text:
What additional ethics you find in Buddhism which are not found in other religions?
What additional ethics you find in Buddhism which are not found in other religions?
Other religions mean Abrahamic religions, Hinduism, Taoism or any other religion you know.
I also like to know whether other religions have any ethics you do not find in Buddhism.
To start with concentrate on five, eight precepts compare them to other religions.

Divisive Speech.
This is definitely something unique to Buddhism (I think). Other religions talk about lying, but I don't remember any mentions of divisive speech.

Abandoning divisive speech he abstains from divisive speech. What he has heard here he does not tell there to break those people apart from these people here. What he has heard there he does not tell here to break these people apart from those people there. Thus reconciling those who have broken apart or cementing those who are united, he loves concord, delights in concord, enjoys concord, speaks things that create concord.

This comes from Buddha's special insight into the nature of dukkha. Dukkha comes from a conflict of mind, an unresolvable uninergated contradiction. Craving is one example of such contradiction, aversion is another, and conflict between people because of their incompatible views (about the world or about each other) is a third!
So when you engage in divisive speech, you create and spread conflict between the sides, which will sooner or later bear the fruit of dukkha.
While the non-violence is taught by many religions, it is only (to my limited knowledge) in Buddhism is where the source of dukkha is understood so deeply that the role of divisive speech in creating dukkha is clearly recognized.
Harsh speech

They give up harsh speech. They speak in a way that’s mellow, pleasing to the ear, lovely, going to the heart, polite, likable and agreeable to the people.

Very high level comparison, not intended to be perfect but at least highlight known ethical differences:
Before Life:
Buddhism - Ignorance
Taoism - Just reincarnation, no specific explanation on ignorance
Abrahamic - Original Sin
During life:
Buddhism - You are the owner of your Karma, good/bad things happen because of your actions.
Taoism - Follow the "Path", be conscious of good and bad, cause and effect. Also believe in karma, but not as much explanation as Buddhism. Follows the Master's teachings.
Abrahamic - Good/bad things happen due to God's plan
After Life:
Buddhism - Eliminate Ignorance, Escape reincarnation, through Eight Folds Paths
Taoism - Reincarnation. Believe in Ghosts and Deities. Worships Deities and Ancestors.
Abrahamic - Enjoy life in heaven with God, 'Believing in God' is the only path to rise to Heaven
Salvation:
Buddhism - no one can save you, except Yourself. Practice the 8-folds path. Meditation is Key.
Taoism - Specific ceremonies to help the ghosts reincarnate. Possible to ascend as deities. Lot's of techniques and chanting to make life better/wealthier. Communicate with ghostly beings, fang shui designs, palm/face/birthday readings. Meditation is optional.
Abrahamic - no one can save you, except God. Meditation not preferred, some suggests may attract "demons".
Path to Wisdom:
Buddhism - Understand the true nature of suffering, eliminate suffering. Everything that is conditioned are impermanent, suffering, and no fixed self/identity.
Taoism - Be a good person. Be mindful of Karma. Follows the right Path according to master's teachings.
Abrahamic - Believe in God is wisdom. Happiness can be eternal as long as in Heaven. God is permanent. Soul is true self and permanent.

"Follow the law, not the person" in the Nirvana Sutra accords with the points under "Salvation" and "Path to Wisdom".

Other religions, as far as seen, may have certain elements of generosity, yet mostly upwardly, like in arabic.
Most religion praise the worthy and honor of parents.
Many religions have similar precepts like the basic five, yet mostly limited toward human beings to keep, some only toward "own kind". No other religion has a simple and clear cut set of the basic precepts.
Most, especially Arabic religions, praise abstain from sensuality, sex, intoxication, entertainment... most more than the basic four.
Certain Dhammic religions do not give much into abstain from sensuality.
Like in Dhamma, most religions have the unspoken precept of refuge as obligation, even stronger.
Less religions, here mostly the Dhammic, have focus on mental cultivation as guided teaching.
Liberation from the bounds of becoming is only found in the Buddhas teachings.
It's all naturally: no giving up outwardly, no complete virtue, no real virtue, no concentration, no concentration, no wisdom, no liberation.
As far as such as re-ligion can still be found, it's probably only the Buddhas which has been not become solvely secular missing contemplatives and homeless life totally.
Generally my person does not encourage to waste time, since even the best rest disappears very fast and anicent paths will be soon no more traceable since no one has gone them any more.
There is a nice and friendly "all religions community", my person got known this days. Surely a good place if interested to explore, Nyom Sarath.
(not given for trade and exchange but for release)

The Vinaya, including the four parajikas (defeats).

well the short answer is that right view is not found in wrong doctrines and since it is the view and samadhi and dana which determine the realms of rebirth, people who cling to their wrong views and yet are skilled into the jhanas may or may not access some realms of rebirths. It turns out that most devas and humans who behave well have access to plenty of realms, but the buddhas claims that there is a realm only accessible to non-returners and above. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html
The thing is that you would like a list of meritorious cetana-actions or a list of precepts which are not found in wrong doctrines, but all there is samadhi either tainted by some wrong view or tainted by right view. So concretely it is the same word & the same jhana, but the intention changes and, as per the claim of the buddha that the cetana of an activity is the karma of this activity, the result changes.
So the people who create wrong views and yet are skilled into jhanas do not know about this ''additional ethics'', but only because they do not have right view and it is right view which is really this ''additional ethics''.

Right view is not considered ethics. It is considered wisdom.

Abortion.  Buddhism is the only major religion to explicitly ban abortion in its foundational texts.  Moreover, it condemns all parties involved in the act including the doctor and anyone who provides aid in the procurement of the procedure.
It's found in the Vinaya - https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya/227/4pk.htm


text:
Is there a real difference between "not-self" and "no self", and if so, which one is correct?
Just in case someone is interested, this is a question based on this thread, but it's not necessary to read such discussion to understand and answer this question.
I'd like to know about the differences (if there is any) between the next statements, and to know which one is correct from the perspective of Early Buddhism:

"There is no self to be found"
"All phenomena are not-self"

So, basically, is there any difference between "no self" and "not-self"? And which one corresponds to "anattā"?
I'd appreciate any help.
Kind regards!

chrisW's answer is great, but i think it's help people to answer your question if you defined what you mean by "not self" and "no self". for me, they are identical

I can't easily tell a difference between "no self" and "not self" in English -- and if there is a difference (if you can construct a distinction in meaning) I think it's too fine a difference to be significant -- like if someone tells you something is "a mile away" and you get out your micrometer.
I mean, the "a" prefix in Pali is a negator, which appears on all sorts of words:

kalika ("time"), akalika ... how do you translate akalika? I say "timeless" because I think that happens to be a felicitous word in English, but equally be "without time, "outside time", "not subject to time" or "not controlled by time" or "nothing to do with time"
verena ("hatred"), averena ... how do you translate averena? I say ""non-hatred" (because I hope that's the most literal translation even if it isn't idiomatic English) but some translations say "loving-kindness" -- i.e. not just an absence of hatred, they substitute one of its "polar opposites"

Maybe "selfless" could be a translation, however in English that's an adjective used to describe "altruistic" behaviour (so that's not an appropriate translation).
anatta is grammatically a noun. I don't, I wouldn't, normally equate two nouns -- "a dog is a cat" for example doesn't make sense. So I usually read anatta as if it were an adjective ("a dog is hairy"), i.e. as if "form is anatta" is describing a property or characteristic of form. And lakkhaṇa
 (translated "characteristic") in Anattalakkhaṇasutta suggests that seeing anatta as a characteristic -- an adjective not a noun -- isn't bad.
One time is it appropriate to equate two nouns is when you're talking about categories -- "a dog is an animal". Perhaps anatta can be seen as a category of things, especially in phrases like Sabbe sankhara anatta.
I think of "self" as a verb in that kind of context ...

Calvin and Hobbes - Verbing Weirds Language - by Bill Watterson for January 25, 1993

... i.e. "selfing" is an action, it's something you do to things -- you "take as 'self'" or "perceive as self" or "attach to as if it were self" -- and an anatta thing is something which you shouldn't "self" in that way, something which isn't fit to be selved.
Perhaps you can see that the Anattalakkhaṇasutta is about the five aggregates. The Dhammacakkappavattanasutta mentions aggregates too:

Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

So I think of "selfing" as "grasping" or "attaching" (especially to aggregates).
I think that colloquially the word atta had two meanings:

atta -- me, myself
Atta -- my Soul, the Soul -- see Ātman (Hinduism)

I think that informs the meaning too -- to say that the aggregates are anatta is to say that they shouldn't be regarded as "soul" or "permanent self", which fits in with such things being anicca (impermanent).
Since you're asking I don't think it goes so far as to say "there is no soul" or "there is no self" -- instead see e.g. How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? -- that would belong to the "thicket of wrong views" cited here.

Hi Chris! Thanks for this wonderful answer. As I see it, I think of two ways to interpret "no self": a nihilistic way, where one says that there's nothing at all; and a empirical way, where one see and perceive the khandhas, but one does not find a reason to call them "a self". When I read the sutta about the "thicket of views", I see the "no self" of the first kind. But I see the second kind as an intermediate point between independent/permanent existence and absolute non-existence, i.e. physical and mental components which attribute an identity to "itself". Am I seeing this correctly?

