text:
Where can I read more about the rare special supernatural creatures mentioned in Buddhism?
There are some special supernatural creatures mentioned in the Buddhist Tipitaka, which include for example:

Beings of negative births living like gods
Floating creatures in immense pain only seen by the Arahants
Evil creatures who only reside in ponds in the jungle
Evil creatures who eat their own babies

Where in the Theravada Tipitaka can I find out more about these creatures? These stories are ascribed to (i.e. told by) the Buddha.

This question seems very broad. Could you somehow edit it, to limit the amount of answers and perspectives possible? Maybe you could limit the questions to only asking about "ghosts" in Buddhism?

I edited the formatting but I don't understand the question. Can you ask about a specific sutta perhaps, so we know what kind of "creatures" or what kind of "supernatural" you're asking about? Do you know why you used [tag:the-buddha] as a tag for the question? And what do you want to know about them?

OK,Thanks for the comment @ChrisW . Here are the answers for your questions. i am expecting answers from Tipitaka (Theravada), I mentioned the-buddha tag expecting record of past events between lord buddha and such beings.There has been many such occasions (I've heard some). As for what kind of supernatural, there has been very special events (Beings of negative births living like gods,Floating creatures in immence pain only seen by the Arahants.).

I think you're looking for or trying to reference the "Petavatthu" in the Khuddaka Nikaya.
Wikipedia says,

The Petavatthu is a Theravada Buddhist scripture, included in the Khuddaka Nikaya of the Pali Canon's Sutta Pitaka. It is composed of 51 verse narratives describing specifically how the effects of bad acts can lead to rebirth into the unhappy world of petas (ghosts) in the doctrine of karma. It gives prominence to the doctrine that giving alms to monks may benefit the ghosts of one's relatives (see Ancestor worship).

A Google search for Petavatthu returns other references and sources and translations on this subject.
Beware that S. Dhammika writes,

Interestingly, the Buddha considered ‘talk about ghosts’ (petakatha) to be unedifying and unbecoming for serious Dhamma practitioners (D.I,8). The Petavatthu would by any interpretation qualify as ‘talk about ghosts.’ It is also interesting to note that the Thai Sangha has never recognized either the Petavatthu or the Vimanavatthu as canonical. All scholars who have examined the Petavatthu – Rhys Davids, H. S. Gehman and Prof. Abhayanayaka – ascribe to it a late date. Winternitz wrote that it ‘probably belongs to the latest stratum of literature assembled in the Pali Canon.’

He also says that that doctrine was an existing Brahminical belief.
There seems to be English-language translations of (at least 20 of) the stories here: http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Petavatthu inluding at least one about a creature which eats it's own babies.

So, how does Buddhism define a Ghost? Are there ghosts according to Buddhism?

I found a good source, (Sutra pitaka,Vimana vattu )
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/37_Stories_of_Ghosts.mp3
This is a summary of such Supernatural events as explained by Lord Buddha. I respect the source because it is from a leading Theravada monastery in my country (Mahamewnwa Buddhist Monastery,Srilanka).I have mentioned the original source of the stories if you are interested in it.

On StackExchange an answer which is only a link isn't usually accepted as an answer: please see Are answers that just contain links elsewhere really “good answers”?

@ChrisW thank you.I just found it and i am yet to listen to it completely.this is a summary of such events as explained by Lord Buddha. I respect the source because it is from a leading Theravada monastery in my country (Mahamewnwa Buddhist Monastery,Srilanka).I will edit my answer according to your suggestions.

On this specific StackExchange site (i.e. "Buddhism.SE") there are [tag:reference-request] questions to which a reference (a link) may be an acceptable answer. Even those answers are often a reference directly to a text in the Tipitaka. If you want to post this link (to an audio), please also post at least a summary of what's said in the audio (especially a summary of whichever the part[s] of the audio answer the question).

Please answer the question: e.g. the question asked "Who are the special supernatural creatures" and so the answer should answer that question.

I did exactly the same thing while you were typing this please check it out and tell me what you think. @ChrisW (I am only few days old on this site, so pardon my mistakes :)

According to http://mahamevnawaedmonton.com/dhamma-talks/ the Vimana vattu is "Stories of Gods"; whereas "Stories of Ghosts" is the Peta Vattu.


text:
Does Jukai imply a student commitment to the preceptor?
I'm sitting with a bunch of people (and have been for quite a while now), and I want to deepen my practice. I want to make a commitment, primary to myself, to stay on track and want to take Jukai (refuge).
Situation:
Our group is quite heterogeneous and a mere "sitting group". Our common denominator is Soto-Style Zen, but we are lay, lay-ordained people, and monks. Some style themselves Buddhist, other Christian.
We have no common teacher, head temple, center or any authority on site. That leaves me with a few options, all a few hours driving away from here, to commit to a master.

First there is the teacher of most/all of our lay-ordained members. Naturally, that would be the prominent choice, but that would be logistically the most challenging one.
Then there is a temple, which is nearer, but not so closely coupled to our group. That would be a more convenient choice.
Last there would be a main temple of the all over arcing organisation, the both former options are incorporated. But that one is a longer drive, again, and it is the most "unpersonal" option, since it is an higher organisation.

Personal Consideration:
I want to make the commitment more for my self. From my point of view, my shanga is my local group. I would want to get to know a teacher quite well, before I would choose him for a monk ordination. But with Jukai, as a first step, I won't consider it that important.
Questions:

Who can actually gives Jukai? Who's entitled to?
What is the dogmatic consequence, exactly (link is sufficient)?
How deep are the bonds between the one giving Jukai and the one receiving it?
How to ask for Jukai?
How to prepare for that event?
Any other points, I may miss and should think about?

Edit 2015/10/30, after Andreis Answer:
His answer moves into the direction of "taking refuge in the three nobles truths".
I realize, that I'm already taking refuge on a regular basis by chanting the Shigu seigan mon (The Four Bodhisattva Vows).
Therefore I changed title and tag back to Jukai. I want to focus the question on Soto-Style Jukai as a lay-ordination with committing to the 10 precepts to reinforce my practice.
PS: I want to thank Chris for the proof-reading. English is not my first tongue and I am constantly make mistakes while writing, unable to see them myself.

Who can actually give Jukai? Who is entitled to?
Anyone can give, but you will receive more benefit if you get it from a realized master you have a feeling of connection with / admiration for. Realized masters transmit Sat-Dharma in their every move and having a sense of connection and admiration makes you more receptive to that subtle teaching.
What is the dogmatic consequence, exactly (link is sufficient)?
To quote Chogyam Trungpa:

By taking refuge, in some sense we become homeless refugees. The point of becoming a refugee is to give up our attachment to basic security. We have to give up our sense of home ground, which is illusory anyway. We are suspended in a no-man's land in which the only thing to do is to relate with the teachings and with ourselves.
The refuge ceremony represents a final decision. The ceremony cuts the line that connects the ship to the anchor; it marks the beginning of an odyssey of loneliness. Still, it also includes the inspiration of the preceptor and the lineage. Acknowledging that the only real working basis is oneself and that there is no way around that, one takes refuge in the Buddha as an example, in the dharma as the path, and in the sangha as companionship.
At that particular point, the energy, the power, and the blessing of basic sanity that has existed in the lineage for twenty-five hundred years, in an unbroken tradition and discipline from the time of Buddha, enters your system, and you finally become a full-fledged follower of buddhadharma. You are a living future buddha at that point.

How deep are the bonds between the one giving Jukai and the one receiving it?
It is not like that, it is between you and Dharma:

The refuge ceremony is a formal acknowledgement that you have become a Buddhist. This is not a matter of institutional affiliation, or of belonging to a group. Refuge means that you have recognized the fundamental principles of Buddhism as an accurate reflection of reality and that you intend to live according to them. Refuge is only meaningful if you understand those principles and have experienced their application in your life.
One takes refuge in Buddhism, not in a particular school, lineage, or teacher. Taking refuge at [particular temple/school/teacher] does not imply any continuing commitment to [that temple/school/teacher], only to Dharma at large.

IIRC other answers on this site have implied that "taking refuge" is a decision which someone (anyone) can make by themselves (without a formal ceremony and so without a preceptor). Is "Jukai" more formal than that, involving someone (perhaps a preceptor) who "gives" it, and 10 precepts rather than 5?

hmm... I didn't realize there was such implication... The way I see it, if you feel in your heart that you'll benefit from the empowerment value of the ceremony - then have a ceremony. If you have enough faith/determination that you don't need empowerment, then why the formality of taking refuge in the first place? For people with strong determination knowing inside their heart is enough, without any such "refuge-taking". In other words, either ceremony and preceptor, or nothing at all - why the half-measures? :)

For example, this document (Ways to deepen householder practice) which you mentioned in another answer suggests, "Take the refuges before beginning each meal." Whereas this Wikipedia article for Jokai according to the Sōtō school says, "Students must undergo a period of study for their Jukai ceremony, which in most Sōtō Zen traditions is at least two years" which is formal and ceremonial. The OP wrote "Jukai" and tagged the topic [tag:soto].

The before meal, or every morning refuge, or every midnight - is a re-taking, like the renewal of vows. The Jokai Wikipedia's two years requirement is inline with my quote that says "Refuge is only meaningful if you understand those principles and have experienced their application in your life."

Jukai is a complicated ceremony, and as far as I'm aware can only be performed by an osho (a Soto priestly rank). And it's 16 'precepts': the 10 precepts, the 3 pure precepts and the triple gem.

