text:
Pitisukha or delightful/beautiful breath not arising?
I am doing meditation as narrated in following steps by Ajahn Brahma to attain to Jhanas.

Present moment awareness

Silent Present moment awareness

Silent Present moment awareness on the breath

Fully sustained awareness on the breath

Fully sustained attention on beautiful breath

Experiencing the beautiful Nimmita

Jhana

I have reached the stste of Fully sustained awareness on the breath for last couple of days now. But the pitisukha or delightful or beautiful breath is not occuring.
Am I lacking ekkagata or concentration?
Its getting boring to remain in this state for half an hour.
Also, at what stage does the sense of body disappear?
Any suggestions?

If you are getting bored after a half an hour, ya ain’t even close to fully sustained attention on the breath.  When our attention is fully sustained, there is no room for boredom.  It’s akin to how engaged your mind is in an engrossing movie or during sex.  And just like either activity, you get pulled into fully sustained attention.  You don’t provide full sustained attention.
You aren’t going to reach jhana sitting like that.  First of all, it requires many years of practice.  Secondly, true jhana is only ever reached in a retreat setting and after multiple days of 10+ hours of sitting.  Finally, even outside of a retreat setting, your practice times really need to exceed an hour or more (90-120 minutes is ideal) of unbroken sitting in order to effectively train samatha meditation.  You can’t expect to run a marathon by practicing sprints.
This may sound like a lot, and it is.  But nothing good comes without effort.  People learn to play a pretty mean piano without ever needing to lock themselves away in a monastery.  You can likewise develop a deep meditation practice in lay life.  But expect it to challenging.  There is only the hard way.


text:
How does the Nimitta occur?
How does the Nimitta occur? I mean does it come all of a sudden (like torch turned on) as a shining bright white light or does it come as light gradually increasing brightness of varied colors?
I am able to see a faint glimmer of blue circular object but not getting anywhere with it. The brightness and color remains constant for few minutes and it vanishes afterwards. Is it Nimitta? What should I do to brighten it

NOTE: Please look at Ven. Dhamma Dhatu's answer below. Thank you --Oyamist
MN128 has a long long discussion about what to do when nimitta vanishes:

MN128:15.3: “Well, sir, while meditating diligent, keen, and resolute, we perceive both light and vision of forms. But before long the light and the vision of forms vanish. We haven’t worked out the reason for that.”

It's rather lengthy, so I won't repeat it but it starts here:

MN128:16.1: “Well, you should work out the reason for that. Before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I too perceived both light and vision of forms.  But before long my light and vision of forms vanished. It occurred to me: ‘What’s the cause, what’s the reason why my light and vision of forms vanish?’  It occurred to me: ‘Doubt arose in me, and because of that my immersion fell away.

And continues for a very long explanation...
Regarding what is actually seen, that too is mentioned in DN16. Specifically, visions can be internal or external; limited or limitless; blue, red, yellow or white.

DN16:3.26.1: Perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, limitless, both pretty and ugly. (...)

Notably, one should also not be attached to such visions. Let them come and go. Watch without grasping.

MN111:4.5: And he meditated without attraction or repulsion for those phenomena; independent, untied, liberated, detached, his mind free of limits.

In particular, limited visions will have forms, since forms are limited. Just watch.

Thankyou for the answer but sorry you didnot answer my main question of whether the nimmata comes all of a sudden or it comes gradually. Also in your answer what id 'vision of forms'? How it it related to nimitta. I have read that nimmata is a circular disk.

Thank you. The information you seek is in DN16. I've extended the answer. Let go of expectations such as "sudden" or "gradual". Just watch.

MN 128 is not about the jhana nimitta. MN 128 is about the development of psychic powers.

@DhammaDhatu, please say more? Perhaps we can all read your own answer. It would be quite helpful. Thank you.