I don't know what "intermediate" means there. The "middle way" for example, at the start of SN 56.11, I wouldn't call that an "intermediate" between "indulgence in sensual pleasures" and "indulgence in self-mortification" -- I'd say it was "neither", it's neither extreme. I think that the sutta about the "thicket of wrong views" says that any kind of "view of self" at all -- including "I exist", "I don't exist", "I will", "I won't", "I used to", "I never did" -- it's all wrong view (and also known in that sutta as arising from "inappropriate attention").

Another topic on this site, which I found helpful, was, How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?.

Thanks! Note that I'm not saying that "I don't exist", which does not make sense, logically speaking. I'm saying the concept of "self" is an artificial construction, and nothing deserves to be called a "self"; so that's why I think one could say "there is no self". I think "self" is as artificial and conventional as "chariot" when we talk about a group of parts (like in the example given in SN 5:10) Kind regards!

And about the use of the word "intermediate", in my native language it can be used as a synonym for "middle". I'm sorry about the wrong use of the word.

That (i.e. "chariot") sounds like the "sunyata" doctrine, i.e. that things exist but that they don't "really" exist.

Although e.g. in Taoism "middle" may mean "a bit of both" (yin and yang), in Buddhism I understand it to mean neither -- neither extreme. Put another way, it's neither "a view of self" nor "a view of non-self" -- it's without that kind of view. Analogously, MN 63 implies you can't have an accurate fixed "view" of what the Tathagata "is" and whether he "will be" etc. -- it's to do with not having such view -- see also "trackless". Otherwise it's a "fetter of views", "a writhing", "a thicket".

The difference is significant.
To say: "This is not the self", is to point to some existing thing and having examined it with the criteria for what is worthy to consider the self (that is, that it is something that is under one's control) and finding it out of one's control, the statement is simply  the expression of an observable, provable fact.
To say: "There is no self." is to express an opinion (point of view, diṭṭhi) as to all things throughout time and space, past, future, present. This is something that is beyond possibility, as even for Buddhas, for 'Incalculable is the beginning, brethren, of this faring on."
SN 2.15.9
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/02_nv/sn02.15.009.rhyc.pts.htm#p1
In other words, if it cannot be seen and proved, it is just an opinion.
The Dhamma is clear on the practice: opinions are something to be let go; identification with that which is not the self is something to be given up.

Hi Mike! Thanks for that concise, insightful answer! Although I pick ChrisW answer as the one responding my question, it was your answer the one that allowed me to understand the subtler implications of the "thicket of wrong view" quoted by Chris. I'm really grateful for your knowledge. Kind regards!

The statement sabbe dhamma anatta (Dhp 279) means all phenomena is not self or everything is not self. A phenomena or thing (dhamma) refers to anything - the five aggregates, the body, the mind, nibbana, the teachings, the Buddha, thoughts etc.
It also means that there is no self in all phenomena or that there is no self in all things. We can also say that all phenomena is empty of a self - from Empty Sutta.
This means that when you dig deeper into anything, you won't be able to find anything like a self.
But this doesn't mean that there is no self at all, as the Buddha himself said in the Self-Doer Sutta. The self is a thought in the mind that emerges when the five aggregates work together, according to dependent origination. But if you break down the five aggregates into its constituent parts, you cannot find the self anywhere.
This is similar to how a lute (a musical instrument) works. When different parts of the lute work together, they produce music. But if you break the lute down to its constituent components, you cannot find music. This is taught in the Lute Sutta.
That the self is a mental idea, a thought in the mind, is taught in the Quickly Sutta referring to the "I am the thinker" mental idea.

Hi Ruben! Following the example, if we analyze the pebbles on the beach, we can see that it LOOKS like a face, but no matter how much it seems like it, it is definitely not a face at all. Couldn't we say that it seems to us that there is a self, but it's actually an illusion coming from a distorted perception of things, and that instead of self there are aggregates that are subjugated to conditionality and D.O., and that we called it self (attā) just because of conventionality and ignorance? Kind regards!

@BrianDíazFlores I have updated my answer to be more accurate.

The concept is the unreality (Paññatti).
The unreality neither arise&vanish (Saṅkhata;Khandha) nor be the opposite of arising&vanishing (Asaṅkhata;Ṅibbāna).
The Self (attā) is a subset of the concept. It is an unreality.
the no-self, non-self is the opposite of concept. Saṅkhata and Asaṅkhata are the opposite of Attā-Paññatti (self).
The concept is imagined by thinking of the reality. There are 2 type of concepts:

Name-let people know something.
Imagination-imagined by people.

The imagination has many various subset such as home, time, direction, tall, big, etc.
Self is in a set called illusion of compactness (Ghana-Paññatti).
Another, someone may confused by Anattā in AnattaLakkhaṇaSutta, then say Nibbāna and Pañnatti is Attā, or neither attā nor anattā. That is just logic, mistaken logic exactly. AnattaLakkhaṇaSutta is for unloosing from Khandha, not for describing everything. As I describe above that if you describe Nibbāna as attā, nibbāna will be unreality. and if you describe Nibbāna as  neither attā nor anattā,  nibbāna will be neither reality nor unreality. **Then people who already enlighten Nibbāna must completely disagree your conclusion surely.

The way I understand the Pali term "Anatta" is translated as no-self or notself by some.
There is a great debate about whether Anatta means notself or no-self.
The only way you can get an answer to this question is only by realising Anatta or at least by eliminating Sakkaya Ditthi. (personality belief)

As I view this concept: "Not self", you are focusing on things other than "self", thus you are assuming "self" exists.
However, "no self" is something else. You conceptually recognize that "self" is fake. And you escaped from the "self" cage. Thus "no self" or "'Keine' self", you set the "self" variable as 0.
Hope it helps!

No-Self is one extreme.
Quoted below is from Chandrakirti Commentary.

so too, the buddhas have taught, “There is neither the Self nor the
Selfless at all.”
Just as the view that there is a Self is not ultimately true
(atattva), so too its opposite—the view that there is no Self—is also
not ultimately true. In this way, they taught that there is neither
any Self, nor any non-Self whatsoever. This is as it says in the
Āryaratnakūṭa:
Kāśyapa, “Self” is one extreme, and “Selflessness” is a second extreme. The middle that   is between these two extremes is cannot
be indicated (arūpya), it cannot be shown. It  has  neither  location
nor  appearance.  It  cannot  be  represented,  it  cannot  be
marked.  Kāśyapa, it is called the middle way, the true discernment of
things.

Some thinkers such as the Sāṃkhyas perceive that, in the case that
karmic imprints (saṃskāra) go out of existence every moment, there is
no relation between karmic acts and their results. Perceiving this,
these thinkers posit a Self [so as to provide some basis for that
relation].
The Lokāyatas, on the other hand, through their reasoning see no-Self
that would be an agent of continuity [from one life to the next].
Hence, they assert that there is no Self. They do so with statements
such as, There is a person just to the extent that there is an object
of the senses. Oh Bhadrā, this is what the learned say, and it is a
jackal’s foot.
But just as those without cataracts do not at all see the hairs, flies
and so on that are perceived by those with cataracts, so too the
buddhas do not at all see any real entity (vastusvarūpa) such as a
“self,” or a “non-self” that is imagined by childish persons. Not
seeing such things,     .. the buddhas have taught, “There is
neither the Self nor the Selfless at  all.”

Whichever way you say it 'no-self' or 'non-self' the wisdom from the epoch of Greek philosophy will ask you what is that self you predicate while claiming its non-existance?
Parmenides will rear out his head saying:

The only roads of inquiry there are to think of: one, that it is and
  that it is not possible for it not to be, this is the path of
  persuasion (for truth is its companion); the other, that it is not and
  that it must not be — this I say to you is a path wholly unknowable.

Me think only those who know the end which "is" can know the meaning of anattā

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Integration of Body and Mind
Upon asking about over-watching Youtube, I wondered if this activity was detrimental because it was merely sensory without much cognition. Buddhism usually promotes seemingly either attention (mindfulness), action (compassion), or even contemplation (analytical meditation).
Therefore, I am wondering whether Buddhism considers that activities relying solely on the senses and the body cause detriment? Do only activities with a cognitive or mindful component bring benefit?
Also, I feel vipassana is divided between bodily observations as the body itself and feeling, and mental observations as mind and dhammas. Is this seemingly complementary approach linked explicitly with integration of body-mind?
Thank you

I don't think mere "cognition" is necessarily helpful.
And Buddhism might regard "cognition" as merely another sense, the 6th sense -- i.e. with the "cognition of thoughts" being objects of the mind, comparable with the "seeing of sights" being objects of the eye.
Examples of mere cognition might, I suppose, include watching videos, reading books, arguing online, doing cross-word puzzles...
What might be more helpful is "directed" thought, purposeful, intentional -- and preferably with a motive which aligns with Buddhist values and morality (e.g. beneficial, harmless, liberating).
I think that's related to "energy" -- i.e. that's a type of cognition which is associated with, from which derives, a self-sustaining energy.
I don't know of a canonical reference to justify this answer, though.
This article -- The Seven Factors of Enlightenment -- implies there may be some connection between "energy" and "purposefulness":

The third enlightenment factor is viriya, energy. It is a mental property (cetasika) and the sixth limb of the Noble Eightfold Path, there called samma-vayama, right effort.
The life of the Buddha clearly reveals that he was never subjected to moral or spiritual fatigue. From the hour of his enlightenment to the end of his life, he strove tirelessly to elevate mankind, regardless of the bodily fatigue involved, and oblivious to the many obstacles and handicaps that hampered his way. He never relaxed in his exertion for the common weal. Though physically he was not always fit, mentally he was ever vigilant and energetic. Of him it is said:

Ah, wonderful is the Conqueror,
    Who e'er untiring strives
    For the blessing of all beings, for
    the comfort of all lives.