Jukai doesn't create any commitments between you and the preceptor (unlike monastic ordination which initiates a master/disciple relationship).
Anyone's entitled to it, only an osho (I think) can perform the ceremony.
The main preparation is to sew a rakusu.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Evidence of Pali Canon's Origin
Are the Buddha's words the source of the Pali Canon? What evidence is there of the Pali Canon's origin? What do scholars say?

Is this question different than e.g. Finding Authentic Suttas?

The question of "What do scholars say" might be partially answered by this answer, which says, "There is no external evidence for the Buddhist texts before Asoka".

The texts themselves are external evidence ...What's external evidence?

I thinks that "external evidence" is a term that historians use. For example, imagine there were a piece of paper which says, "This paper was written in 10,000 BC" or "The author of this paper lived for 700 years." Those statements are in (i.e. they are internal to) the paper in question. Asking for any "external evidence" for those statement means asking for evidence outside or apart from that paper. E.g. is there any archaeological evidence that supports those statement? Or any written history from other independent sources (e.g. mentions by neighboring cultures)?

Yes, the texts can have "external evidence" I think because of  unintentional patterns in the words especially when compared to the Agamas.  Scholars who attempt to measure the authenticity can tell things just from the grammar, frequency of certain words and the Pali Canon's relativity to other documents as well as relativity to itself.

I encourage you to read the following: Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali. The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts.
In this work, their project is to investigate the question of authencity systematically. In that, the approach is quiet academic and might be to your liking.
Page 7, they state a feature of the early Buddhist texts:

The Buddha’s presence as a living figure in the EBTs is overwhelming
and unmistakable. It stands in stark contrast with all other Buddhist
literature, where the Buddha has faded to legend.

Page 8, they assert that, although they accord with the meaning of Buddha Dharma...
> We are not denying the obvious fact that the texts bear all the marks
> of redaction and editing, and that they have been optimised for the
> oral tradition.

Page 151, they state what we owe to the early Buddhist texts:
> We know when the Buddha lived, where he lived, who he associated with,
> how he lived, and what he taught. We know these things with greater
> certainty than for almost any other historical figure from a
> comparable period. And we know this because of the EBTs. All other
> historical and archaeological information about the period depends on
> the EBTs to make sense.
Their overall conclusion is that although the Pali canon "bears the marks of redaction and editing", the meaning accord with the intent of the Buddha. Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali expose various argument (sorted out by chapters, that all constitute different angles: geographical, historical, and so forth) in order to highlight the proximity between what is written in the Pali canon and what the Buddha [presumably] said.

You can find a scholar to support almost any view, but the consensus seems to be that the Pali Canon - the only complete version of the early Canon that has survived to the present day - originated shortly after the passing on (parinibbana) of the Buddha (circa 400 BCE); continued to be collected, edited, and revised at least until the middle of the third century BCE, when it achieved its final Pali form more or less; was written down in the first century BCE; and continued to be copied over the intervening centuries, perhaps with fairly minor changes and, of course, errors of transcription, till it was codified during the Fifth Buddhist Council in 1871 and again in 1954.
No definitive critical edition of the Pali Canon has been produced in accordance with Western scholarly criteria, though I believe one is in the early stages of development.
Many scholars consider the first four nikayas - the Digha Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, Samyyuta Nikaya, and Anguttara Nikaya - to be the most ancient and essential parts of the Canon, along with the Vinaya perhaps, but nothing in the Pali Canon should be considered to be the literal Buddhavacana ("Word of the Buddha") and all of the suttas of the Pali Canon represent an indiscriminate mixture of early and late textual traditions.
Some people think that the parables of the Buddha are the most authentic, much as some Biblical scholars think that the parables of Yeshua (Jesus) are the most authentic.
The shortest interval between the Buddha's death and the earliest date for the codification of the Canon is about 150 years, which would correspond to the year 180 in terms of the development of the Christian scriptural tradition for comparison. This is the age of the early Church fathers and well after the period of the canonical gospels of the New Testament. Thus, the Pali Canon incorporates the Buddha's original teachings subject to at least five (or eight) "generations" (but only two lifetimes) of interpretation, codification, and exegesis, arising out of an historical process that was clearly contentious from the very beginning.
While Pali linguists can distinguish later from earlier texts to some extent, no one can accurately identify the "original teachings" of the Buddha based on any kind of objective heuristic, and those who pretend to do so are usually pursuing a sectarian agenda. Moreover, the simplistic equation of lateness with wrongness is a grossly naive hermeneutic, comparable to the discredited notion of "authorial intent."
Per contra, the view of those who maintain that the Pali Canon is actually recent, based on the paucity of early mss., is also untenable, since many Pali texts were translated into fairly early Chinese, Tibetan, and even Sanskrit versions that correspond quite well with the Pali texts. Although each of the early schools had its own canon, they all seemed to share and accept a common collection of suttas that were very similar to each other and to the Pali suttas that we have today in the Pali Canon.
Another relevant point is that the Pali language is not the language actually spoken by the Buddha, but is a hybrid artificial language developed by the early monastics to preserve the teachings of the Buddha and communicate with each other, which clearly indicates that the Canon originated as a result of cultural and geographical differentiation. Scholars generally consider Pali to be closely related to the language of the Buddha, however. Pali linguists have identified earlier and later meanings of certain Pali words that can be used to "date" the texts that contain them, and to a limited extent elucidate their meaning.
The Canon also travelled from north-east India to Sri Lanka through successive phases - first, a westward expansion, then moving south and finally into Sri Lanka, during which it presumably picked up cultural influences from western India, south-western India, and Sri Lanka itself. It was also preserved by monastics, so we may assume that it was influenced by this fact as well.
Finally, every point in this summary will be disputed by someone!

I'm surprised to read your remark, that "Pali .. is a .. artificial language .. developed by the early monastics...". I always understood, that Pali was an (artificial) language, but with a more similar function like the Kisuaheli in East africa, which is also somehow "artificial" but spoken by many people and used for commercial, governmental and general purposes. And thus I thought Pali was more generally used than only by monasteries (and possibly their environment). Could you kindly provide some more insight?

My understanding is what I have written.The vernacular languages from which Pali was developed were presumably used for broader than monastic purposes. It's an interesting question, but I havent encountered any discussion to that effect. Of course, I havent read everything so its always possible to find new information. If you do, let me know.

Hmm, I see in the (english) wikipedia, that I might have gotten that idea by reading something from Rhys Davids or Wilhelm Geiger. It is stated that there's no consent yet, what characteristic that Pali-language had, so I assume it is indeed still open... If I should find something more, I'll add it here in a new comment.

The following video gives a very good summary of the orthodox Theravadin view of the origin and preservation of the Pali Canon, some of it I suspect from outside the PC itself. Note: I am not stating that I agree with this presentation, only offering it as a point of interest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9HSraZiBiY

Thank you, Alexander. The actual question of Pali being a language is at minute 34 to 37 in the movie.

Are the Buddha's words the source of the Pali Canon? What evidence is there of the Pali Canon's origin? What do scholars say?
My answers to the questions are based on known facts. Thus I define the Pali canon as follows:
Sets of the Pāli Canon in English Translation and in Pāli (Tipiṭaka).
My answers to the three questions are as follows.

Are the Buddha's words the source of the Pali Canon?

Indeterminate.
The question is for the 'Pali canon'. The Pali Text Society publishes a Pāli Canon.
Buddha (the Buddha) is an English word with multiple meanings [Oxford Dictionaries]. It is obviously not in the Pali canon.
PTS Pāli Canon has over 9000 references to the term "bhagavā". Of the 9000 references, only 60 occur in the Abhidhamma Pitaka.
The term bhagavā is defined by the following expression:

‘itipi so bhagavā arahaṃ sammāsambuddho vijjācaraṇasampanno sugato lokavidū anuttaro purisadammasārathi satthā devamanussānaṃ buddho bhagavā’ti.

The words attributed to Bhagava in the Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas appear to be the major source for the Pāli Canon.

What evidence is there of the Pali Canon's origin?

According to the Sri Lankan Mahavamsa, the Pali Canon was written down in the reign of King Vattagāmini (Vaṭṭagāmiṇi) (1st century BCE) in Sri Lanka, at the Fourth Buddhist council. Most scholars hold that little if anything was added to the Canon after this [Wikipedia}.

What do scholars say?

Scholars generally agree to the origin of the Pali canon as mentioned above.

'Buddha' is a Pāli word; often when referring the the Buddha the texts use the compound 'Sammāsambuddha'

Buddha as a Pali name, form of address occurs twice in the Sutta Pitaka. Buddha as an English word is defined in almost all English dictionaries

You said it was "obviously not in the Pali canon." But now you say it occurs twice and for some reason you are not counting 'Sammāsambuddha' which occurs many times.

I am sorry about "obviously in the pali canon". I was referring to the English word Buddha in that sentence.

"you are not counting 'Sammāsambuddha' which occurs many times": The word 'Sammāsambuddha' does not occur in the Pali canon. However the word ''sammāsambuddho' occurs over 400 times in the canon. It is used as a name of Bhagava in the Buddhanussati text: Itipi So Bhagava Araham Sammasambuddho...Here Araham is highest purity and Sammasambuddho is the knowledge of Cattari Ariysaccani.

'Sammāsambuddho' is just a declination of 'Sammāsambuddha', no? Anyway I think I'm done with this discussion. Best.

'Sammāsambuddho' is the original Buddha (who attains enlightenment via his own effort & starts the Buddhist religion). 'Buddha' can be a generic word for any fully enlightened being.