OK... i posted an answer

We practice wholesome mind and mind factors on one meditation object, not nimitta, however nimitta is an effect of more power mind. When wholesome mind begin
to concentrate stably more and more gradually, the Nimitta is going to appear brighter and brighter little by little gradually, too. At first, it would be like a very transparent  gray could, pin, etc., after it would be like a bright star, or sun, or flower, etc. And when it is a PatibhagaNimitta, it is super beautiful bright and stable like your stable mind. This may use 1-3 hours per sitting, 12h a day everyday for a year in monk, but someone may use just few months. It depends on one's past Pāramī. However, Nimitta appearing or not is not important because when the years of the concentration gone by, you can see the developing stable, claim, fast thinking which being better for complex insight meditation. That's the point to keep the concentration meditation for years to the the of life.  I do it for 1-2 hours a day, 5 times a week for 2 month there are just unstable transparent cloud and some spectrum color appear to me. I try hard to care not of them because I lose the meditation when I lose focus from the meditation's object to Nimitta, broken meditation.
So, the only way to do is relax your mind and body, don't excite of whatever happen. Just go back to the meditation object, breathe, etc. We will focus on nimitta only when the nimitta is stable brighter and brighter enough. Then it is going to overlay the meditation object. When this overlaying nimitta is stable enough, we focuses on Nimitta instead.
This maybe require long time for layman. So it's okay if you want to meditate or listen the insight meditation if you worry you will miss the insight meditation. However, my experience tell me "I can't enlighten Nibbāna, although  I meditate the insight meditation, if my 5 hindrances still often arise, no citta-visuddhi. When I realized this, I  trow my time on the concentration meditation more and more, thenmy insight meditation is better than I have been before.
If I could go back, I will start the concentration meditation as early as I can and keep it to the end of my life, **either getting Nimitta or not because my Sutta and Abhidhamma study are easier after I've focused on the concentration meditatio. Another my insight meditation and emotion controll are better, too.
"Nimitta"'s references in DN.SubhaSutta to overlay the "(Kāma-)Nimitta and it's detail" in 6 SatiSanvara, "Escape Kāma and Escape  Unwholesome" in 1st Jhāna, and "Pariyodāta (for Ānenjā)" in 4th Jhāna and 8 Vijjā:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/39817/10100
Information: https://medium.com/capoeirawellness/instructions-on-anapanasati-meditation-for-beginners-38db38787fe3
Video:

Thankyou for the answer but sorry you did not answer my main question of whether the nimmata comes all of a sudden or it comes gradually?

I already added it to the answer. However, the main idea still at mind practice for Ānāpānassati. The object practice is for some think like Kasina which we practice after 4th Jhāna of Ānāpanassati in Buddhism, except Kasina is done before or past Pārami allow it. See MN KāyagatasatiSutta and DN SubhaSutta.

Good answer. Upvoted.

The nimitta comes all of a sudden (like torch turned on) as a shining bright magnetic white light. The nimitta arises when ultimately the breathing (due to its tranquilization) is impossible for the mind to discern. The mind creates the nimitta to replace the breathing as the meditation object. However, concentration is so developed here that the nimitta is the ultimate mark/sign & initiator/entry of jhana. Here, the mind magnetically & immovably locks onto the nimitta. The nimitta is the sign of & inseparable from the jhana factor of ekaggata (which is why the Buddha did not mention the nimitta but instead mentioned 'ekaggata' as a jhana factor). The nimitta consumes & stops the ordinary thought function of the mind. What is called 'vitaka & vicara' in jhana are very subtle movements of apprehending consciousness rather than ordinary (verbal) thought & intention.
The analogy of immovable ekaggata in the Commentaries is a calf tied with a rope to a post. The calf is always tied to the post and cannot be removed from the post. However, the calf has some scope to wander around the post (which is vitakka & vicara, i.e., consciousness very subtlety moving around exploring the other jhana factors). When the calf settles down to lie down next to the post, without any wandering & movement at all, this is the analogy for the second jhana.

Note: there is always various brightnesses experienced in meditation but generally volitional attempts to utilize these in meditation is a result of attachment. Thus the brightness will fade away because brightness is born from neurological purification rather than from attachment.
The topic of various nimitta is primarily from the Visuddhimagga. My recollection is the none of the nimitta in the Visuddhimagga are actually signs of jhana (attainment concentration) but are only signs of neighbourhood concentration.
Unfortunately, teachers ranging from Buddhadasa to Ajahn Brahm have entertained the children talking about these various immature/premature non/pre-jhana nimittas; although Ajahn Brahm has also wisely discussed their limitations.
Ultimately, prior to entry into jhana, the mind is too busy engaging in the constant subtle practice of "letting go" for it to concern itself with the emerging brightness from meditation/purification. In SN 48.10 the Buddha was clear that jhana is reached by making "letting go" ("surrender"; "vossagga") the meditation object.