Buddhism is for the sincerely zealous, strong and firm in purpose, and not for the indolent (araddhviriyassayam dhammo nayam dhammo kusitassa). The Buddha {etc.}

And "mindfulness" ought to be helpful -- that is assuming that "mindfulness" means not just "attention" but "remembering the Dhamma".

Just to be clear, are you saying that activity aligned with Buddhist values promotes self-sustaining energy?

Yes, purposeful activity -- however I don't really know what the scriptures say about that.

In the Pali Canon the Buddha talks about metaphorical "foods". In addition to the physical food, there is emotional "food", conceptual "food", and the "food" of purposeful action.
All these "foods" are fuel or sustenance (upādāna) in the sense that they serve as support for "future becoming and renewed existence".
Obviously, different quality of "food" creates different "future becoming and renewed existence". "Food" can be spoiled or rotten or even poisonous.
It sounds like your problem has nothing to do with mindfulness - instead, it has to do with the type of "food" you eat, as well as the quantity.

Therefore, I am wondering whether Buddhism considers that activities
  relying solely on the senses and the body cause detriment? Do only
  activities with a cognitive or mindful component bring benefit?

I'm sceptic to whether we can have activities completely free from any form of cognition (if that's what you're referring to) unless maybe we're asleep or in a coma. Our organisms will always be active in all six sense modalities, so the question becomes whether we're attentive to them or not. If i'm not mistaken it's all a matter of the scope of our perception (mindfulness).

Also, I feel vipassana is divided between bodily observations as the body itself and feeling, and mental observations as mind and dhammas. Is this seemingly complementary approach linked explicitly with integration of body-mind?

I could be wrong, but looking at it as integration is perhaps the opposite purpose of vipassana, since at least one aspect of investigative meditation aims to become more aware of the individual skandhas. It then becomes a process of dissolution of the concept of self, rather than integration.

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


text:
What is path and fruition?
Path and fruition for the 4 stages of holy disciple are frequently mentioned.
I understand that the fruition is the removal of the fetters and realization of the knowledge of that respective attainment (stream entry, once returner, non returner, arhatship ). The holy disciple knows that he is a stream entrant upon attainment of stream entry fruition.......he knows he is an arhat upon attainment of arhatship.
But what is the attainment of path? How would one describe rightly the attainment of the path?
What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the respective path?
I would really appreciate actual words of the Buddha for this answer.

Best source for you for this would be the Buddhist scripture The Patisambhidamagga -  "path of discrimination", if you seek the actual words of the Buddha for this answer. For example, refer to page 97 of The path of discrimination. I may elaborate on this (an actual answer) if time permits.

But what is the attainment of path? How would one describe rightly the
  attainment of the path?

The path to nibbana has four steps as you mentioned stream entry, once returner, non returner, arhatship. As you have asked How would one describe rightly the attainment of the path? I'll answer to that as below.
What is Stream Entry
When someone achieved this state he drops three fetters self-view (sakkāya-ditthi), clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), and skeptical indecision (Vicikitsa). Ref. But there's a mistake in this. Which is how (sakkāya-ditthi) is defined. It's translated as self-view. With this mistake we are trying to think to attain stream entry we need to drop the myself view. Which is not the correct buddhism.
If someone feels like down voting this, first read this full and question back, before doing that. Because this is the real buddhism
First I'll prove why it cannot be self-view.

If someone drops him self in the first stage (drops the fetter of self-view) then who is going to attain the once returner state who is going to follow the rest of the path of Enlightment. To do that there should be a person, there should be a self who is doing that.
Dropping fetter mānasaṃ which happens when becoming Arhat cause to drop the self-view not the vise versa. And only after someone becomes Arhat he has no view of him self. He is not going to compare anything with him, as everything is irrelative (opposite of relative) to him (there's no him at this state).

Now let's see what's the real sakkāya means.
sakkāya means, Something you are attached (upaadanaya) is worth. As an example, we think nice car is something worth to have, pretty lady / handsome boy is worth, Think about anything that you think it is worth (This can be your children, laptop, parents, pen, pair of shoes, phone with latest Tech etc). Now ask the below questions from your self (If you are not Arhat then there's a self).

Why you think that's worth? : Answer would be it exists the way you want. You think the existence of that happens as per your wish. Until that happens, you protect it, you keep it, sometime you archive it saying that had been with you for this much of years (eg: you may keeping a pen which is no longer use, but just because it was given to you by someone special, therefore it's worth for you)
Is the same thing worth for some other person as well? : Answer would be No. Why? because it's something you build in your mind. If the real worthiness is in that object (eg: pen, phone, lover, car etc.) it should be worth to everyone. The only answer which explains why everyone doesn't like (doesn't think worth) the same thing, is because its made up in your mind.

So now it should be clear that the real worthiness does not exist in out side world (outside object). Its always something we build in our own mind. Now you should think deeply, how you can expect the same model which you built on your mind will be reflecting in the outside object. (eg: wife thinks, husband will love her forever, man thinks the car will exists as he expects). These are two different things. One in outside and one in your mind. And just because we attached to an outside world (external world) object, then we try to make / control outside world object to make it identical with the model we made it in our mind. But you will not be able to achieve this. This is the real meaning of Anicca not the impermanence.
Now back to sakkāya, It is that we think the external world is worth. And we attached (craving) to that without understanding (not knowing = ignorance) the Anicca behaviour of the world. Therefore to drop the sakkāya you need to understand the Anicca behaviour. Which make you understand nothing is worth in this world, but if you have experienced something is worth (exists according to the same picture built in your mind), it is because that's how it supposed to behave according to the law of nature (which is Pratītyasamutpāda), and not because of the picture in your mind or because of your wish. So when someone understand this he drops the other two fetters which are clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) and skeptical indecision (Vicikitsa)

What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who
  has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the
  respective path?

Answer to the second part of the question:
An ordinary person and a faithful disciple who has not attained any path are the same Puthujjana level. And only the person, who has attained the stream entry (Sotāpanna) after knowing the Anicca behaviour of the world, acts differently. Because he knows the truth of the world, to understand that very well and he will not run after attachments as the way he used to be. He has slown down the speed of running after attachments as he knows and understands the truth up to some level.
So stream entry person starts meditating after he become stream entry, and get to the four stages of dhyana as he can deeply concentrate the truth of the world (Anicca) and how world behaves (Pratītyasamutpāda) in dyana state. Which cause him moving to the other three steps and finally attain Nibbana
Hope this clears grey areas in Buddhism.

In DN2, a king asks the Buddh about the fruits of an ascetic life. The first fruit is described as follows in the context of a former bondworker to the king:

“No, sir. Rather, I would bow to them, rise in their presence, and offer them a seat. I’d invite them to accept robes, alms-food, lodgings, and medicines and supplies for the sick. And I’d arrange for their lawful guarding and protection.”
“What do you think, great king? If this is so, is there a fruit of the ascetic life apparent in the present life or not?”
“Clearly, sir, there is.”
“This is the first fruit of the ascetic life that’s apparent in the present life, which I point out to you.”

In this story, the bondservant takes both parts of your question, as an ordinary person and then as a monk on the path.

Householder Sakyan, interested
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
"What is the attainment of path?", was asked by householder Sakyan.
It's by arising of right view, as a (the first) factor of the path, that the path is attained.
"What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the respective path?", was asked by householder Sakyan.
The ordinary person, a faithful disciple, householder Sakyan, has not gained right view as a (the first) factor of the path, still does not train himself on the Ariya-magga. The Ariya-Puggala, the holy one, has already attained the first factor, right view, as path-element, and trains himself, relaying on right view, in the Noble eightfold path.
It is said, by the Buddha, as transmitted, that a person with firm faith, having gone for refuge, has heard the good Dhamma, follows by faith, is not capable to die without realizing the path. At least when the truth of suffering, aging, sickness and death will be faced, path, by gaining right view, may arise for such a faith-follower.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainments binding here in this wheel, but as a means to escape from it.)


text:
Is there an Dzogchen monastery in Canada with a accomplished lineage?
I am looking to learn and get initiation into Dzogchen eventually leading into Tögal and trekchö. Coming from a Indian yogic tradition the rainbow body of perfection is the pinnacle of yogic achievement. I would consider it an honour to get initiated under a master in an accomplished lineage for this purpose alone.
Also any good books that discuss the rainbow body and the dzogchen practices such as chord, trechko and togal will be immensely useful. Please give me suggestions.
Respectfully,
B

I'm not completely sure if this monastery is a Dzogchen monastery, but you can try the Thrangu Monastery in British Columbia, Canada.
This monastery belongs to the Kagyu lineage.
You can find a list of teachers here.
This wikipedia page on Thrangu Rinpoche states that he trained Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche.