The scholar Hans Wolfgang Schumann in his (german) monography "Der historische Buddha - Leben und Lehre des Gotama" (1995) ("the historical Buddha - life and teaching of Gotama, 2005") gave a paragraph on the characteristics of "Pali" as a language. I'll try to translate it correctly to english from the german version (pg 296):

"The language which the Rajagaha-council used and in which it canonized
  the Word-Of-the-Buddha, has been "Pali", a higher form of the Maghadi,
  which avoided local terms ("mundartliche Formen") and which had
  enriched its vocabulary with terms of related languages in India.
  "Pali" has been a conversational language, which was only spoken by
  educated people, but understood by the common people. The north-indian
  rulers used it as language for governmental and jurisdictive purposes
  - thus it was also well known to the Raja's son Siddhattha Gotama from his early youth. Also Upali and Ananda were likely able to speak it
  fluently.(...)"

A more involved consideration, which references many authors, can be found in this Was ist Pali topic on Aloys Payer's web site (unfortunately there is no english version of it and I cannot do the translation, but Google Translate can translate it adequately).

In my opinion, all we can know for certain are words spoken or written down by 'a Buddha' (i.e., an awakened enlightened mind) rather than by 'the Buddha' (i.e. Gotama). The only way we can know this is via personal realisation.

"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Contemplative says this. We speak thus in line with the Contemplative's words'?"
"No, lord."
"Is it the case that you speak simply in line with what you have known, seen & understood for yourselves?"
"Yes, lord."
"Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves."
Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta

For example, at www.accesstoinsight.org, there are four translations of the Four Noble Truths, each one is different and not one of them accords to any meditative experience or realisation. Therefore, not one of them can be regarded as the words of a Buddha.

in brief, the five bundles of grasping-fuel are painful - Peter Harvey
in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects -
  Ñanamoli Thera
in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering -
  Piyadassi Thera
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful - Thanissaro
  Bhikkhu

However, the confusing translations above of 'saṃkhittena pañchupādāna'k'khandhā dukkhā' does not mean a Buddha did not speak the words 'saṃkhittena pañc'upādāna'k'khandhā dukkhā', which should simply state: "In summary, attaching to the five aggregates is suffering" or "the five attachments to the five aggregates is suffering" (which emphasizes 'attachment' as suffering or the problem rather than the neutral aggregates).

Sorry, the second half of the answer isn't clear to me. Is it the translations which you don't regard as the words of the Buddha? What do you think of the Pali, saṃkhittena pañc'upādāna'k'khandhā dukkhā?

Thanks for clarifying. Incidentally I think that this this dictionary entry translates it more-or-less as they do (i.e. as a pair of nouns or a compound noun), while explaining it more-or-less as you do (the explanation uses 'attaching' as a verb).

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

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


text:
What is Buddhism's view about debating teachings?
What is Buddhism's view about debating teachings: should we accept teachings without question, or should we have our own internal and social debates about what we learn?
If we should debate, what is the correct way of doing it?

Let me answer with an excerpt from "Awakening from stupidity", my unfinished novel about genesis of Buddhism:
Chapter 26.

In late February, the valley of Ganges welcomes the coming spring. Not that crazy roaring intoxicating spring that can be observed somewhere in Siberia or Karelia, nope -- just a safe, happy, having-never-seen-real-difficulties North-Indian spring. But even without a real winter, spring is spring: gusty wind tears apart and scatters the clouds, the sky is so bright with blueness -- it rings in the ears; the earth, toasted by sun, exudes the fragrance of life. The only detail that would have seemed strange to a person from temperate zone, was an abundance of foliage on trees. Spoiled by available moisture, the leaves ignored autumn, hung through all winter, and only now, in anticipation of the dry season, were reluctantly beginning to fall.
On the road from Gaya Pools to the capital, bhikshus discussed their forthcoming visit to king Bimbisara, as well as events of the last three months.
-- 'Tell me, Master Gotama, why Dreaded Kashyapa could not understand your teaching? You kept explaining over and over!'
  -- 'Did you Assaj, not see for yourself what an asshole he was?'
  -- 'Kaundinya!' -- sternly snapped Gotama, 'this is what's called "sowing discord", exactly what you are doing now. Remember, you asked for an example?'
  -- 'Got it, not anymore' -- Kaundinya, usually inclined to defend his ancestral right "to call an asshole an asshole", today was in amicable mood.
  -- 'As for Kashyapa... You see, Asvajit' -- sighed Gotama, 'some people believe that the purpose of philosophical debate is to outargue the opponent and prove one's superior understanding.'
  -- 'But this is so, Master Gotama, the one who wins the dispute, he must be the wiser, right?'
  -- 'One who is really wise, Asvajit, debates not to win.'
  -- 'What point is to argue then?!' -- As far as common sense Kaundinya had no equal.
  -- 'It is quite pointful still. The point is, for the two sides, through combining two different understandings of the same problem, to free themselves from mistaken fixations, each side from their own.'
  -- 'Meaning, both sides must lose?'
  -- 'Enough, bhikshus.'
'As yourselves, most people approach discussion as if it were a sword fight. Instead of trying to understand the other's point of view, they keep advancing their arguments while waiting for him to "open". Seeing the slightest inaccuracy or logical error, they grasp at it, even if the basic idea is clear to them. When the other gets nervous and slips something silly, they gladly pick it up for a laugh and keep pushing until he gets completely confused! Such people firmly hold their ground, drawing confidence from their limited scope, and having defeated yet another opponent with cunning and impudence, remain satisfied with themselves. But if they see that they can not win, then, jealous of the winner, they get nervous, and begin to divert conversation away, evade, lie, get personal, start losing their temper, and eventually fall down to curses and insults.'
-- 'That's it! This is precisely about the Dreaded. Remember how he got yelling last time?'
  -- 'Not worth it, Kaundinya' -- Gotama obviously did not want to recall circumstances of his last debate.
  -- 'Can you guys please tell me what happened. Remember, I did not go to the naked fathers' that night. Pleeease!' -- begged another of the five bhikshus called Nam, a former son of Brahmin, his status revoked for relating with girl from a lower caste.
  -- 'Not such a great idea, Naman. Savoring themes of this kind stimulates harmful thoughts and excites negative emotions.'
  -- 'Teacher, lily grows in the swamp, but is not smeared in mud. May I please know what happened -- in time I too may have to debate with difficult people.' -- well-educated Nam was clever and knew how to achieve his ends with style.
[abridged... Assaj and Kaundinya relate to Naman the content of Gotama's last dispute with Dreaded Kashyapa, in which, as the story goes, the two nagas ended up exchanging some fire... see https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/5130/43]
-- 'So, Master, you really have shouted at Kashyapa? Why?!'
  -- 'As a rule, Naman, fire is overcome by water. But there are very rare cases, when fire can be defeated only with fire.'

Another way to put your question (re-phrase) is... "Is criticizing other religions allowed in Buddhism?"
If that criticism is fair and aims to correct others, then it’s allowed and is a good thing to do. As it is mentioned above in Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta, Jainism is criticized by Supreme Buddha.
Supreme Buddha was one of the first crusaders against caste system, an apartheid evil ideology started by Aryans who used it to suppress indigenous Indian people. Lord Buddha was a social reformer and thoroughly criticized the animal sacrifices and discrimination of women which was common in the Hindu society.
A heartfelt touching discourse of Lord Buddha on animal sacrifice comes in the Sutta Nipata, Brahmana-dhammika Sutta. In this discourse, it is discussed about the ethical conduct fit for a Brahmin. Lord Buddha speaks respectfully of ancient Brahmins who rejected disdainfully the taking of life and never allowed their religious rites to be contaminated by the blood of poor animals. But corruption came upon, and they started the wicked practice of animal sacrifices to please gods. When the knife was laid on the neck of cow, the gods themselves cried out in horror, seeing that crime of ingratitude and insensitivity committed on an animal that was such a faithful worker, such a sustain-er of life, to humans.
In the Agganya Sutta, Supreme Buddha focuses on the Brahman idea from Wrig Veda that Brahmans came through the mouth of Maha Brahma/God; thus they are supreme. Lord Buddha questions the Brahmins as to how they can claim so when they see day to day that women in the Brahmin caste get pregnant, give birth, and take care of their children? Don’t they understand that they all came from the mother’s womb, not from the Brahma’s mouth?
‘One is not low because of birth nor does birth make one holy. Deeds alone make one low, deeds alone make one holy.’
– Supreme Buddha (Dhammapadha)

Should we accept teachings without question?

No never.
Accepting teachings blindly is not part of the Buddhas teaching.
The Buddha stressed over and over, throughout his 45 years of teaching, than we ourselves must work. No one can do the work for us. The Buddhas can only show the way. We ourselves must walk through the doors. That also goes for the cultivation of insights.
The Buddha taught that one should go and test the teachings for oneself. One should not even trust ones own ideas and thoughts, because they themselves can be decieving. They are subject to the 3 marks of existence, meaning they are impermanent and in a constant flux. One might believe something one day and next week, the opposite mental formations arise.
The way to do this, is to practice insight meditation (vipassana) and gain insight about how reality functions.
This experiental knowledge, serves as a reference point to reality, meaning that one now has a measurement-tool. When one sees for oneself how reality functions, how the mind operates and how the mind-body-complex functions, then there is really no doubt anymore.
When reading something in a book, when being taught something by parents, teachers, friends, authorities, one is only learning this intellectually, meaning that one does not truly and ultimately understand, how reality functions.
One does not have wisdom (paññā), thereby making it blind belief/faith.
In Buddhism we have faith (saddhā) but this faith is guided by wisdom, so that it does not become blind faith. Wisdom, one gains from the practice of insight meditation. One thereby sees with ones own eyes, what this samsaric existence is and how it operates.

If we should debate, what is the correct way of doing it?

