, stopping social media, etc. but all, in the long term have failed.
Thank you.

May I ask if you have/had a teacher? My experience is that an inspiring, accomplished teacher is of great benefit on ones journey.

Please also see "Appamada - What is it? How to practise it? Benefits?"

@Lanka dumb question but where can one find a teacher?

The thing you're trying to better, or to get out of: is it something quantifiable, measurable (for example, the amount of time spent meditating)?

Nuwin - where do you live exactly  (country and town) ?

@NuWin. There are different options. One can find teachers in a monastery, online or by attending retreats in different parts of the world. Many teachers have online groups or give online courses via Skype or Hang Outs.

The suggestions of others to "find a teacher" is good conventional advice.  What you are missing is Truth.  You may find it from a teacher or not.  As a Westerner, without truth, you are like a pencil balancing on its point.

Two days ago, my person translated a possible benifical talk on this matter, which is actually nothing else as complacency, or pamada. ([Q&A] Appamāda - What is it? How to practise it? Benefits?)
So here are the traditional and required three tools:
Respect, Confidence & Patience
Is more than smart, to beginn with devotional practice and integrate it in daily live, for a practice without that will in all ways lead just to another complacency.
As the Buddha told even after awakening: "One suffers if dwelling without reverence or deference."... now think how poor and in suffering are those not awakened, not having proper means for devotion and act on it. All they could do and do is consuming, consuming signs, sounds, smells, tasts, touches, ideas... a poor consumers life like that of the most.
There is no much better practice as to simply assist and render help for ones teacher, and it's already a practice on the path. Veyyāvacca, only in German for now.
Usually one starts by his first Gods in doing so, one parents. And to give you as well as others the possibility to serve, having the Sangha and the other Gems as object, there are many ways to get joy and to spend ones time by working on ones conditions, even if maybe not capable for intensive meditation practice, here. There might be others as well, and if even have a monastery near, monks you could assist, take this oppotunity.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

As this is a personal practice question, I will give a personal answer. Not supported by theory, no references, just my own experience practicing Dharma for years.
Go after your heart's hidden desires, despite the strong fear, and use that as fuel for practice. Take risks, get in trouble, and watch yourself very carefully as you go along. You will learn a ton and move to a new place in your practice. Your actions will be motivated and energized. However, note the difference between pushing yourself to your limits using desire as motivation, vs indulging in easy pleasures. This must be very challenging for it to work.
Consider this Vajrayana skilful means.
Hope this helps.

I suggest that a lack of discipline or motivation to practice mindfulness meditation can remedied by providing a psychological explanation of how mindfulness actually works. Such an explanation is necessarily complex because the mind happens to be extremely complex. Although an explanation can be provided in either Theravadin or Mahayana terminology, I will provide an explanation within the Theravadin tradition because it is entirely within the realm of relative truth in which an complete explanation is possible and acceptable. Within this tradition, the logical beginning of an explanation begins with the concept of sankhara. A sophisticated and useful translation of this Pali term is provided by the English term schema (as developed by Immanuel Kant), which is a mental disposition that is formed when experience is transformed (understood, interpreted into) into a belief. The resulting sankhara then becomes the cause of related perceptions, beliefs, wishes, motives, actions, and other experiences. In general, a very large system of sankhara is the cause of all intelligent behaviour, including wholesome, unwholesome, and functional actions and experiences. There are innate, developmental, educational, and traumatic sankhara. The innate and developmental sankhara cause those (mostly unconscious) cognitive processes that can be called Bodhicitta processes. Educational sankhara are those sankhara that we learn from other people. Traumatic sankhara are maladaptive (unwholesome) sankhara the result from the encounter with harmful circumstances. There are three problems with learning sankhara: (1) we make mistakes in learning, (2) the application of any sankhara requires adjustments, and (3) sankhara are never complete (except in trivial cases). Special safeguard processes have the function of avoiding, detecting, and correcting errors in learning and assist with the application of sankhara. One of the most fundamental safeguard sankharas is the psychological fact that (1) we cannot understand something unless it makes sense to us and (2) we cannot do something unless it makes sense to us. Since mindfulness meditation involves developing an objective, alert, and discerning state of mind, some unwholesome (illusory, false, invalid, poorly conceived) sankhara no longer make sense and thereby become subject to correction or modification. The process of correction is largely signless (animitta). Some sankhara are resolved only through the recollection of the experience that created a traumatic sankhara. This can be accomplished through a process called focusing, a form of self-therapy developed by Eugene Gendlin. By focusing on the "felt sense" (the body in the body), long forgotten experiences can be recalled and unwholesome sankhara can be unlearned. A third benefit of mindfulness meditation practice is a contact with the wisdom and love of the Bodhicitta (innate sankhara). Through this kind of contact, a person is able to perceive the evidence perceived by the Buddha that formed the basis of his wisdom and love. These are three ways in which mindfulness meditation actually works. In is based upon 50 years of experience. I am 76 years old and an ordained (novice) monk.