Dzogchen is a teaching of the Nyingma school, so if I were you I would begin my search at Nyingma meditation centers, for example in Vancouver there's one called The Lotus Speech belonging to Northern Treasures Nyingma Lineage. They might know where to go next.
Kagyu lineage also has great teachers and they often have "double major" in Nyingma practices but not to the point of teaching Dzogchen, I don't think so. They do teach Mahamudra though which is similar enough that you could start there and eventually transfer to Nyingma.
What you are asking for is a very advanced teaching so be prepared for a long and arduous journey going through multiple intermediate stations.


text:
Im making no progress on meditation
Kay so I have pretty strong OCD which manifests as just this constant stress. Under therapists advice ive been meditating for several hours a day for a month. I've made basically no progress. I also tried doing this several times over the past few years. Same thing. I've tried different objects (vedana, breath etc) and nothing really changes.
However interestingly I've had these short moments of bliss that do occasionally happen. Not every session but its happened several times. What causes that.
So I'm already expecting answers that are basically like "you have to be patient" but it's been a 2 months (and practicing mindfulness throughout the day) and nothing has changed at all.
I dont think im like "treatment resistant" because like i said there are those short moments of bliss. But the thing is i dont even know what im supposed to do during meditation. Like what am i doing. Is samatha the one where im supposed to be really concentrated? Is that whats causing the bliss?

My instructions were, 'Sit down and give up everything'. This is the task for the Zenist, and of course it's not as simple as it looks. You'll have no idea how much progress you're making so don't worry if it seems rather underwhelming. Your OCD may be a difficulty, but not if your awareness can stand back and observe your thoughts as an uninvolved bystander.

RE: "I don't even know what I'm supposed to do during meditation" & "what's causing the bliss?" - Congrats, you are very clear about what it is that you're not clear about. That's an awesome first step.
The human mind  is an information machine. When you set a goal X and you attain X, we get "X = X" and that feels good. When you set a goal of X and you attain Y, we get "X not= Y" and that feels bad. When you don't set a clear goal (X) or you're confused about what you have (Y), there is no basis for comparison, so that feels like an ambiguous feeling, perhaps even anxiety.
In meditation, you are supposed to work on achieving perfect X=X. That's when you feel bliss. So, first of all you need to clearly define X. And then you need to work on attaining it.
In Buddhism, our X changes as we advance, from level to level. It starts pretty coarse, and then it gets more and more subtle. First we define X as "having no coarse cravings and no coarse negative emotions". Once we attain that, we redefine it as "having no worries". Once we attain that, we redefine it as "having no doubts". And so on. So on every level we achieve a state of mind that has less inner conflict and more inner harmony, and once we attain it, we congratulate ourselves on attaining it. And then we define X as "not worrying about our state of mind" - and we attain that too. So it's like a ladder.

Just curious about the no coarse cravings, no worries, no doubts sequence. Can you expand on that?

Hi, what part you're not clear about?

Do doubts diminish really after cravings and worries in that sequence? Or could they diminish in another sequence?

They don't "diminish" by themselves, you let go of sustaining them, starting from the biggest generators of dukkha, and gradually going to smaller and smaller stuff.

Hi @AndreiVolkov, How can I know that I am making progress? There are days where I feel very good about my meditation. And there are days where my mind just wonders around throughout the whole time!

Your therapist suggested this might help, so it's really not on you. The best idea is to approach meditation expecting nothing in return, like, "what have i got to lose?" attitude. Just keep it simple. It's not meant to be goal-oriented. We call this "just sitting." There is actually an entire school of meditation based on this phrase alone. Just sit. Let thoughts come and go, feelings, perceptions, etc. Being OCD is like being in charge all the time, but here, and thats's why this isn't easy, it's about NOT being in control, just letting go. If you're a bit frustrated, you're probably doing okay. If something DOES happen, you still have to let go of that too. Almost better if it doesn't.

I think there are (many) different types of Buddhist meditation.
Because it's under therapist's advice perhaps you could ask them -- about which type of meditation, and why, and how, and what if anything to expect.
Some of the types of meditation include e.g.:

Concentration -- focus attention on an object, e.g. the breath, perhaps a sight or sound
Insight -- see where thoughts (and feelings and desires) come from, and that they come and go
Body -- tension and so on manifests in the body (including breathing), becoming aware of that helps towards perceiving, identifying, and letting go of that tension
Development (becoming or generation) -- imagine for example being kind to people, having goodwill
Heedfulness (and morality) -- before and after doing something, ask, "Is this good? Is it worth doing?"

In case you don't know already, I think that one of the most important bits of Buddhist doctrine is the doctrine of "the four noble truths":

Some experiences are unpleasant or unsatisfying
"Dissatisfaction" (sometimes translated as "suffering") arises with "craving" -- i.e. when you crave for things to be other than as they are -- and when you "attach" to things that are pleasant or unpleasant
"Dissatisfaction" ceases when this type of "craving" ceases
There's a path -- view, effort, and so on -- towards that cessation

So if I find myself feeling dissatisfied I might ask, "What am I craving? Do I want something, do I expect something to be different from the way it is? If my craving is causing me to feel tense, whose fault is that, and what good is it to do that?" And then let go of (at least temporarily) that self-made craving and dissatisfaction and see the world without it (and keep breathing and so on).

Other bits of doctrine are helpful too. The anatta doctrine deemphasises identifying with thoughts and feelings -- "that's me" and "that's mine". It warns that having a fixed "view of self" will cause suffering.

What happens if you approach meditation as merely registering experiences, rather than aiming for a goal? Sometimes our ambitions in meditation becomes the obstacle.

yeah but like... i dont feel like im doing it correctly. because sometimes i get those moments of sukkha and sometimes i dont. and in general nothing is changing. trust me i know about being goalless i think ive been very patient this past year and yet nothing is getting better

You seem to have identified two thoughts that i would consider important: The assumption that you're doing it wrong, and the assumption that something ought to happen during meditation. That's a whole lot more than "nothing" to me...

I dont get what you mean

All i'm saying is that it seems to me you have increased your awareness of your thoughts, and that's a very important step. More importantly, what do YOU think it means?

Hey thanks. But I still feel like i dont know what the hell im doing... Like I often get confused as to whats feeling, whats thought, and i dont know if im reacting to things. And when theres no results it makes it even more confusing

Perhaps we could add confusion to the list of observations. And you tell me nothing happens? (Not trying to be deliberately elusive to screw with you, i just think you're onto something).

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

I'm going to try and answer this as best as I can.
In regards to what one is doing in meditation, this may depend on your type of meditation. In mindfulness, usually, there is the idea of 'no bad meditation'. Mingyur Rinpoche describes this as trying your best, but if you're not successful that is also okay. He mentions that too great expectations may backfire in meditation, which is what people have been getting at in other answers.
You mentioned that you have moments of bliss, and that you seem to be clinging -- as in hoping -- to these blissful moments. You attribute value to them, I believe because you are usually stressed or affected by the anxiety.
I feel what could happen is that your expecting for things to be resolved is causing worry in itself, which biases your meditation. However, perhaps its also the case that you take more time to develop tangible effects from meditation. That doesn't mean there aren't intangible effects which you don't realize are occurring.
Considering that here, meditation is posited as an effective treatment for anxiety, and that MBSR (Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction) was developed for stress and anxiety, I feel you may be indeed benefiting from it.
However, mindfulness (as opposed to some purely Buddhist meditations) involves a curiosity towards one's experience; a curiosity which doesn't presume anything, but observes it as it occurs. Similarly, it involves non-judgment towards this experience. I believe this might be useful attitudes for your situation.
Also, you mention you're not "treatment resistant" because there is bliss. But, I don't feel bliss suggests success in meditation. If clung to, bliss may even be an impediment. A more wholesome attitude might involve equanimity, which is closer to the non-judgment I mentioned.
I dunno what to add, but I hope this helps!

Might help if looking for real treatment:
...first of all: Respect, Confidence and Patient
...and then...
The Healing Power of the Precepts, by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu (1997; 4pp./11KB)

Many people today have come to the Buddha's teachings in search of emotional and spiritual healing. In this short essay the author reminds us that the single most effective tool for healing a wounded heart may be found in the cultivation of sila, or virtuous conduct.