I think this question has a variety of answers. I would like to put forth the factor that when debating there should be a reference point. Something that ties the strings together. That denominator is experiental knowledge of reality.
Debating could be done on the basis of experiental knowledge. Debating on the basis of non-experiental knowledge (non-wisdom), would not make it relevant to the winning of Nibbana.
That kind of debate would be intellectual and more of a scholarly approach.
This approach I mention here, is founded in the practical/insight-meditational aspect of Buddhism. Bare in mind, that this is just one approach to debating. There are many others and I don't think one way is more correct than the other. Unless we are talking about winning Nibbana - then only experiental knowledge can set one free.

The Buddha makes it clear that (1) we should always question the teachings, but (2) not in a showy or superficial way. He contrasts the artificiality of the kind of debating skills that are taught in schools with the correct pursuit of wisdom, which involves a deep penetration and comparison of the teachings with the goal of cultivating real understanding and not merely impressing people.
The correct way of discussing spiritual teachings (the Buddha says) is to find common ground and proceed from there on the basis of truth. When we look at how the Buddha actually engaged the Brahmans, for example, he always sought to understand the inner meaning or significance, often ethical, of the practices and the teachings, rather than taking them literally or understanding them superficially. With respect to the dharma, new teachings should be criticized in the context of the established tradition - which itself should be the result of criticism - in order to arrive at right view.
Again, this does not imply a superficial or fundamentalist approach. The Buddha says that teachings should not be accepted simply because they are traditional or taught by one's teacher.


text:
How to get someone to the good path who is not leading a good way of life?
If i want to get someone to the good path, who is not leading a good way of life, what should I do and where should I begin?
Many of my friends do not have much understanding of life and they often make so many mistakes. As I have learned about the consequences of untamed words and actions, I fear for them and I want to know how to get them to listen and think about their own stupid actions.
Are there any Theravada teachings on this matter? And/or do you have other advice (all answers are welcome and I am happy to learn every perspective)?

You have to be careful such that this intention does not come from the conceit "I am better then my friends. I am better, I know, you don't know, I see, you don't see. I will show what you have to do." You will find that is very hard to change others, its easier to change oneself.

What does the [tag:theravada] tag mean on this question? Normally a tag like that is used for questions about literature (e.g. Theravada suttas contrasted with Mahayana sutras) or questions about doctrine (if a doctrine is different between the different schools).

@ChrisW , iwanted to find any Theravada teachings on this matter (if there are any) thank you for the comment :)

I understand @UrsulRosu thank you for the comment :)

Does that mean that judehey2's answer, for example, is off-topic? Or is there something about that answer which makes it specifically a "Theravada teaching"? On this site, adding a school-specific tag like [tag:theravada] to a question is usually used as a signal to say that general (not school-specific) answers are not allowed for that question.

No i mentioned my preference to this question,all answers are welcome and i am happy to learn every perspective.And i like what @Judehey2 has said. thank you for the comment.

The only way to influence others' behavior is through example. Your question presupposes that your friends have a desire to change.  Not everyone wants to change, or wants your help in modifying their behavior. You might consider expanding your friendship base (i.e., find new friends) if your current friends' behavior is not to your liking.  We cannot assert ourselves or our beliefs onto others.  We can only influence by example.

You wrote,

I have learned about the consequences of untamed words and actions i fear for them and i want to know how to get them to listen and think about their own stupid actions

It might be difficult for you to get them to think about their stupid actions. For example if you say, "your actions are stupid, you should think about them", then they might be averse to listening.
It might be easier to talk to them about your stupid actions:

If they are friends of yours then they might want to hear stories about you
If they're your actions, then you know those actions and their consequences and are able to talk about them

You might say something like, "Did I tell you about when I used untamed words and actions? I caused so much trouble! Here's what happened ... (tell the story) ... What I learned was (tell the lesson) ... That's why I don't do that any more. Now I do (something else) that actually works a lot better for me."
That is (very approximately) how an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting works, for example.

You didn't say exactly what kind of "untamed words and actions" you're worried about, but talking about yourself might be a general solution. For example I met a married couple recently, of whom one seemed to criticize the other a bit more than I thought was healthy. I considered telling them not to do that, and decided that it wasn't my business and that they wouldn't accept it from me. So instead (without mentioning them) I told them about my experience with my relationship with my wife, how we learned to stop our arguing; and I hope that was a more successful/informative/hopeful conversation.
In summary, maybe talk out of your own experience.
Also consider getting expert/specialized help or advice (e.g. ask a doctor or a teacher).


text:
What to do before correcting regrettable life choices?
If someone has lived a regretful life and want to correct himself, what should he do before he begins his efforts?
If someone regrets the choices made in the past and intends to change, where should they begin?

In Buddhism, unwholesome action bears unpleasant fruit in this or a future life. But when and how intensely such fruit arises is mediated by what we do now and henceforth.  The most efficacious means for reducing such negative consequences are through developing our virtue, our mental capacities and our wisdom.  Below, I'll ground this response in the teachings of Bhante Henepola Gunaratana (known to many as "Bhante G," Abbot of the Bhavana Society, author of "Mindfulness in Plain English," etc., see, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henepola_Gunaratana) who anchors his advice in the oldest Buddhist texts and commentaries.
I recall during two different week-long meditation retreats with Bhante Gunaratana his being asked this same question, What to do when we've done regretful acts in the past?, by two different people.  One person was a innocent-looking young woman, the other a middle aged man who mentioned he had served time in prison and who appeared stooped over and brow-furrowed by deep remorse.  To each of these people, Bhante G gave the same response.  He first quoted from the "Lump of Salt Sutta" and then told the story of the mass-murder-turned-monk Angulimala.
In the Lump of Salt Sutta (in Pali, Lonaphala Sutta, AN 3.99 or 3.100, depending on which redaction; here's an English translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html; and, here's a Pali redaction: https://suttacentral.net/pi/an3.100), the Buddha essentially asks his disciples, would a lump of salt have the same taste in a small bowl of water as it would in the river Ganges?  The disciples state that the lump of salt would make the bowl of water undrinkable but would not affect the taste of the Ganges.  The Buddha then reveals that the lump of salt is a metaphor for bad karma and that the water reflects ones spiritual development.  More specifically, bad kamma will have a harsher impact on one who is "undeveloped" (represented by the small bowl of water) while it will have a nominal impact on one who is "developed."  Developed in what way?  To quote from the sutta:

developed in body (bhavita-kaya)
developed in virtue (bhavita-sila)
developed in mind (bhavita-citta)
developed in wisdom (bhavita-panna)

(An earlier part of the sutta adds, "He is unlimited and has a lofty character, and he dwells without measure" [trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi], which some commentators associate with ones practicing lovingkindness, compassion, appreciative joy and equanimity, for instance, as indicated in the Bramha-vihrara Sutta, AN 10.208 [for which here is a translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.208.than.html; also see Piya Tan's article, "How loving kindness can limit bad karma" available at https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/an3-100-lo-akapalla-how-loving-kindess-can-limit-bad-karma-by-piya-tan/1801].)
Just a quick side note, if I may, the notion of developing ones virtue, mind and wisdom finds resonance in the more general Buddhist framework known as the Threefold Training (see, for example, this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Training).  The notion of "developed in body" is often interpreted in terms of sense restraint (Pali, samvara; for a more detailed exposition, see, for instance, the Samvara Sutta, AN 4.14, an English translation of which is available at https://suttacentral.net/en/an4.14).
As for Bhante G's retelling of the story of Angulimala, a mass murderer whose very name refers to the necklace (mala) made of his victims' fingers (anguli), the most important canonical source is MN 86 (Thanissaro Bhikku's translation can be found at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html).  Realizing the endless cycle of suffering he has created for himself and others, Angulimala disavows his murderous ways and becomes a follower of the Buddha.  (As Angulimala recites in this sutta and in Th. 16.8  [e.g., Norman's translation can be found at https://suttacentral.net/en/thag16.8 ]: "Swept away in a great flood, I went to Buddha as a refuge.")  Once, when going for almsrounds, Angulimala saw a woman in painful labor and was overwhelmed by how to respond.  The Buddha taught Angulimala the protective verse: "Sister, since I was born in the noble birth [that is, became a monk], I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. Through this may there be wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus."  This exemplifies how Angulimala's new commitment to a harmless life enables him to both liberate himself and give comfort to others.
As an addendum to what I have learned from the wondrous Bhante G, I'd like to add two observations.  The first is that, among monks and nuns, there are communal processes for addressing interpersonal (and other) wrongs that include bimonthly communal confessions.  (See, for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha#Monastic_practice .)  I don't know if any such process is established in Buddhist lay communities and would, of course, welcome others sharing their knowledge about such.
Secondly, our regret is often intermingled with our own natural, understandable desire to be forgiven.  In Buddhism though, seeking such forgiveness is not achieved through debasing ourselves or some form of ritualized self-flagellation.  Instead, this impulse for forgiveness reminds me of a chant generally found in post-canoncial Theravada liturgies, "Khama Yacana" (see, for instance, http://chantpali.org/closing.html#khama_yacana), where the verses state in part:  "If by deeds, speech or thoughts heedlessly I have committed any wrong-doing, forgive me, O Bhante ... O Dhamma ... O Sangha ...."  In such a way, beyond the desire to resolve our karmic consequences and our desire to create communal harmony, we can try to temporarily ease within ourselves any excessive burden, facilitating the realization of liberation.