Thank you for that illuminating background background information. Can you, in addition, answer the OP's literal question: which was, "I'm asking about any tiny step, initiative, or behavioural change that could help"? Would the "tiny step" you're suggesting be to read your book (perhaps to help bypass the "safeguard process", whose result is avoiding meditation when you don't understand how it works)?

I was trying to be encouraging. The safeguard process is a first step available to even for those who take up MBSR and practice mindfulness meditation for only one half hour a day for ten weeks. It is a process that kicks in without effort. It always works because it is a natural part of the mind. A "tiny step" might consist of finding a teacher, a meditation group, or even a MBSR center that has good people that he finds encouraging or inspiring.

Would upvote this five times if I could.

@AndreiVolkov "Start a bounty / reward existing answer" is a bit like multiple upvotes. And editing the answer (e.g. even if only to improve its format) can help other people to appreciate it more, too.

Constantly remind yourself of the natural characteristics of this world. That all conditioned things are subject to change, they're ephemeral, they cannot be controlled. Therefore are unable to bring satisfaction.
Remind yourself of why that is. What is the cause of this dissatisfaction? Clinging & craving, the desire to become/have or the desire for oneself/things to become extinct.
Observe the grasping, observe the clinging and the results of such. You will come to realize that this very clinging is burdensome, it is oppressive. Gradually you will become disenchanted with clinging, you will become dispassionate. You will learn to let go.
Clinging is like putting ones hands into the fire. With time you learn to abstain from clinging, not intellectually but through insight/wisdom.
Observe your breath whenever you can, even if just for one minute at a time. Recollect the mind into focus and learn to rest with things as they are. You should also learn the correct way to practice ''anapanasati''
If you're interested in reading materials, regarding ''anapanasati'' and ''letting go''. I highly recommend these books.

Practicing the Jhanas: Traditional Concentration Meditation as Presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw
Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree: The Buddha's Teaching on Voidness, by Ajahn Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
Food for the heart, Collected teachings of Ajahn Chah

Hello Miso. How come you deleted this answer which were also upvoted?

I think the 'tiny step, initiative, or behavioural change that could help. ' is commitment in your case. If you are at the edge of quitting, commit yourself to whatever you are doing, instead of quitting.
Committing might mean to go deeper in some scenarious.
However, if things are not working out for you, then quitting surely is best. I myself went on a dietary and meditation regimen, however it made me feel better at least every week and continues to so. So it was working for me.
Did they work for you?

Finding compassion. Instead of disagreeing with someone directly or developing a bad perception of them or a group, I look for their side first. Their motivation or the thing that they lack that has created their allegedly aberrant behavior or view. And I am talking about people or groups with some horrible actions or ideas.
Did the murderer grow up unloved or without support or a role model?
Did this callous person encounter similar insensitivity in their life?
Does that unlikeable group of persons have a basic need, like safety or security, at their origin that pulled them together?
By finding or theorizing the suffering that led to their view or act ... and remembering how similar suffering affected me in the past ... I can more effectively empathize for others and generate compassion no matter how opposed to them I might be. I can truly feel for them. And all it takes is a bit of thought.
Maybe it's just me but this made the biggest difference and transformation in my life after I sought refuge in the jewel. With this minor effort  my life changed dramatically for the better.
I hope this helps. Namaste.

You need to change your habits. Easier said than done but it can be done!
The next time you attempt something that requires a long term approach, "reward" yourself for doing it.
For example, if you are working on a project or have a goal of doing something daily, after you do them, "reward" yourself by putting an X on your calendar for that day. As you continue this process, you will realize that your calendar will be filled with Xs which will motivate you to get that next X and the next and so on. After a while, you will have developed a habit for it.
It is all mental but it works for me and it may for you. Best of luck.