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana...
SN 48.10

In other words, the only important nimitta is the final mature jhana nimitta, which the mind non-volitionally creates.

Thank you. I have added a note from my answer to this one.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What are the differences between sex cults and the tantric tradition?
What is the difference between sex cults, and the tantric tradition? I understand that the latter has a lot of tradition and ritual behind it
And while there is a strict monastic code, I imagine, in the tantric tradition, monks are encouraged to have sex with their disciples. Furthermore, any claims that there is a direct lineage all the way back to our Buddha, Shakyamuni, is as doubtful as it is in zen; these practices may be Indian, but aren't specifically his.
I'm not saying that a power imbalance in a religious context of sexual activity needs to be abusive, but it can be. So why not here?

There is a HUGE difference between Tantra sex and sex cults. Tantric sex is for one purpose only. That is  that the union of two people becomes a microcosm of union with the universe, a state of enlightenment. The entire motivation is love and compassion And desire for enlightenment to serve all.
There is no lust.
Sex cults thrive on lust. Orgasm is for personal pleasure. There is a power differential.
There are innumerable religious leaders who purportedly were encouraging sex between themselves and students. That is very wrong. It is not tantric sex. That is abuse of power.

First, a cult in the proper sense is simply a group of people who follow the practices of a single teacher. Cults are not inherently bad, and in fact most established faiths are technically cults to the extent that they follow the singular teachings of someone like Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ, Moses, Muhammad, etc. However, cults can at times form around poisonous leaders who present themselves as wise or enlightened. One must suspend disbelief in matters of faith, but one should not abandon it entirely...
Tantra in the modern (lay) sense is a system generally holds that sexual energy can be used as a tool in spiritual development. Technically speaking, tantra is any system that tries to weave esoteric teachings and practices into common, everyday life (not separate out esoteric life into monastic settings), but because of the emotional power of sexuality in everyday life, tantra has gradually been subsumed by sexuality in the Western world. At any rate, tantrics take sex far more seriously than most people, and it's rare that you'll find a (proper) Tantric teacher who indulges in sex with disciples, acolytes, or lay practitioners. Sex is not 'casual' for them, and their goal is not sex in itself but the ecstatic state that one can achieve by the cultured flow of sexual energy.
Of course in the Buddhist sense, sex is a dangerous fixation. Most Buddhists on the high (monastic) path renounce sex because it is too subject to tanhā. The monastic life becomes a world distinct from the ordinary world, in which higher states of being are cultivated. Tantric traditions have survived in Tibetan Buddhism, primarily in deity and energy yogas. Tibetan Buddhists accept sexual practices as well, though not without consequences (see the recent troubles in the Shambhala Movement). Most modern sexual Tantra derives from Indian/Hindu traditions, which have always carried a more congenial (if complicated) relationship to sexuality (through Shiva/Shakti deity practices). But in the West, with the West's typically prudish-prurient attitudes towards sex, poisonous teachers are rife. One needs to take care.

According to the dictionary, the term 'cult' doesn't necessarily pertains to something negative or false. The cult can be healthy and original. A group of wise men can take texts of tantric sex and relive the original powerful practices of established tantric traditions. In fact, tantric traditions can become old and no longer living (more ritualistic rather than conscious, scientific, intelligent).
On the other hand, cults can be bogus while tantric traditions hold the original teachings and practices that bring people to enlightenment.

Seduction is the undertaking of Maras.
Remember when daughters of Mara were trying to seduce the Buddha?
That's evil.
When beings first start having sex this occurs;

Those who saw them having sex pelted them with dirt, ashes, or cow-dung, saying, ‘Get lost, filth! Get lost, filth! How on earth can one being do that to another?’

Lust comes into play due to perversion of view, seeing attractiveness in the unattractive;

Perceiving constancy in the inconstant,
pleasure in the stressful,
self in what's not-self,
attractiveness in the unattractive,
beings, destroyed by wrong-view,
go mad, out of their minds.
Bound to Mara's yoke,
from the yoke they find no rest.
Beings go on to the wandering-on,
leading to birth & death.