Thank you Theravada :-)  (and Bhante G and the Triple Gem :-) )

I would propose three steps.
I think there is great power in having a simple awareness of the present moment. Recognizing the significance of the present—that it is truly the only time that matters, the only time in which we can really do anything— is the first step. Wikipedia: Mindfulness
The second step begins with a simple realization: the past is over. But the very next part of this step is even more important: the realization that dwelling in the past is a form of clinging, and that this clinging to the past only causes more suffering. Wikipedia: Dukkha
The third and final step is to become familiar with mettā meditation and to get really good at the first stage (loving-kindness for oneself). Benevolence toward oneself can go a long way to chip away at regret. Wikipedia: Mettā
So, to summarize:

Learn to appreciate the power of the present moment, and maintain a
focus there (and away from the past)
Let the past remain in the past (and understand that clinging to it causes suffering)
Love yourself unconditionally, and allow the emotions connected to the past to fall away


text:
What is the intermediate state before birth (Gandhabba)?
What is the intermediate state before birth ("Gandhabba"), mentioned in some Buddhist traditions?
I have only heard the word so I can't explain the question any further.
I would like a detailed description of it if possible.

Please don't add too much formatting to your posts. I think it would become more difficult to read each page if everyone posted a mix of ordinary, bold, and yellow text. Instead of adding a lot of formatting, concentrate on writing the text (i.e. content). Especially, reserve the > formatting for quotes (and avoid using bold -- bold is usually unnecessary except perhaps as a kind of subsection title when a post is very long).

I thank everyone who took their time to answer my question, May triple gems bless you!

You're welcome. Hope the answers was useful for you.

As far as I know, Theravada Buddhism refuses an intermediate state and says that a new life begins right after the death of a being. Although I have heard the theravada buddhist monk Ajahn Brahmali, mention in one of his videos, that there is an intermediate state.
So maybe there are different views on this topic, within Theravada Buddhism. Anyway, be careful about limiting yourself, to one tradition regarding this topic. No one really knows what happens in this stage, unless one has reached the necessary levels of insight, supernormal powers or enlightenment.
In Tibetan Buddhism, we have descriptions of the intermediate states between death and the beginning of a new life. The in-between-states are called Bardos. I remember reading about them in the "Tibetan Book of Living And Dying".
This is an amazing book, that I think every Buddhist should read, no matter what tradition one follows. This book is filled to the brim with pearls, treasures, insights and jewels.
Here is a quote from the book, on the Bardo of Becomming:

THE DURATION OF THE BARDO OF BECOMING
The whole of the bardo of becoming has an average dura- tion of forty-nine days and a minimum length of one week. But it varies, just as now some people live to be a hundred years old, and others die in their youth. Some can even get stuck in the bardo, to become spirits or ghosts.
Dudjom Rinpoche used to explain that during the first twenty-one days of the bardo, you still have a strong impression of your previous life, and this is therefore the most important period for the living to be able to help a dead person. After that, your future life slowly takes shape and becomes the dominant influence.
We have to wait in the bardo until we can make a karmic connection with our future parents. I sometimes think of the bardo as something like a transit lounge, in which you can wait for up to forty-nine days before transferring to the next life. But there are two special cases who don't have to wait in the intermediate state, because the intensity of the power of their karma sweeps them immediately on to their next rebirth.
The first are those who have lived extremely beneficial and positive lives, and so trained their minds in spiritual practice that the force of their realization carries them directly into a good rebirth. The second case are those whose lives have been negative and harmful; they travel swiftly down to their next birth, wherever that might be.
-- Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, p. 295

I would suggest that you read the entire chapter "Bardo of Becomming (p. 291)", but also the chapter "The Process of Dying (p. 248)". The entire book is highly recommended but also takes a lot of time to read. So pick and choose if your time is limited.

MN 38 explicitly discusses Gandhabba.  Bhikku Bodhi discusses it while teaching MN57 and the thinking here is that the gandhabba shouldn’t be considered as a discrete state of existence or anything that could be construed as a destination.  However elsewhere there’s a clear idea that karmic consequences require that the stream of consciousness may have to wait.

I quote below from this page, which comes from a lecture by the Theravada monk Ven. Nyanatiloka.
If I may phrase it differently, a Gandhabba is like a file that is copied from one computer (old body) to another computer (new body) wirelessly (without a physical transfer medium). The file itself is not a body or container of any sort (i.e. not a transmigrating soul). It is merely like information, just as a file on the computer.

According to Buddhism, there are three factors necessary for the
  rebirth of a human being, that is, for the formation of the embryo in
  the mother's womb. They are: the female ovum, the male sperm, and the
  karma-energy (kamma-vega), which in the Suttas is metaphorically
  called "gandhabba," i.e. "ghost," or "soul." This kamma-energy is sent
  forth by a dying individual at the moment of his death. The father and
  mother only provide the necessary physical material for the formation
  of the embryonic body. With regard to the characteristic features, the
  tendencies and faculties lying latent in the embryo, the Buddha's
  teaching may be explained in the following way: The dying individual,
  with his whole being convulsively clinging to life, at the very moment
  of his death sends forth kammic energies which, like a flash of
  lightning, hit at a new mother's womb ready for conception. Thus,
  through the impinging of the kamma-energies on ovum and sperm, there
  appears just as a precipitate the so-called primary cell.
This process may be compared with the functioning of the
  air-vibrations produced through speech, which, by impinging on the
  acoustic organ of another man, produce a sound, which is a purely
  subjective sensation. On this occasion no transmigration of a
  sound-sensation takes place, but simply a transference of energy,
  called the air vibrations. In a similar way, the kamma-energies, sent
  out by the dying individual, produce from the material furnished by
  the parents the new embryonic being. But no transmigration of a real
  being, or a soul-entity, takes place on that occasion, but simply the
  transmission of kamma-energy.

A living being goes through arising of the aggregates and passing away continuously. At the moment of death when 5 aggregates passes away in one body and it arises in a new body. There is a momentarily gap in passing away and arising. This is called Gandhabba. Even in normal course of life aggregates arise and pass away. There is a momentary gap which is infinitesimally small or just a split second. This is not called Gandhabba. Gandhabba is the name for the gap at death, i.e., aggregates passed away in one body but yet to arise in another.
Also see: Is Rebirth Immediate? for a more detailed discussion.

Listen to these, you will find your correct answer; no intermediate, new life begins right after, right after; it's call Gandabba

Yes, there Is no intermediate but Gandabba ; But this Gandabba stage is our new life; there is no mid anything that u darting lifeless; Gandabba is already BORN; Its ur new life; Read my new comment, Thanks Theravada, read my new comment; I elaborated ; Thank You

Yes you are correct :-)  I asked this question to know the whole story just so i can be sure my understanding is right. Thanks again!

Video is marked private.


text:
The bliss of nirvana without sensation
Some sensations are neither good nor bad, when I think there is an absence both of pleasure and pain.
But what about nirvana itself? Obviously there is no vedana to it.
Is its "bliss" something like the memory of neutral sensation?
I just wonder if that's what it's like to be without the three poisons of attachment aversion and ignorance.

A basic answer is, Nirvana is zero attachment and zero aversion. Imagine how you'd feel if you had zero attachments and zero aversions, not even a slightest hint. That is Nirvana.
I'm not sure what the orthodox position says about vedana, but from my perspective it should still have vedana. It is just, when pleasant vedana arises, you see it arising, and when it ceases you see it ceasing. When unpleasant vedana arises, you see it arising, and when it ceases you see it ceasing. No attachment and no aversion - therefore no suffering.
Could you say the absence of suffering is bliss? Yeah, kinda - you could qualify it as a very subtle form of bliss, a #0-thickness bliss.
Have you ever had a dream in which you fly so high that there is nothing left but sky on all sides around you? They say, the experience of dharmakaya is like that. Another comparison I heard from teachers is what astronauts feel on the orbit - constant free fall. It is scary at first, because you feel like you're going to crash - but you can get used to it and even be functional.
So I guess that must be the feeling: the absence of suffering due to attachment/aversion, but also the absence of any kind of comfort you normally get from having some kind of reliable ground. Could we call this the bliss of endless free fall?
Another way to describe Nirvana, is as death of ego. Imagine you have lost everything. All hopes, all promises, all meanings - nothing left. Because you lost your valuables and futures, you have nothing to lose. Because you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to fear. Which makes you into a kind of superman, just a very sober superman, because you no longer get intoxicated or carried away by childish illusions. No hope, no fear. That's another way to see it.
Now combine the two images: the endless free-fall with no grasping onto anything  and no suffering, with no ground, no home, no hope and no fear, everything lost and everything gained, very sober and absolutely stable in infinite agility. That's what they say Nirvana feels like.

would you call the 2nd "egoless" quality the lack of ignorance, as opposed to attachment and aversion? i ask cos ignorance creates volition and i wonder if that colours a sense of the neutral in general (perhaps into rebirth)

yes, I think so. Because you have no hopes & no fears (which are both future-looking appropriating narratives), you no longer project your existence forward, so there is no becoming. Be careful with words like "neutral" though. In my understanding, dynamic equanimity (what I called "absolutely stable in infinite agility") is far beyond being simply neutral (sterile, grey, colorless) - at least not in Mahayana understanding.

so agility is an attachment thing? that's interesting. yeah obvs equanimity in any form of practice isn't mere vedanic neutrality, but i think i recall that the former includes the latter? interesting choice of adjectives for it (sterile, grey, colourless) which are for me suggestive of an inference to equanimity. thanks for the good replies

Here agility is an opposite of attachment; active aspect of non-attachment.