...after that for a while or even fast, meditation might come along as a result of basic treatment, if even knowing why the Buddha and for what he taught.
There is no act of will necessary for one with firm Sila to gain right concentration and release.
(Not given for keeping or stay kept in the wheel of trade, exchange and stacks but for release from it.)


text:
Level of Focus in Anapanasati
I've been practising meditation with the breath as an object. While meditating, I am mindful of whatever arises. I feel that such awareness gives insight into the mind.
However, I am wondering whether one should investigate the mind this way, or try and increase focus by narrowing onto the breath. Would narrowing onto the breath provide more benefit?
Hence, I wonder how close to the breath one should be in meditation? Should all thinking be ideally diminished?

Yes, once you have reached sufficient level of concentration you may continue on the breath (samatha) or investigate the mind (vipassana). In my own practice I have a preference for reaching the calmest level possible, so I simply stay with breath, but more quietly, gently, less control, just allowing it to be, no more. At the same time, I don't ignore or suppress things as they arise, i just let them arise, fall, arise, fall. In one door, out the other. It's "kind of" a combination of both Calm and Insight.

For perspective, here is a sutta excerpt that describes 3 of the most popular meditation topics taught by the Buddha, and note anapana is especially designated for its effectiveness in ceasing vitakka (thinking):

(4 indispensable practices from AN 9.1 excerpt) a-subhā bhāvetabbā
  Non-beautiful [foulness perceptions] (he) should-develop, rāgassa
  pahānāya, (for) [lustful] passion's removal, mettā bhāvetabbā
  Good-will (he) should-develop, byāpādassa pahānāya, (for) ill-will's
  removal, ānā-pānas-sati bhāvetabbā inhale-exhale-mindfulness (he)
  should-develop, vitakk-upacchedāya, (for) [distractive]
  thinking's-cutting-off,

And here for more explanation on why breath meditation is so effective at that:
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/04/16aps-great-for-driving-out-thoughts.html
And part of your other question:

Should all thinking be ideally diminished?

See MN 19 and MN 20 for great examples on the role of vitakka (thinking) in first jhāna. For example, first jhana includes resolves (sankappa) and thoughts (vitakka) based on metta, karuna, etc. There's nothing wrong with vitakka/thinking inherently. The problem is that people without sufficiently developed samadhi, run away with thinking and papanca/proliferation based on confused and deluded perceptions of reality (MN 18).

I will give to you a bit of advice that a bhikkuni gave about the practice of Anapanasati. She is one who has developed and practiced continuously this form of meditation, and have achieved the greatest of all rewards and is now helping others too in this Path. She was an educated person born to a Catholic family who was raised in a Christian environment who held senior positions at work and later embraced the Buddha's Teachings. Apparently, she had the ability to see past lives of others and this led to a desire to study the Buddhist Teachings making her give up her lay life and ordain.
A couple of weeks ago I had the good fortune of meeting her in person. Thus we had the good fortune of listening to her, telling all those who have a special calling, of this higher truth. The following bit of info about the practice of Anapanasati will help you. But first remember to take the meaning of “So satōva assāsati, satōva passāsati” to mean “He maintains his mind on dhamma (what is beneficial) that should be taken in (kusala or moral) and those that should be gotten rid of (akusala or immoral)”. That is to say that ALL thinking should NOT be diminished. ALWAYS take IN the GOOD and DISCARD the BAD. Now…
•   Concentrate on your breath, in breath that flows. Gently flowing through your entire body, bringing life to every cell, every single vain that needs life to function.
•   Concentrate on your breath, as it flows out of your body gently taking away what ever is unwanted. See how impurities leave your body with a single breath. Slowly all impurities leave, all that should leave from the body is taken away.
•   The frustations that you have mentioned are just thoughts that arise. Just try to reflect on them thru Dhamma – on those thoughts of unfulfilled desires.
•   In reflection… connections that has been made in mind towards desire… some thoughts gets you agitated and blinds you with anger followed by hate… and some thoughts blinds you with delusion that follows asa shadow.
•   The attachments of feelings… which are connected. Attachments of different perceptions…
•   There is an impermanent factor underlining all desires as it does not stay in the same way that you so wish it to be. The desire is such that you don’t recognize that fact that, slowly but very surely it travels along the lines of suffering and pain.
•   In reflecting this way, you come to certain understandings…. Certain realizations, which helps in letting go of desires and attachments.
•   Excepting the change… positive decisions brings new realizations. Letting go seems the only true answer there is to happiness.
•   And when you do let go of desire, hate and delusion, it finally brings you tranquility and calmness… unexplained.

Anapana Sati and Satipathana are closely related.
The way I understand your focus (Sati) is to make sure that your attention does not go beyond four frames of reference. It is important to differentiate Samatha and Vipassana practice. Your thoughts (Vitakka and Vicara only. not all thoughts) stop in second Jhana. (Samatha)
Anapanasati Sutta:
 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html


text:
Lending a friend money,and not getting it back
Last year ,I lent a friend alot of money ,he convinced me that he lost his wallet and needed money for certain payment,promising that he will return it after 3 month,he payed some of it  then delayed it to the next year and now he tells me to forget about it till he can return it.
Now there is a feeling of regret not only because of the money which ,I Lent in expectation of getting it back but also because the friendship got affected . Feeling that he is a liar made me think , I should've been mindful of the deception.As well as not having any compassion for him.
What should be done right now according to Buddhism?.

Next time better simply give, never expect something return, for bondage is seldom a help for both, all involved. If not able to give, that's "fine" as well, but never lend. Even if now saying "no need to pay back", for example, your friend might be even more lost.
My person did, after doing such one or two times, never gave loans and it makes/made much more on releasing joy to simply give when asked and able to, and never even a little regret in don't giving loans but make clear liberal gifts.
Now what to expect? Just let it be his good and proper or demerits? If possible to bear it. Would be one possibility: patient. Things are at least not for sure and giving, even if time and place to get back on good track, is always good.
Much joy in wise and liberal growing. Joy in giving without intended on a deal or back of low and material things.
(Note that this is not given for trade exchange or stacks, but to turn toward freedom from bound in loan giving because of debt)

From AN5.213:

“Mendicants, there are these five drawbacks for an unethical person because of their failure in ethics.
  What five?
Firstly, an unethical person loses substantial wealth on account of negligence.
  This is the first drawback.
Furthermore, an unethical person gets a bad reputation.
  This is the second drawback.
Furthermore, an unethical person enters any kind of assembly timid and embarrassed, whether it’s an assembly of aristocrats, brahmins, householders, or ascetics.
  This is the third drawback.
Furthermore, an unethical person dies feeling lost.
  This is the fourth drawback.
Furthermore, an unethical person, when their body breaks up, after death, is reborn in a place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell.
  This is the fifth drawback.
These are the five drawbacks for an unethical person because of their failure in ethics.

These drawbacks lead to much suffering. As you can see, your friend is gathering a bad reputation and has insufficient wealth to pay you back. Money does not cure a lack of ethics. This is a sad state of affairs.
Yet if you turn a blind eye and cut off your compassion, that too is a sad state of affairs.
So let's talk about giving. From AN8.31, you did #4 with an expectation of return:

“Mendicants, there are these eight gifts.
  What eight?
A person might give a gift after insulting the recipient.
Or they give out of fear.
Or they give thinking, ‘They gave to me.’
Or they give thinking, ‘They’ll give to me.’
Or they give thinking, ‘It’s good to give.’
Or they give thinking, ‘I cook, they don’t. It wouldn’t be right for me to not give to them.’
Or they give thinking, ‘By giving this gift I’ll get a good reputation.’
Or they give thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind.’
These are the eight gifts.”

Now take a very careful look at the last way of giving:

This is an adornment and requisite for the mind

Can you give in this way? Because if you give in this way...

“Sāriputta, someone who gives gifts, not for any other reason,
  but thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind’,
  when their body breaks up, after death, is reborn among the gods of Brahmā’s Host. --AN7.52

Notice that in this way of giving, you must be sure that you are giving to good purpose (i.e., "requisite"). When people come to my door asking for charity money, I offer them food. Oddly, they refuse the food and leave. This tells me they were not hungry.


text:
What buddhism says about physical reality?
I had a discussion with one of my friend, who said, there's no such thing as physical reality, as per Lord Buddha. He quoted "The universe only exists inside this small body".
As per my understanding, this is about how we understand the universe is different. But his idea is that there's no physical reality, all we are experiencing is a delusion.
Any idea about this ?

The physical world would only be a delusion if we assume it is naively real or see it in some way other than it is. If we see it as it is then it is what it seems to be. It is adopting an extreme view on existence that would be the mistake, meaning we cannot simply say it exists or does not. Hence Heraclitus 'We are and are-not'. This statement is rigorous, endorsing a neutral metaphysical position.and avoiding an extreme view. .  .