When trying to make a change like this (and in other habits) I have personally found that enlisting the aid of a 'buddy' has been helpful. The best would be to find someone else who is also trying to make the same changes but even just telling someone else who is meaningful in your life what you are trying to do and how you plan to go about it can work as well.
I have found it easy to slip out of the change mode and lie to myself about progress. But when another is involved, especially one who is meaningful to me, that external drive to not fail seems stronger.
Ask them to ask you regularly how you are doing on your change of practice. The drive to not admit to others that you slipped or made no progress can sometimes be the difference.
Also google 'habit change methods' and 'habit change buddy' to find a myriad of different helps on how to be more successful. As you read through the various methodologies presented, you are bound to find a few that resonate with you and which you can incorporate into your efforts. The internet can be a force for good after all if you use it right.
Hope this helps, James

What technique you practice ?   do you have a teacher ?
Cause if you dont i would recommend it
In case you have a teacher and you practice in a correct way, than i can tell you what helps me now  :  which is that every action you do have an effect
(even if not every kamma has an effect)
so nothing was in vain and remembering that each action you do has an effect can help motivate you - for example if every action you did has an effect than failing and trying again and again even if never successful still has its point
see this question - especially the chat i had with Sankha Kulathantille  :
What are the cases where a karma's fruit is destroyed?

You are not the only person struggling with this issue. I, for that matter, have been raised this way and that was fault of my parents planting seeds of laziness and apathy into me. I was always served and didn't have to do too much in my life.
But so was Siddhartha, probably the most spoiled prince in the whole history of India.
Whenever there is an unwholesome seed, habit or recollection in our consciousness, there is also a way out of it. And that way is in the source itself that needs transformation. Deep rooted habits, especially transferred, acquired in our childhood are the most difficult to get rid off, but it is completely possible to do. It is just harder.
Be mindful of every bite when you eat without feeling hungry.
Be mindful when you bail out on something that you should do due to being lazy.
Be mindful of every action when you browse social media.
Mindful, meaning, keep in mind the Right view. Right view is the ultimate clarity and the way out, it gets sailor through the sea.
If you let the clarity of your mind shine light on those habits and illuminate these, it will eventually bring wisdom and change your habit.
That is non-violent way of dealing with things. That is the way of Buddha, Buddha that couldn't yield any result from starving himself in severe austerity or being violent towards his thoughts or desires, but by accepting things as they are, by feeling the craving and knowing that one is feeling craving.
The analogy of this is the guardian at the gates that lets every person in, closes the door and forgets about the guests, so the maids in the castle can do the rest, while the guard simply stays on a lookout for another newcomer. But no one should pass the guardian unnoticed.

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


text:
Lethargy: Short Versus Long Sessions
I have roused myself to meditate, but I am experiencing lethargy and drowsiness throughout the whole session, drowsiness which doesn't cause me to sleep but which I perceive helplessly. My question is should I:
a) continue to merely watch my hazy thought process as long as I am not sleeping
b) reduce the length of my sessions so that the time spent in meditation is devoid of drowsiness.
I've done a session of 30 min, and am wondering whether to reduce it to 15 or 20 min.
Thank you.

If you give in to laziness, it is reinforced. That said, don't push yourself just because a rule says so.

For a 30 minute session, my recommendation is to continue to merely watch the hazy thought process (as long as there is not sleeping). Hopefully, after a while, the haziness will clear, like dawn fog clears eventually as the sun rises.

Lethargy and drowsiness are classical hindrances to achieving upacara samadhi. You might try meditating at a different time of day or try exercise. Or you may try meditating outside in nature or a park. A classical approach is to meditate overlooking a vast landscape. You might try coffee or dextrose. I heard of one person who would meditate sitting on top of a kitchen table (the fear of falling off kept him awake!!). Meditating with a group or friend may help. Or you might try a walking meditation. A fitness program my put your body into a higher energy state.


text:
Who are this people in white, often attend to monks?
I attended a dhamma talk last month by a Thai monk but English translation were also provided on site.
There was this westerner who is giving English translation but may not look like a full time monk? Although he was in white shirt, partial shaved head, but doesn't seem like wearing a rope.
Was wondering, how would they be addressed as in monastery? Or they are just layman working for the monastery?
Thanks.
Sadhu sadhu sadhu

What is that monastery?

He is probably an anagarika.
Anagarika, literally "homeless one", is a stage of practice between lay followers (upasaka) and novice monks (samanera). They usually wear white and act as part time or full time volunteers at monasteries or temples.
They observe the Eight Precepts and are able to handle money unlike novice monks and fully ordained monks (bhikkhu).


text:
What are Gandhari Charm and Manika Charm told by Buddha?
In the Kevatta Sutta, Buddha is explaining to Kevatta why he doesn't use miraculous powers for his teaching. And while telling about psychic power he tells:

Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, there is a charm called the Gandhari charm by which the monk wielded manifold psychic powers...exercising influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds.'

And while telling about telepathic power Buddha says:

"Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, there is a charm called the Manika charm by which the monk read the minds...of other beings...' What do you think, Kevatta -- isn't that what the man without faith, without conviction, would say to the man with faith and with conviction?" "Yes, venerable sir, that's just what he would say."