Orthodox position there is vedana; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044 & http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Bhikkhu_Bodhi_Culatanhasankhaya_Sutta.htm

Ah nice, so I got it right then ;)

When you have a Sensation couple with Perception what happens is that you react to the Sensation with Clinging or Aversion. In Nirvana your Perception an Sensation momentarily stops when you realise it (pala samapathi) and when you come out your perceptions are for ever changed. Hence you do not react to Sensation the same way as before thus not creating new fabrications. When you are in the attainment of the fruit (pala samapathi) there is no sensation but out of it you have Sensation but doe not react to it the same way as your Perception has changed.
The roller coaster of sensation we create through becoming has lost its fuel when you attain Nirvana. The creation of new fabrications have stopped. The fabrications give Unpleasant, Pleasant and Neutral Sensations when they bear fruit. What ever the sensation it is Unsatisfactory. The bliss in Nivana is you have come out of this and the fire of fabrications which keep burning in Unsatisfactoriness is withering out.
When you are sans of Perception you do not see things through coloured glasses hence there is no distortion of the 3 poisons. This result in that you are not creating any new fabrications, hence free from the Unsatisfactoriness inherent to getting hit by the waves of one sensation after the other.


text:
What happens after the great doubt of koan practice?
I read that koan practice is meant to create doubt.
But what happens when the koan has been passed? Does doubt end, or begin again, or get literally "shattered"?
Does the practitioner experience a moment of hope?

in my limited practice of zazen rather than koan practice, there is felt quality between hope and doubt. i was wondering whether success is dropping them

It is not just any doubt, it is a highly perplexing doubt, a sense that the entire world is pulling your leg.
When the doubt gets shattered there is a return to natural clarity, free of false hope.
But because the koan-induced satori is more often not the complete enlightenment, there is still some lingering seeds of hope in the background, which eventually come back to life and become the new round of longing, aversion, and confusion.
From my personal experience, dropping hope is a good thing - but not dropping the koan type of perplexing doubt. This doubt is like the smell that gets you to the cheese.

i chose your answer for the word "clarity", thank you for helping me conceptualise this stuff etc, :)

Hmmm, not sure if that's a good thing... to help conceptualize Zen...

hm yeah good point. oh well

Andrei's answer is pretty spot on, but I think you need a little background on koan practice to really get the gist of the kind of doubt it's referring to.    Say you are given the Mu koan.  You might sit with that for a couple of months.  During an interview with your teacher, he might ask what mu is or to show it to him.  You might say "it's emptiness".  Ding!  He rings the bell.  Wrong answer.  You go back to sitting.  You go to him again and say something like "thoughts stopping".  Ding!  Back you go.  "No mind?"  Ding!  "Everything is one."  Ding!  "The cypress in the garden."  Ding, ding, ding!
The whole time this is going on, you are getting frustrated.  Your hope is getting crushed.  It seems like everything you say is wrong.  All your theories are dashed.  Even what you take to be subtle observations aren't the answer your teacher is looking for.  Your mind has no refuge.  You have nothing to hold onto.  It's all not this, not this!  That is great doubt.  And it's visceral.  Mumon even likens it to swallowing a hot ball of iron.
But if you practice, you will eventually come tottering into a place where insight is possible.  You might say something to your teacher, something you take to be completely outlandish or that you don't even understand yourself, and he'll pass you on your koan.  On some occasions, you may even get a pretty clear, momentary glimpse of the blue sky through the clouds.  But most of the time, and I don't mean to disappoint, but even after "answering" your koan, you'll walk away feeling just as confused as ever.  The doubt comes slamming back down on your head and back to the cushion you go...just this time with a different koan.
Koans are like holes knocked into a wall with a sledgehammer.  Every one that you answer does a little damage.  Some might even let a little light through.  But over time, if you smack it enough, it will eventually fall over.  Only then is anything really shattered.  It's best not to have hope.  Hope is a temporary refuge.  Better to come at that wall with the full force of your doubt.

yes, a very insightful answer.

The answer goes beyond words ,doubt does not exist anymore or neither does hope or any cause or condition only when we drop off body and mind do we see the true nature of ourselves reallity of oneness that you become everything around you and it becomes you.Mind is only your own idea or concept that there is no mind that there is nothing yet you are everything but you can't explain it in words this can take one moment to see any a lifetime of sitting with mu to get the satori experince in zen .Going beyond dualisim that there is no self that the dharmakaya is you or you are the Buddha realised so is everything else around you


text:
Reducing the power of a bad karma
As we all agree none of us have a white past, we've all have done some bad thing in our past before coming to the path and in previous lives.
So how should we use the good karma we generate today to
reduce the impact of bad karma from previous lives and from our past?
I've heard that this is possible.

It is indeed a good question that you raise but too much bold and yellow can easily remove focus. So I have edited your question and removed the bold + yellow color. In this format we try to keep questions streamlined without too much bold and color going on at the same time:)

That is good. What is most important is the content of a question or an answer. But if the formatting (bold writing, color etc.) is removing focus from the great content, then that might reduce the quality of the question, meaning that one might get a downvote or an answer that is it not good. Keep that in mind so that you can get the best answer possible and so other users have an easy time reading the question.

There are few ways you can do this:

Increase counteracting or store of good Karma (see: Loṇa,phala Sutta)
Develop habitual good karma as these tend to counteract occasional somewhat grave bad karma (Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta)
Karma is extinguished when felt1, hence experiencing the past Karma effective now you reduce the store of past karma. This is not by self mortification but not letting past Karma surfacing gaining strength to give more adverse results later, i.e., experience it when the seed of karma gives its 1st sproute than waiting for a forest to grow.2 In order to do this whenever you experience pleasant, neutral or unpleasant you should be fully aware of the feeling without craving or aversion knowing its arising and passing nature or impermanent nature if you cannot see arising and passing of phenomena. (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2)

1 Loṇa,phala Sutta

‘Whatever experienceable karma [that do entail a consequence]
  that a person does, he would experience the result of that karma [that is, whatever fruits he reaps, they
  would accord with his karma]

2 Karmas which cause calamities in like has a snowballing effect. It surfaces as a minor experience (e.g. repentant memory) to which you react to reinforce it, each time surfacing with larger and stronger effect.

The Sankha Sutta is one of the best sutta's I know of that provides instructions on how to transcend and overcome the effects of past unskillful kamma.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.008.than.html

This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This
  is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed.
...when the awareness-release through equanimity is thus developed, thus
  pursued, any deed done to a limited extent no longer remains there, no
  longer stays there."

Great reference!

Depends on the tradition, but there are some well described ways, some purification ways. For example, in vajrayana buddhism or tantra you could do the Vajrasattva practice for karma purification purposes.

Of the 6 fundamental things about karma that Buddha said we should know, the 6th one is the cessation of karma.
The Nibbedhika Sutta (AN 6.63) says,

And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma"

in case you are interested in full text of this sutta ; Nibbedhika Sutta, AN 6.63

There the medicine: The Healing Power of the Precepts
And here are nice stories around this issue:

The Healing of the Bull: A Story
Prisoners of Karma: A Story by Suvimalee Karunaratna

I hope you feel no bitterness towards anyone. this is one of the principles of Buddhism.  everything has a reason.If there is sorrow that you have to experience, then there is a root cause for it too. It is not the fault of the boys you used to know... It is not the fault of the husband, or the relatives....
The pain within you is the result of a pain you have given others in some previous birth.I hope you understand what I'm saying.How you react to the pain is VERY IMPORTANT. You can understand the dhamma behind the pain.... or you could start blaming everyone else...If you choose to blame everyone else..... then the cycle of Hate,Blame, Suffering continues....
If you chose to UNDERSTAND THE DHAMMA behi nd the suffering....then you can use the four noble truth principle and ARYA MAITHREE to end this suffering.   If you understand the root cause to be "suffering you caused others in the past"....then apply ARYA MAITHREE towards all beings you may have associated in the past.... now that you understand the DHAMMA and you are a follower of BUDDHA in this life it would be possible for you to get compassion for any wrongful deeds that you may have caused in the past for others....  Theruwan Saranayi..


text:
How to get rid of hate?
I have a friend that I met few years back. He always look polite, look decent, and look helping others a lot. I did him a lot of helps that no friend would do to him. Later, when I needed helps he really, replied me with very bad words, which I never thought he can even talk like that. This thing really becoming something that I cannot forget. It seems I suffer it a lot. I was thinking how to get rid of this for a long time now. What are the practical measures in Buddhism to get rid of such hate inside one's inside. Thank you.

Hi Hwathanie and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like.

There is a solution given in Buddhism for the exact matter.
I think you may have heard about the meditation called "Maithree / Meththa" (Metta). There is a certain variation of that to prevent such hate.
So the solution is simple: do this meditation, specially targeting this person and the memory that you are trying to get rid of.

After doing it for about 10 minutes move to the following way of focusing without stopping your meditation.
The next step is to focus on bad effects of anger and hate:

How it effect badly to the path
How it gives you births in lower realms (like among animals)
How it will ruin your appearance in next lives
How it could reverse you accomplishments in meditation
How you will not be able to reach jaanas (Also known as Dyana)
And so on....

You should also add these:

How that person's anger and bad words would affect badly to his path
How it could give him births in lower realms (like among animals)
How it will ruin his appearance in next lives
How it could reverse his accomplishments in meditation
How his will not be able to reach jaanas (Also known as Dyana)

This is done to get your mind to feel sorry for him and pity him.
(The very second your mind comes to this phase it will no longer have anger for the incident or the person that made you angry).

Now you should focus on how your thought are generated and how they were generated in that moment.
Try to recite these with your mind:

What I hear does not contain anger or hate: I make it in my own mind
If I hear something i like i start to like it,and i start to like
that person who said it
If I hear something i do not like i start to hate it,and i start to
hate that person who said it
So this hate and love is also a product of my thoughts, nothing in the
world ever made me love or hate anything.
So like this every feeling I have is a bundle of thoughts,mind's
creations
Everything that made me happy and sad has always been a thought in my
mind
But without seeing this I was foolishly blaming others for my anger
There is a functioning body and a thinking mind
I looked everywhere there was no "Me", only thoughts
But I thought there is someone called "Me"
It was this mind that made this reality and all the feelings I have
felt
I am not the only one who is fooled by this, everyone is!
If there is no "Me", then there is no "Him" or "Her"
Only bodies and minds that made them work
It is foolish to have a grudge with anyone
I give up this anger, there is no point carrying this foolish burden.