As Thrangu Rinpoche once said, some people spend a lot of time arguing whether a chair really exists or if it only exists in our minds, but here we are much more concerned with our attitude to the chair. Are we attached to this chair? Do we hate this chair? Do we think we are the chair? Are we free from this chair? That's what really matters in practice, not whether it exists or not.
At the same time, as my teacher said, "reality is our interpretation". Here you go. The only reality we can know is reality we perceive in our mind, and this perceived reality is our own interpretation. Whether the physical reality exists or not, all we see is our interpretation.
So if in this interpretation there are any mistakes or gaps, but we attach to it as if it were truth, as if what we perceive in our interpretation were 100% objective reality - when we think like that we get into all kinds of trouble.
Like, we get attached to "the chair" or hate "the chair" - because in our interpretation it means something and we think that's the only truth. Then when someone gives us new facts about "the chair" - we don't accept them, because they don't fit with our reality, our interpretation. We only see what we know, what we believe, not what's really there. This is what's called "delusion".
So maybe you and your friend are both right. This is about "how we understand the universe" is different AND all that we experience is our own delusion.

As you put it, this is one of the so-called 'unanswered questions', that is, you are really asking 'Does the world exist?'
Such questions deal with opinions, points of view, diṭṭhi's; and there is no way of holding one side of such a controversy without opposing the opposite point of view; there is no way of resolving the conflict; and such a state does not satisfy the search for truth. Such being the case The Buddha abstains from answering such questions because debates about existence and non-existence do not conduce to the ending of pain which is the fundamental point of what the Buddha teaches. You can see the futility of this sort of debate in  the result of your discussion with your friend which only ended in incresing your confusion.
He who sees the origination of things cannot justify in mind the point of view that things do not exist; he who sees the ending of things cannot justify in mind the point of view that things have an ultimate reality.
What is the case is that the subjective individuality has identified with the six senses and once such an identification is made all perception is made relative to the input from these senses.
The eye comes into contact with a visible object and visual consciousness arises. Visual consciousness then becomes the sense-object of the mind sense.
So you see that subjective experience of the sight of a visible object is based on second-hand information. Since at this point your 'reality' is a construction made entirely by the subjective mind, that means that without escape from identification with the six senses, you have no ability to directly see whatever is 'out there'; there is no way to determine the truth or falsity of any claim that a thing exists. It is a hopeless situation, like a cat chasing its tail, and as such should be dropped as a waste of time.
Understanding this way of structuring the existing being, you can then see the logic of the statement:
"in this very fathom-long body,
along with its perceptions and thoughts,
I proclaim the world to be,
likewise the origin of the world
and the making of the world to end,
likewise the practice going to the ending of the world.
AN 4.46
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/an/idx_04_catukkanipata.htm#p46
For 'the practice going to the ending of the world' see any good description of the Magga. I suggest:
http://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/the_pali_line/course/the10thquestion_2.htm#TheDestructionofthe%C4%81savas

I think the canonical unanswered questions include, "is the world eternal?", and, "is the world finite?" I don't know that, "Does the world exist?", was even ever asked.

The buddhist concept of rupa, as well as the division of ayatanas as being internal on one hand, and external on the other, implies the idea that our perception of the world is not strictly solipsistic.
This suggest the Buddhist view that the ayatanas are mutually dependent, or “dependent arising”.

The idea in the question, namely: "The universe only exists inside this small body" is mixed up.
The Buddha said "the world (loka)" arises & ceases within the six-foot long body, including perception & mind. (AN 4.45)
The term "the world" refers to mental ideas of personal existence; both internally & externally. It is unrelated to whether physicality exists or not.
The idea in the question, namely: "The universe only exists inside this small body" is mixed up because assumes "the universe" is the stars, planets & galaxies rather than the mind-created world of self-identities & self-entities.
I imagine the friend acquired their idea about "the universe" from the translation of Thanissaro Bhikkhu, who translated "loka" as "the cosmos".
What "the world" ("loka") is is described in SN 12.44; namely, the arising or "birth" ("jati") of egoism, self-identifying & ideas about "beings" or "persons" that leads to suffering.

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


text:
Could a Sotapanna reject to give if asked and has?
What does one here think: Is a person, having reached the path, able, would he, reject a request of something material, incl. strength and effort in material spheres, if he could share?
In what cases, if he could reject, would he?
(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment that binds here in this wheel, but as a tiny door out)

It would probably good to give it free to be answered.

What does one here think: Is a person, having reached the path, able, would he, reject a request of something material, incl. strength and effort in material spheres, if he could share?

I may have missed it, but i have yet to find something in buddhism that says we should give or agree on something that will be harmful to ourselves (as well as what is harmful to others, of course).

In what cases, if he could reject, would he?

I'm not sure there are any hard rules. It seems that it depends on the situation. I hope someone who knows the sutras better than me could chime in on this.

Could it be hurtful for one to answer this or is this place void of Sotapannas or advanced?
Of course he/she couldn't reject and if spoken of "hurt oneself" means that it would require to break the precepts, since such is understood as hurtful for oneself.
Having abounded all kind of maccharia and void of ingratitude (having won firm faith in kamma), with the attaining of the path, a person is unable to reject a request that does not require to hurt whom ever knowingly (e.g. goes against the precepts)

"And what is the treasure of generosity? There is the case of a disciple of the noble ones, his awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess, living at home, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the distribution of alms. This is called the treasure of generosity.

That being the reason, Bhikkhus are restricted in accepting alms form those "fit to training" to avoid that families would grow poor. More in an "alien" sphere here.
(Note that it is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds to this wheel here, but for higher and liberation)


text:
In how far does/could one hurt himself by giving?
Beings are act-ually stingy because they think or argue, that when giving this, it will hurt be, be of disadvantage for me.
Now, what does the Buddha mean by advicing to give when it does not harm oneself? Does he even promote stinginess, or what's the game of defilements here?
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment keeping in this wheel, but for an escape)

In the same way, the pleasure seeker who seeks wealth using legitimate, non-coercive means, who makes themselves happy and pleased, and shares it and makes merit, and who uses that wealth untied, uninfatuated, unattached, seeing the drawbacks and understanding the escape is the foremost, best, chief, highest and finest.
AN 10.91


text:
Annoyed when talking about generosity, stingy -- would one ever be able to grow in Dhamma?
Not having a quality, not seeing a quality in oneself, people get annoyed, even angry -- and use 1001 excuses to escape the first training.
Now, one who is stingy and not even willing to master it, can such a person expect to be able to grow in Dhamma?
Could he even understand teachings a little in right way, and open to the next step, i.e. right moral virtue?
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertaining binding here, but for an exit for debt)

Where do the suttas say generosity is one of the Three Trainings? Thanks

Nothing is fixed and unchangeable, so we hold that everyone has the ability to progress in understanding. To believe otherwise is, you know... ungenerous.

Generosity can help develop non-attachment & emptiness of self but its not guaranteed. This is why generosity is included as "mundane dharma" and it generally taught to common worldlings (aka puthujjana).

Merit constitutes:

Dana
Sila
Bhavana

Dana sets a foundation in developing Sila which intern strengthen Bhavana.
But they always need not be developed in order and should be viewed 3 legs of a stool. One collapses the stool falls. So when even one gets a chance one should develop whatever item they can and whatever the opportunity to present itself. E.g. there may be an instance one can develop Sila and Bhavana but one does not have the means to make a donation. One should not ignore Dana and do the other two only also. When one gets the chance one should do Dana.

Isn't a stingy mind incapable to gain Jhana, right view, path or fruits? How could such practice virtue, meditation... not to speak about the 8-fold path?

OP: Now, one who is stingy and not even willing to master it, can such a person expect to be able to grow in Dhamma?
Could he even understand teachings a little in right way, and open to the next step, i.e. right moral virtue?

Only a Tathagata can tell whether someone be able to develop the path and get across samsara or not. There was a wealthy baron during Tathagata's time who was very stingy. But later he became a stream enterer.
From the Pali Kanon Buddhist Dictionary of Proper Pali Names page on Maccharikosiya:

Maccharikosiya, A setthi, worth eighty crores, of Sakkhara near Rājagaha. His real name was Kosiya, but as he was too miserly to give away even a drop of oil, he came to be called Maccharikosiya. One day, when returning from the palace, he saw a half starved yokel eating a round cake filled with sour gruel. The sight made him hungry, but fearing to spend his money, he told no one, but lay on his bed in great distress, till his wife found him. Having discovered the reason for his misery, she said she would bake cakes sufficient for everyone in Sakkhara. "But that would be such extravagance," said Kosiya, and persuaded his wife to bake just one cake, using only broken grains of rice. Fearful lest someone should ask for a piece of his cake, he retired with her to the seventh storey of his house and there made her start the cooking after bolting all the doors.
The Buddha saw him with his divine eye and sent Moggallāna to him; Moggallāna stood poised in mid air just outside Kosiya's window and indicated his wish to have something to eat, but Kosiya blustered and threatened, and, after refusing to give him anything, bade his wife cook another little cake for him. But each cake she baked grew bigger than the previous one, and when she tried to take a single cake from the basket, they all stuck together. In despair, Kosiya presented cakes and basket to the Elder. Moggallāna then preached on the importance of generosity, and transported Kosiya, his wife and the cakes to Jetavana. There the cakes were offered to the Buddha and five hundred monks, and even after they had all eaten, there was no end to the cakes. The spot where the remaining ones were thrown away at the gates of Jetavana was known as Kapallapūvapabbhāra. The Buddha preached to Kosiya and his wife and they became sotāpannas. Kosiya then spent all his wealth in the service of the Buddha and his religion.

Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

I've added the source of the quote for you. Please add sources in future, where possible. Thank you Damith.

Generosity is good for our well being, others, and can promote to clear mind.
But you can force others they can grow aversion for something correct?
Try to do generous actions for the benefit of all but it's between you and Buddha. I think.

No. Not even attaining Jhana, not to speak of path and fruits.
Macchariya Suttas: Stinginess. (Disclaimer: this is my website)
So what does one think if exchange is based on commerce, nobody ever contribute anything toward the Gems?
Annoyed of such gatherings, no Dhammica would there find any joy.


text:
Someone making sacrifices outside the Sangha of Savakas, can such be expected as follower?
If people, maintaining a Buddhist identity, are good, they do whatever sacrifices of which they expect benefit or where they feel touched.
Now, when a person gives outside the Savaka-Sangha, outside the Noble Ones, can he/she be called either, faith-, dhamma-follower or even Sotapanna?
Would he/she be regarded as being ready and worthy to be taught by wise?
(Note, this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or entertainment for bounds but to escape dry lands and go beyond)

It appears to be a Parajika for a monk to infer they are  Savaka-Sangha and to solicit donations from such scheming, talking, hinting & belittling.

And what, bhikkhus, is wrong livelihood? Scheming, talking, hinting, belittling, pursuing gain with gain: this is wrong livelihood.
MN 117

I imagine it is more meritorious giving food to a dog or cat than to an immoral monk. The Dhammapada says:

308. It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the people.

Glossing nippesikatā as "belittling" apparently comes from the Visuddhimagga -- which apparently includes "(pāpanā) denigration [e.g. saying that this follower never donates]".

Giving in the Pali Canon lists, in summary, several types of people to whom it's suitable to give.

The suttas also describe the person to whom alms should be given (A.iii, 41). Guests, travelers and the sick should be treated with hospitality and due consideration. During famines the needy should be liberally entertained. The virtuous should be first entertained with the first fruits of fresh crops. There is a recurrent phrase in the suttas (D.i, 137; ii,354; iii,76) describing those who are particularly in need of public generosity. They are recluses (samana), brahmans (brahmana), destitutes (kapana), wayfarers (addhika), wanderers (vanibbaka) and beggars (yacaka). The recluses and brahmans are religious persons who do not earn wages. They give spiritual guidance to the laity and the laity is expected to support them. The poor need the help of the rich to survive and the rich become spiritually richer by helping the poor. At a time when transport facilities were meager and amenities for travelers were not adequately organized, the public had to step in to help the wayfarer. Buddhism considers it a person's moral obligation to give assistance to all these types of people.
In the Anguttara Nikaya the Buddha describes, with sacrificial terminology, three types of fires that should be tended with care and honor (A.iv,44). They are ahuneyyaggi, gahapataggi and dakkhineyyaggi. The Buddha explained that ahuneyyaggi means one's parents, and they should be honored and cared for. Gahapataggi means one's wife and children, employees and dependents. Dakkineyyaggi represents religious persons who have either attained the goal of arahantship or have embarked on a course of training for the elimination of negative mental traits. All these should be cared for and looked after as one would tend a sacrificial fire. According to the Maha-mangala Sutta, offering hospitality to one's relatives is one of the great auspicious deeds a layperson can perform (Sn. 262-63).
King Kosala once asked the Buddha to whom alms should be given (S.i,98). The Buddha replied that alms should be given to those by giving to whom one becomes happy. Then the king asked another question: To whom should alms be offered to obtain great fruit? The Buddha discriminated the two as different questions and replied that alms offered to the virtuous bears great fruit. He further clarified that offerings yield great fruit when made to virtuous recluses who have eliminated the five mental hindrances (nivarana) and culivated moral habits, concentration, wisdom, emancipation and knowledge and vision of emancipation (sila, samadhi, pañña, vimutti, vimuttinanadassana).

In summary:

Give alms to people to whom ordinary morality suggests charity -- including destitute, victims of famine, also guests and travellers
Also "care for" people to ordinary morality suggests a duty of care -- family, children, employees

And it says there is "great fruit" in giving to the noble Sangha.
But I'm not sure that should be called or seen as "making sacrifice".

Someone sacrifices toward dogs may start to bark equal them:

Rowf! Rowf! Rowf!
I once saw a dog who couldn't eat all the rice I had given it, so he lay down and kept watch over the rice right there. He was so full he couldn't eat any more, but he still lay keeping watch right there. He would drift off and get drowsy, and then suddenly glance over at the food that was left. If any other dog came to eat, no matter how big or how small, he'd growl at it. If chickens came to eat the rice, he'd bark: Rowf! Rowf! Rowf! His stomach was ready to burst, but he couldn't let anyone else eat. He was stingy and selfish.
People can be the same way. If they don't know the Dhamma, if they have no sense of their duties to their superiors and inferiors, if their minds are overcome by the defilements of greed, anger, and delusion, then even when they have lots of wealth they're stingy and selfish. They don't know how to share it. They have a hard time even giving donations to poor children or old people who have nothing to eat. I've thought about this and it's struck me how much they're like common animals. They don't have the virtues of human beings at all. The Buddha called them manussa-tiracchano: human-common-animals. That's the way they are because they lack good will, compassion, empathetic joy, and equanimity.

Someone, not eager to sacrifices toward the Buddhas Sangha of monastic disciples first, is actually regarded as outcast if considering himself as lay-follower, using the heritage:

"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is an outcaste of a lay follower, a stain of a lay follower, a dregs of a lay follower. Which five? He/she does not have conviction; is unvirtuous; is eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts protective charms & ceremonies, not kamma; and searches for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings there first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is an outcaste of a lay follower, a stain of a lay follower, a dregs of a lay follower.

As someone having gone for refuge, generosity, better support of the Sangha, carrier of the heritage, actually grows to matter of virtue or duty in a relation. If a relation is not proper maintained it's subject to break apart. Dhammika (Buddhist) Sutta on their duties:

"With a gladdened mind observe the observance day (uposatha), complete with its eight factors, on the fourteenth, fifteenth and eighth days of the (lunar) fortnight and also the special holiday of the half month. In the morning, with a pure heart and a joyful mind, a wise man, after observing the uposatha, should distribute suitable food and drink to the community of bhikkhus.

Many today, incl. monks, do not only avoid giving the highest fist, but advocate the depriving of the Sangha of even their heritages, incl. the carry of the Dhamma. Making it in-accessable for the good followers and Savaka Sangha and Noble Ones, after having it deprived from it's heir.
The Buddha praised the giving at proper "season". Since giving outside the proper seasons leads to bonds, is often strong defiled, there is no evidence that such was really praised.
One should note that giving out of duty in relations does not really counts as generosity and duties within ones relations should be of course fulfilled. So ideas of not carry about ones parents in need, or to pay no tax, because one seeks for sacrifices all on higher places, is of course not approved. Not to speak of taking (not given, not own) for the sake of giving. Such would be things like doing things for the Sangha at ones payed working hours for example.
A person with conviction, a person of gratitude and vision of effects of great deeds, would always, if having or being given, share first and that of most value, with the vituose one, and those in training toward this, the Buddhas Sangha:

"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower. Which five? He/she has conviction; is virtuous; is not eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts kamma, not protective charms & ceremonies; does not search for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings here first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower."

So a person with fundation in the Dhamma, on his death, would advice his most dear, out of good reason, this:

"'We will be possessed of verified confidence in the Sangha: "The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four types [of noble disciples] when taken as pairs, the eight when taken as individual types — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world."
"'Whatever there may be in our family that can be given away, all that will be shared unstintingly with virtuous ones who are of admirable character.' That's how you should train yourselves."

One who dedicates, nourishes equal or lower, inwardly, outwardly, holds even animal higher as the heritage of goodness, what aside of being known as outcast, under the faithful and good, can he/she expect to grow in union? Sacrificing toward bonds and bound, one increases dependency and suffering.
(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or liberation.)


text:
Which gift has more benefit for the giver? What are the dangers?
There is the case where a person gives toward a monk, having a joyful perception of the good Sangha, while he gives.
There is the case where a person assumes a certain monk assuming being a Noble One and gives with such a joy.
There is a person who is not able to trace either a monk nor the Sangha and gives an householder, willing to think "more worthy is he".
What would give the most benefits? What are the problems for an ordinary person, and a most secure way? What are the dangers of overestimating ones capacities of judgment? What it a person thinks that his ideals are those of a Noble One "I know", yet total wrong?
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or binding entertainment here, but as a tiny door to escape the wheel corrent and since a long caught in)

The most beneficial giving (dana [Pali], act of generosity) is that which is done without the thought (without the conceptual constructs) of giver, giving and reciever.
The prbolem for an ordinary person, like us, is that we start evaluating the worth of the giving, worth of the person to whom it is being given and the worth of what is being given. (Certainly these are important things to think and decide, certainly there is merit in them as well; but the most meritorious, the highest dana  goes beyond these conceptual constructs). WHen we think of worthiness, we get caught up (attached, we cling, we grasp) with these thoughts and therefore loose more merit that would have been gained if we were beyond the concepts of giver, giving, receiver and other related notions as worth, etc.
One danger of overestimating one's capabilities is that we would make wrong decisions (since we have not judged our own capability correctly).
'Noble one' are categories that help in positing the progress of people on the path of Nirvana. One can only make correct judgements about people who are behind oneself in the path (ref. Arya Candrakirti's 'The Entry into the Middle way'). We cannot judge people who are at advanced stages as compared to us. All we can judge is that they are ahead- for such progress on the path shows in one's actions, speech and thoughts.