So it seems that it is possible to gain psychic power through Gandhari charm and mind reading power through Manika charm. I want to know what these charms are. Are they Mantras? Do any Buddhist scriptures describe it? I'm well aware that Buddhist scripture do not focus in attaining these powers and Buddhism is related with ending of suffering.
But as those charm names are spoken by Buddha himself, maybe it's possible to get knowledge about those charms. Also if there is some ancient commentaries of Kevatta Sutta, then maybe some information is avaliable there.

Gandhari charm = psychic power of heretic jhāna attained person, who is called "isi" in Gandhara district.
Manika charm = telepathic power of heretic jhāna attained person, who is called "isi" in Manika district.
charm=power, there is nothing difference.
Source: Kevaṭṭasutta Commentary.

Gandhari Charm and Manika Charm are skills of greater powers of the will and wish that have been not seen since the time of the Buddha. After that period some rishis and vidyadharas have tried to research into them and having failed to find the original form, they invented occultic versions of them.

The sutta exemplifies how a wordling would interpret miraculous powers of a monk, by saying that it was not the monk who did it by his concentrated mind but he used charm X.
Now the wordling wants some quick fix charm and not work on his silā and samādhi.


text:
What is right view regarding rebirth?
What is right view regarding rebirth according to the Buddha? Is it:

a) Rebirth stops after breakup of physical body for all even if
craving is not eradicated
b) Rebirth continues eternally after
breakup of physical body for all even if craving is eradicated
c)
Rebirth stops after breakup of physical body if craving is eradicated. Rebirth continues after
breakup of physical body if craving is not eradicated.
d) Other?

If possible, please provide sutta references.

It's not my intention to nit pick, but to point out one of Buddha's great qualities, precision and accuracy in choice of words like no others.  So technically one still has rebirth even all cravings are eradicated, if he still has higher fetters.  However, a last final rebirth will take place in Sudavasa realms exclusively for non-returners as final rebirth.  Your question is well understood tho.  Buddha is the only person who has never misspoken.

maybe replace "craving" in your question with "fetters" to improve it?

Householders, what if just taking A Safe Bet?

a) False
b) False
c) The cause of rebirth is eliminated while one lives when one attains Arahanthship. Hence rebirth does not occur after break up of the body.
d) For those who haven't eliminated craving, rebirth occurs only at the break up of the body. Keep in mind that the usage of the word 'rebirth' in Buddhism does not imply a soul.
e) Buddhists usually do not get confused even if you use the word 'death' instead of "break up of the body".

C. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that:

very ignorance (past-defilement/past-cause) comes the cessation of fabrications (past-kamma-becoming/past-cause).
From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness (present-birth/present appearance of consciousness-aggregate/present suffering/present-effect). [mano pubbaṅgamā dhammā]
From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of
name-&-form (present-birth/present appearance of form-aggregate & feeling-aggregate & perception-aggregate & fabrication-aggregate/present-suffering/present-effect).
From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six
sense media (present-suffering/present-effect).
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of
contact (present-suffering/present-effect).
From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling (present-suffering/present-effect).
From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving (present-defilement/present-cause).
From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of
clinging/sustenance (present-defilement/present-cause).
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of
becoming (present-kamma-becoming/present-fabrications/present-cause).
From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth (future-birth/future-upatti-becoming/future-effect).
From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow,
 lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease (future-effect).

Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

The right view regarding 'rebirth' (upapannā) according to the Buddha is:
a) Reappearance (upapannā) continues after breakup of the kaya (group; collection) for all if craving is not eradicated
b) Reappearance (upapannā) does not continue eternally at the breakup of the kaya if craving is eradicated because the end of craving is The Deathless.
c) Reappearance (upapannā) stops at the breakup of the kaya if craving is eradicated. Reappearance (upapannā) continues after breakup of the kaya if craving is not eradicated.
The word 'kaya' does not mean 'physical body'. The physical body is called 'rupa'. The 'kaya' means the 'collection' of the five aggregates. It is best to not misrepresent or slander the Buddha.
If the word 'death' ('marana') referred to physical death then it would not be a wrong view to say the Buddha ceases to exist after death. But, in Buddhism, it is wrong view to say a Buddha does not exist after death (marana) because a Buddha does not experience 'death'.

Friend Yamaka, do not speak thus. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One. It is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One
  would not speak thus: ‘A bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is
  annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not
  exist after death.’ SN 22.85

Dhammapada 21. Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. The heedful die not. The heedless are as if dead
  already.