I guarantee you in one sitting you will be a different person. This
   would take about 15 minutes. If that is too long do the two parts
   separately (don't leave too much time in the middle). I have done this
   and it is instant in giving results.


text:
Killing a parent and killing a foster parent
We all know what happens if someone kill a parent but does the same apply to killing a foster parent

Killing a normal human being itself is a serious bad karma. So while killing a foster parent is not an Ananthariya Karma, it is still a severe bad karma depending on how good he/she was.

If you intentionally kill your biological parent, you will commit ‘Anantarika karma’, which means you will not escape from it until you achieve Nirvana.
You will go to hell and suffer, then you may be born in a lower realm and suffer. After that, you may be born as a human or god according to your karma.
But you will face significant negative effects until you achieve Nirvana


text:
Marriage and porn
We all know the limits of a married person.We all know the definition of cheating in Buddhism.
But Buddhism existed in a time Porn did not exist.
So if a married person watch porn is it cheating?

The beginnings of Buddhism are not too long before the writing of Kama Sutra. I don't think your assumption that porn didn't exist at that time is true.

Porn is a sort of modern entertainment available to the public.public. Kamasutra is not a book of porn (Like a an Adult comic book).It is an informative guide to a satisfying marriage / sex life.It was developed in a time when sex was more of an art or a form of entertainment for the nobles and royalty.I was Knowledge passed from generations combined.  I think you may have heard once sex was divine form of worship in india. @michau

I know that it isn't a book of porn, but it that shows that these topics weren't uncommon in the literature of the time. If sex manuals existed, then this topic wasn't taboo, so it's hard for me to imagine that porn in one form or another did not exist.

Maybe, But what we call porn is something to read or watch.These kind of erotic things were only available to the highest peaks of society,After going to these brothel like places they would watch them dance and sing.In the meantime they would choose who they will hire for services.So it was more like prostitution than being close to porn,These women did provided more than sex (Escorting,Real dance shows,Musicals). Thanks for the interesting conversation, I would like to discuss more.

According to buddhism, what are the limits of a married person, and the definition of cheating? Does anyone know the source?

Technically, watching porn doesn't break the 3rd precept, but it weakens it. In other words, it weakens the merits you gain by keeping to the precept apart from  accumulating bad karma.

Does it depend on whether one is married or not?

Even if you are not married, watching porn is bad Karma for you.

But it is not a Sin it is an "Akusala" (A bad karma that would reverse your path or blunt your meditation or give you a bad birth).

The concept of sin or bad karma is an interesting one since are you not performing an act because you are scared (and if the given circumstance were ripe, you would perform them) or is it because you truly understand it. Having watched a talk on Ted - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRJ_QfP2mhU, you'll find that porn is based on concepts of submission, force, oppression, etc.

@SankhaKulathantille is it a bad karma or something that weakens your path to nirvana? can we say > it weakens the merits you gain by keeping to the precept?

@AchalaDissanayake yes, it weakens the 3rd precept and hinders the path to Nibbana.

Some socially 'Islamic' people (as distinct from Muslim practitioners) get married on a Friday and divorce on the Monday just so they can have sex on the weekend & not break the rules. Obviously, this does not conform with the true spirit of the religion.
Similarly, regardless of whether a person is married, delighting in pornography is an expression (for men) of the mind's view ('ditthi') about women, human relationships &/or sex.
The scriptures state a wise man looks upon every woman like a mother, sister or daughter. For example, in a traditional marriage, a wife has the primary role of a mother (rather than a sex partner).
A pornographic lifestyle & outlook is the opposite of compassion & the development of spiritually strengthening & liberating qualities.

Donating porn/nude arts, women to men for evil purposes, bulls for cows to breed, alcohol and arranging dances(probably sexually arousing) are considered evil charity which are sinful. So clearly porn is not something good but sinful whether or not it falls under physically cheating.

Porn conflicts with Buddhism on several levels. One of the most basic defilements in buddhism (unwholesome roots) is greed. This is a self centered desire for pleasure or possession it also stimulates another unwholesome root in Delusion. Also if we are mindful of the topic of porn, we see the the porn industry exploits people for money and has been known to be involved in drugs and sex trafficking...
When you watch porn in marriage you are deceiving your partner for self gratification..
Porn contradicts the path..


text:
Step siblings and relationships
Lord Buddha once said
"The future humans will have unusual lusts and temptations"
So when i saw a this in a TV series i couldn't define the line,
If two step siblings form a romantic relationship is it against the five precepts?
So what if we say they are independent individuals,What then?

As per the 20 unsuitable women listed, it could break the precept, depending on if one or both are in care of parents/relatives/guardian or if the king/government prohibits such relationships or if it's prohibited by tradition.
But one should keep in mind that taboo & obviously vulgar behaviors are not discussed under the 3rd precept. That doesn't mean that they don't fall under sexual misconduct.

So what if we say they are independent individuals,What then? @Sankha Kulanthille

Updated the answer

I agree with the update, But isn't everything we discover new as a social phenomenon considered  "Taboo" in the beginning? These people really exist and other than a legal bond making them siblings they actually have no connection  at all. We should consider more traditions before coming to a conclusion (Girls marrying their uncles - used to be very famous in india even in Lord Buddha's time). What actually should define "Taboo" is very hard to define.


text:
Why difference in karmic effect to same evil deed?
According to the Lonaphala Sutta, a minor evil deed done by a spiritual novice would take him to hell, while the same minor evil deed done by the spiritually advanced would be barely experienced.
In the sutta, the Buddha gives more analogies like the salt crystal in a cup of water vs the river, the poor thief vs. the rich thief etc. which definitely work as analogies.
But then could anyone explain why is it really like that? How to make sense of it?

"There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain
  individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same
  sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the
  here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment.

The answer lies in the mind, i.e. to what degree has the mind been cultivated and purified.
The more cultivated and purified a mind is, the lesser the chance is that one will continue to make unwholesome deeds or increase suffering for oneself. Ones mind is simply more inclined towards Nibbana.
If we look at the untrained mind or the novice mind, then that mind is not cultivated or developed, meaning that the defilements are much more present here. Wisdom is absent or present in a much lesser degree, than in the trained mind.
An untrained mind is more likely to dwell in e.g. anger, sadness, happiness and other emotions, thereby enforcing them, like in the snowball-effect. The untrained mind will also in a larger degree identify with and take ownership of phenomena, thinking that there is a self or an experiencing entity, thereby creating further suffering for oneself.
The trained and cultivated mind has attained a lot more wisdom, making it capable of seeing reality as it is, without superimposing qualities onto it. The trained mind will not run after pleasant objects and away from unpleasant objects. It has seen the true nature of conditioned existence, i.e. the 3 marks of existence.
So if an individual with a cultivated and purified mind commits an unwholesome deed, then that individual will realize it much faster and be able to "damage-control" by reciting the precepts, use the unwholesome phenomena that has arisen e.g. mental formations or feelings to cultivate insight, go and commit wholesome deeds, increase the work on the paramitas and other options. In other words, the individual with a trained mind is much more capable of dealing with mistakes and turn them into insights. Also this person has a greater storage of wholesome kamma that will neutralize or lessen the effects of the unwholesome kamma that has been created.
This is different for the individual with the untrained or novice mind, since that person does not yet have the right tools to deal with the effects of unwholesome deeds. His faculties are not yet matured and he might be more liable to dwell, identify, take ownership, react and run away from these effects, thereby increasing the suffering (going to hell) for himself.
Lastly, I want to point out that only a fully enlightened Buddha can understand the workings of kamma. So there might be many more reasons for this difference between an experienced and an inexperienced individual, that non-Buddhas cannot yet understand.
Hope this helps. If you have any questions to what i wrote, let me know.

If you have a lot of good Karma to be prosperous and then steal then there is little effect while if you have little Karma to be prosperous and steal then you get poor in a later life.
The main point is your store of Karma not abundance of what you have like a poor thieve and rich thieve.
Also it is not any general Karma like you have lot of good Karma to be intelligent but not much to be rich and you steal then you get poor again in the next life unless you use your intelligence to counter this.
Also the interaction of Karma is complex hence no body can say for sure.
In addition when you are contemplating of the arising and passing away of the what had been felt through the 4 foundations of mindfulness, your past -ve Karma looses its power and dissolve away. This happens as follows: A past Karma surfaces and gives it's result as some sensation to which you do not react hence no new fabrications are created multiplying the Karma and then it looses its power as it has already given result through not to the potential it might have snowballed in and non meditating person.

There's a classification of Kamma according to the "priority of effect".

Garuka Kamma: which means either weighty or serious,
may be either good or bad. It produces its results in
this life or in the next for certain.
Asanna Kamma or Death-proximate Kamma is that
which one does or remembers immediately before the
dying moment.
Acinna Kamma is that which one habitually
performs and recollects and for which one has a great
liking.
Katattà Kamma—Reserve or Cumulative Kamma. Literally,
it means ‘because done’. All actions that are done
once and soon forgotten belong to this category. This is as
it were the reserve fund of a particular being.