As i remember giving with the thought; 'This is an ornament and a support for the mind' is the foremost in as far as verbalization of motivation goes.
As for the resultant kamma of giving, here three factors have been pointed out to me;

Purity of the gift
Purity of the giver
Purity of the recipient

When one gives to a monk it is immeasurable on account and greatness of the order.
When supporting householder one doesn't receive on account of the order but if the person is a faith-follower or attained a footing in the dhamma otherwise a gift to such person is also immeasurable id think on account of supporting the foremost lineage of the Noble Ones.
I don't know the details and particular values, some infinities are bigger than other tho.
As a householder i personally support only householders, friends and family who are in training.
If i knew of a good community of monks i might prioritize them but it depends on who needs most probably.


text:
How to avoid poorness?
There are many, considering themselves even as "Buddhist" who would not give much toward Monks and Priests, yet reminded by the Sublime Buddha talk:

"There is the case where a woman or man is not a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to brahmans or contemplatives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, he/she is poor wherever reborn. This is the way leading to poverty: not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, or lighting to brahmans or contemplatives.

Is there any valid way to get around such a future, if holding on such carry out further? Whould the only way out here be claiming that it was not taught, not even such as rebirth?
He says "I give the poor, the animals, those i like...", would he nevertheless face such future if not actually already in such situation?
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment binding here but for liberation of such)

Piya Tan writes of this sutta,

The Cūla Kamma Vibhaṅga Sutta is special in that it gives some specific examples of the fruits of
  karma, good and evil, based on the simple folk notion of good begets good, evil begets evil. Clearly this
  discourse is addressed to the lay community, especially those not yet familiar with deeper doctrine of karma in the light of not-self. Significantly, here the protagonist is the brahmin youth, Subha Todeyya,putta

... and ...

The teachings on karma here is one “whose meaning needs to be drawn out” (neyy’attha),
  unlike, for
  example, the Assu Sutta (S 2:179 f) whose meaning is directly apparent (nīt’attha).

See also What are 'suttas of indirect meaning' in the Pali canon?
The whole sutta is in to answer the youth's questions,

Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race? For short-lived & long-lived people are to be seen, sickly & healthy, ugly & beautiful, uninfluential & influential, poor & rich, low-born & high-born, stupid & discerning people are to be seen. So what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race?

... with the answer being ...

beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement.

The Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) describes how laypeople might manage wealth appropriately.

Of course, if one resists far away from the possibility to give into more Sublime, such does not mean "he/she does not give to brahmans & contemplatives". In how far such is a valid reasoning for one, one has to prove by oneself honest, if wishing no disadvantages from certain habits.

"I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five. (on giving)

For one desiring wealth in the future, aside of Sila (virtue, which is the more secure way), generosity toward proper and sublime objects is it's effect. If one is capable to manage giving to proper recipients, maintaining Silas, such is unexcelled in regard of future wealth, if desired.

"But then there is the case where a woman or man is a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, & lighting to brahmans & contemplatives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is wealthy wherever reborn. This is the way leading to great wealth: to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, dwellings, & lighting to brahmans & contemplatives.

One might think why not the case when giving toward equal or lower. Because such is actually the ordinary way, everybody gives to what is near or beloved, or target to get under ones control. Where ever one gives into, there one is destined.
Like if one praises the common and lower would not increase his value under those more sublime, one devoted to scarifies toward equal or lower increases or maintains those bonds.
Or let my person give another sample: Like a worker or servant of a lord would never climb up in his position, gains no remarkable reason to get opened a door, someone not giving toward higher, is bond to be left off.

No misers go
  to the world of the devas.
  Those who don't praise giving
             are fools.
  The enlightened
  express their approval for giving
      and so find ease
      in the world beyond.
— Dhp 177

Mudita with all who could and will trace their own and valid worthy objects for their scarifies and may no one ever misses to recognize such for their future well-being in wealth.
(Note that this is not given for any trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment binding to equal or lower, but for upward and liberation)

The richest people in the world make money from financing & conducting wars and similar evils, such as slavery, usury & exploitation. The teaching in MN 135 that giving leads to riches is false. Throughout history, the richest most materially wealthy people have been warlords & other evil mafia thugs. 35% of Forbes 400 are Jewish, which shows Buddhist MN 135 does not lead to wealth. In MN 135, the word for "wealth" is "bhogā", which appears to refer to "material wealth" rather than "spiritual wealth" ("dhana"). That MN 135 was supposedly spoken to a Brahmin student and not to Buddhists shows it is fake dharma. The best way to be materially wealthy is engaging in wrong livelihood, such as selling drugs, alcohol, gambling, sexual movies, loans, weapons & other evil vices and mining the mineral resources of the earth, such as oil, gas, coal, iron ore, copper, etc. Another way to be wealthy is to start religions and offer salvation in heaven in exchange for donations.


text:
Are Samatha and Vipassana mentioned in the Pali Canon as different styles/techniques of meditation?
I've seen in a lot of discussions that there are two kinds of meditation methods with different but complementary goals: meditation for establishing tranquility (samatha) and meditation for establishing insight or clear vision (vipassana).
But in a few places, some authors and practitioners say that both are not different styles, but two quatities and aspects that are developed during Samma Samadhi (Right Inmersion), and that in the Pali Canon there are no mentions of those two aspects being reached through different methods.
So, what do the Pali Canon tell us about this? Are these two different methods, or just two different aspects that are eventually developed hand-in-hand?
Thanks in advance for your time, wisdom and patience.
Kind regards!

Actually, there are four ways of developing immersion, not just two...
The best summary I have found in the suttas is from DN33, which mentions four kinds of immersion:

Four ways of developing immersion further. There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to blissful meditation in the present life. There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to gaining knowledge and vision. There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to mindfulness and awareness. There is a way of developing immersion further that leads to the ending of defilements.
And what is the way of developing immersion further that leads to blissful meditation in the present life? It’s when a mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption … second absorption … fourth absorption. This is the way of developing immersion further that leads to blissful meditation in the present life.
And what is the way of developing immersion further that leads to gaining knowledge and vision? A mendicant focuses on the perception of light, concentrating on the perception of day regardless of whether it is night or day. And so, with an open and unenveloped heart, they develop a mind that’s full of radiance. This is the way of developing immersion further that leads to gaining knowledge and vision.
And what is the way of developing immersion further that leads to mindfulness and awareness? A mendicant knows feelings as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away. They know perceptions as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away. They know thoughts as they arise, as they remain, and as they go away. This is the way of developing immersion further that leads to mindfulness and awareness.
And what is the way of developing immersion further that leads to the ending of defilements? A mendicant meditates observing rise and fall in the five grasping aggregates. ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such are feelings … perceptions … choices … consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’ This is the way of developing immersion further that leads to the ending of defilements.

All of the above immersions have their purpose. Understanding each of these has helped me a lot in my own practice. They all support each other and it is quite helpful to be mindful of what type of immersion one is practicing at any given moment.
If you'd like to explore any of these in more detail, you may find it helpful to use https://voice.suttacentral.net . For example, one can learn about concentration on the perception of day.

Thanks, OyaMist! I don't understand the second kind of inmersion. What does it mean to "concentrating on the perception of day"? Where can I get more information about this? Kind regards!

Edited answer to include link

Yes, but not as seperat for the taught purpose:

"These two qualities have a share in clear knowing. Which two? Tranquillity (samatha) & insight (vipassana)... A Share in Clear Knowing

(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but to come out of this wheel)

AN 4.94 is a good sutta to study, to see the relationship from an EBT perspective between samadhi, samatha, vipassana.
http://lucid24.org/an/an04/an04-0094/toc-addon/index.html
And another important sutta, SN 46.2 samatha is a nutriment of samadhi, not equivalent to samadhi, as later Theravada tends to treat it.
http://lucid24.org/sn/sn46/sn46-002/toc-addon/index.html
In the EBT, the 4 jhanas have samatha and vipassana built in to each jhana, working hand in hand closely together. They are not separate mutually exclusive qualities that one develops in separate stages, as later Theravada has devolved into. The most clear example of this, look at the standard 3rd jhana formula, with the sati and sampjano explicity contained within it, and then look at AN 4.41 what S&S does. It's doing exactly what modern Theravada calls "vipassana" type of mental examination.
http://lucid24.org/an/an04/an04-0041/toc-addon/index.html