So when a virtuous person dies, the chances of a trifling evil deed he has committed coming forward to determine his next life is minimal. Because a virtuous person usually does good weighty Kammas during his life. ex: Attaining any of the 8 Jhanas. That will always come forward to give the next life. Also, when a virtuous person does something wrong, he knows that it is wrong. He doesn't take the false view that the fault he committed is right. Since he is aware of what happens here and now, he sees how it corrupts the mind. So he practices Samma Vayama(right effort) of the noble eight fold path. In this case, it is the effort to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen. So the effect of the Kamma is mitigated and loses it's potency to give a birth.
On the other hand, an unvirtuous person usually doesn't do any good weighty kammas during his life. There's a high chance of him taking a false view that the bad he has committed is good. And he doesn't practice Samma Vayama to improve himself. This can make the Kamma potent enough to give a new birth, even if it is trifling at face value.

Friend, what is interpreted as evil by the mind?
Any experience which causes suffering.
And what is interpreted as good by the mind?
Any experience which does not cause suffering.
The more ignorance in the mind, the more evil is experienced by the mind. The less ignorance in the mind, the more good is experienced by the mind.
Now, there are cases when a spiritual novice, with ignorance in the mind, does a trifling evil deed.
This very same trifling evil deed, done by this very same spiritual novice, causes a lot of suffering to him.
Why is that so?
The more this very same spiritual novice is ignorant, undeveloped in understanding suffering, its cause and its ending, the more suffering arises in him.
He dwells in suffering for a long time, he beats his heart with it for a long time, he cries for a long time, he laments for a long time, he's angry for a long time, he's afraid for a long time, he's in stress for a long time ...
That's why a trifling evil deed done by a spiritual novice can take him to hell.
Now, there are cases when a spiritually advanced person, with less ignorance in the mind, does this very same trifling evil deed.
This very same trifling evil deed, done by this very same spiritually advanced person, causes less suffering to him.
Why is that so?
The more this very same spiritually advanced person is free from ignorance, developed in understanding suffering, its cause and its ending, the less suffering arises in him.
He dwells in suffering barely for a moment, he beats his heart with it barely for a moment, he cries barely for a moment, he laments barely for a moment, he's angry barely for a moment, he's afraid barely for a moment, he's in stress barely for a moment ...
That's why a trifling evil deed done by a spiritually advanced person does not take him to hell.
Now, there are cases when a liberated person, with no ignorance in the mind, does this very same trifling evil deed.
This very same trifling evil deed, done by this very same liberated person, causes no suffering to him.
Why is that so?
When a person is free from ignorance, developed in understanding suffering, its cause and its ending, he fully discerns between evil deeds, neutral deeds and good deeds.
What to a spiritual novice or spiritually advanced person seems like an evil deed, it is really a neutral deed or even a good deed.
What to a spiritual novice or spiritually advanced person is a lie, it is really the truth.
Just like a blind person who has never seen colors cannot discern black from white, in the same way a mind who has never fully understood suffering cannot discern suffering from non suffering, good from evil ...
That's why a good deed, seen by a spiritual novice and a spiritually advanced person as an evil deed, takes the liberated person to heaven.
So, friend, know the truth.
Know evil, good and neutral deeds.
As only by knowing, only good and neutral deeds are done.
Only by knowing one is liberated.


text:
Is there a gradation of proper and improper deeds?
When somebody asks if it's OK for a Buddhist to do this or that, different answers may be given:

It goes against n'th precept
It is an unwholesome action
It will produce bad kamma
It will cause rebirth in hell
Anything else? If there is something more, please let me know.

Other possible answers may include:

It does not break any precepts
It is a wholesome action
It will produce good kamma
It will cause rebirth in heaven
It will lead to nibbana/enlightenment
Anything else? If there is something more, please let me know.

I wonder which of these things are completely equivalent (e.g. is an unwholesome action exacly the same as an action that produces bad kamma?), and if there is a gradation of these things (e.g. is breaking a precept worse than an unwholesome action that doesn't break a precept?).

I don't think there is a gradation where the quality of the action itself is concerned. All actions are always either kusala or akusala.

kusala: skillful, wholesome, good, meritorious
akusala: unskillful, unwholesome, bad, demeritorious

As people, though, we will always feel compelled to judge and compare actions. Stealing from the cookie jar is not as bad a stealing a car. Killing a fly is not as bad as killing a bird. But these distinctions are mind-made: in the end there is just kusala and akusala.
Now, whether there is a gradation tied to the kamma produced by any given action is an entirely different question (to which I have no answer, but I'd guess that there is a correlation between kamma and quality of the action).

is an unwholesome action exacly the same as an action that produces bad kamma?

Yes. Without mincing words, both of these are two sides of the same coin.

(Also, in your two sample lists, you could also mention that an action could go with or against the Noble Eightfold Path.)

The question illustrates emptiness.
Our habits only want us to quantify absolutely, we want to grasp at something concrete, but this habit is futile due to dependent arising.

My opinion is that there is no such gradation. Actions begin with a thought or Chēthanā. These are the seeds that determines the eventual actions. So if our Chēthanā are pure it will lead to pure actions. If they are impure, the actions will be impure.

Verse 1.
Suffering Follows The Evil-Doer
  Mind precedes all knowables,
  mind's their chief, mind-made are they.
  If with a corrupted mind
  one should either speak or act
  dukkha follows caused by that,
  as does the wheel the ox's hoof.
Verse 2. Happiness Follows The Doer of Good
Mind precedes all knowables,
  mind's their chief, mind-made are they.
  If with a clear, and confident mind
  one should speak and act
  as one's shadow ne'er departing.
-Treasury of Truth , Ch.1 ("Twin Verses)

Hence, as these verses quite clearly justifies, thought precedes all actions. Since thoughts cannot be graded, it is more so the quality rather than the quantity of the thought that really matters.
Forget all the jargon that comes with the precepts and rules. Follow your heart. Ask yourself truly, at the very point of thought, "Is this what I really want to do? Does this go against my self conscience and pure gut feeling? Does the action that comes with this thought hurt me, others and both above mentioned parties?" . If the answers are satisfying, then put that thought into action. It will bring good.
Life is not like a game of basketball or cricket where a judge keeps score. It all comes from the strength of the thought itself. If your thought is strong enough, you can even attain higher Pāramitās or 'states of perfection' which are stepping stones to Nibbana.


text:
What is correct punishment for children?
If you see advising doesn't work with a child, are there acceptable punishments mentioned in Buddhism?
I know that Buddhism does not accept physical punishment, so I am asking about any other form of punishment.

I like Milton Erickson's practice of physically restricting the movement of his son when he engages in the prohibited behaviour until the child undergoes a change of heart. He describes this somewhere.

is it "grounding" that you are talking about?


text:
Can we program or pre-define our last thoughts?
I have heard the last thoughts of a person can define next life.
If so can we somehow define them through practice, so when the time comes they will be as we planned?
Or is there a practice that would cause them to be positive?

This topic might have been already addressed here: Last thought before death?

Yes i saw the question,But what i am asking is can we program last thoughts to our favor. I see what's wrong.i will edit my question.  Thank you  :)

Related: Last thought before death?

According to the Dvedhavitakka Sutta, whatever one keeps pursuing with his thoughts, that becomes the inclination of his awareness.
And from my understanding, the last thoughts of this life is based on the "inclination of awareness".
The solution according to the sutta, is the consistency in practice towards reshaping the inclination of awareness towards renunciation, non-ill will and harmlessness.
This can be achieved through the Noble Eightfold Path.

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
  becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing
  thinking imbued with renunciation, abandoning thinking imbued with
  sensuality, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
  renunciation. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with non-ill
  will, abandoning thinking imbued with ill will, his mind is bent by
  that thinking imbued with non-ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing
  thinking imbued with harmlessness, abandoning thinking imbued with
  harmfulness, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
  harmlessness.
"Just as in the last month of the hot season, when all the crops have
  been gathered into the village, a cowherd would look after his cows:
  While resting under the shade of a tree or out in the open, he simply
  keeps himself mindful of 'those cows.' In the same way, I simply kept
  myself mindful of 'those mental qualities.'
  - Dvedhavitakka Sutta

According to this quote by V. F. Gunaratna:

This last thought series is most important since it fashions the
  nature of his next existence, just as the last thought before going to
  sleep can become the first thought on awakening. No extraneous or
  arbitrary power does this for him. He does this for himself
  unconsciously as it were.
It is the most important act of his life, good or bad, that conditions
  the last thought moment of a life. The kamma of this action is called
  garuka kamma or weighty Kamma. In the majority of cases the type of
  act which men habitually perform and for which they have the strongest
  liking becomes the last active thought. The ruling thought in life
  becomes strong at death. This habitual kamma is called acinna kamma.

Autopositivity is indeed a great skill, virtue, accomplishment, and in its own way a paradise.  With constant watchfulness and training in the Four Immeasurables (the four Divine Abodes) ones natural and spontaneously occurring thoughts can be patterned and trained to be of a purely helpful and nonharmful nature.
Essentially we are developing the skill of choosing positive conscious states and being patient with nonpositive states.  Anyway, as mentioned above, the four immeasurables are worthy of your immediate attention and application.

The practice of Vipassana aims at this, i.e., making your next life better by being in control of your last moment. You have to be mindful of the arising and passing away of what is felt or sensation pertaining to the 4 Frames of Mindfulness, 5 Aggregates, Sense Doors with no clinging or aversion. Even if you are not fully liberated this will result in a conducive next birth with the ability to practice the Dhamma, i.e., triple- rooted (ti-hetuka). If you do not make use of this opportunity in the next birth then your have no guarantee things will be up hill in Samsara unless you have reach a stage of sainthood.
Increased practice of Vipassana increases the balance of probability your will do so at the last moment if you do not reach some stage of Sainthood.