Therefore;

Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge."

I think it is clear that there can be no Buddhist sex cults, only sex cults.

Is this answer intended to explain Vajrayana?

I am explaining sex cults and ethics based on Buddhist texts, it's tagged cults & ethics.

I do think those texts are in the vajrayana canon tho or at least authoritative.

As to whether i did intend to explain vajrayana, do not ask me that

Normally the vajrayana tag would imply the question is looking for an answer which describes the Vajraya perspective or doctrine. I think the OP was trying to ask something about "the tantric tradition".

I think here op is clearly asking about sex cults, ethics and tantrayana. Anyway i answered based on texts held to be true in vajrayana tradition so either way it's on point.

Not that this comment answers the OP's question, but I think I noticed previously that this guy for example has a, I don't know, a relaxed attitude towards sexuality -- doesn't discourage sexual relationships between students, maybe does discourage people who have hang-ups or something about sex (or encourages them to go elsewhere). Not that I approve (nor especially disapprove) of that, but not everyone who self-identifies as Buddhist (this guy identifies as diamond way) has the attitude toward sex that's implied by the quotes in this answer.

Apparently he's against people being "inhibited" -- see e.g. the answer to, "What many people do not expect from a Buddhist Master is the inclusion of sexuality in the teaching" in this interview. Yes I know that's not consistent with the Pali suttas' doctrine for monks.

Yea many people are pro sex in Tibetan sects; " Sex between clergymen and boys is by no means a uniquely Catholic phenomenon, a noted American scholar said Wednesday -- it's been going on in Buddhist monasteries in Asia for centuries.[...]Although the Buddha clearly proscribed sex of any kind in monasteries, "we know of incidents where members of the Bob-Dob, an order enforcing discipline among Tibetan monks, fought each other over boys,"

https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2002/05/01/Feature-Buddhisms-pedophile-monks/81841020273948/#:~:text=According%20to%20Zwilling%2C%20monks%20having,of%20Buddhism's%20three%2Dfold%20refuge.&text=%22Actually%2C%20pedophilia%20is%20hardly%20mentioned,writings%2C%22%20he%20went%20on.

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


text:
When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in?
When one analyzes Saṅkhāras, where does 'unconditioned' fit in?

The word means 'formations'[1] or 'that which has been put together'
and 'that which puts together'.

I take this to mean something about parts and wholes, as well as causation. But what about "the unconditioned": will it appear as cognitive residue or by-product of establishing every conditioned thing, or is it an object of cognition one gets to? Or what exactly?

The word 'unconditioned', as is the thought of & the understanding of this word, all these are Sankhara and are conditioned.
That which is rightly thought of as unconditioned is not a sankhara, that which one understands as 'unconditioned' is not conditioned even tho one's thinking of it is conditioned.
If one is fixated in wrong views one can think of something conditioned and think of it as unconditioned due to stupidity.
Having discerned the cessation of the conditioned as a principally unconditioned reality, it is proclaimed to be unconditioned.

It would be helpful for the person who downvoted this answer to explain why they downvoted as I cannot see what this issue is here?

I think of it this way: The Buddha's concept of "dependent origination" is similar to the modern idea of "emergence".
It's just a way of creating "maps" of sensory experience which enable us to better predict sensory experience.
Like so:
We notice, when THIS set of conditions is present, THIS phenomenon arises/emerges.
If, however, we remove one of these required conditions, the phenomenon will no longer arise/emerge.
The phenomenon has become "unconditioned".
For example: Consider avijjā: the choice to ignore uncomfortable truths.
Avijjā is the root condition of the dependent origination of suffering.
If the first arrow penetrates the heart (condition 1: dukkha), and we choose to respond to this by craving and clinging to a desired sensory experience (condition 2: taṇhā & upādāna) and thereby go to war with the part of us which desires to see the world the way it actually is (avijjā), the inner conflict between these 2 parts manifests as "suffering".
i.e. All suffering is a conflict between these 2 parts.
i.e. The purpose of dukkha is to alert us to mispredictions in our model which predicts sensory experience so that we can humbly correct the error in the model which gave rise to the misprediciton. If we, instead, cling to the broken model, this is unskillful. The wise part of us that knows it is unskillful will continue to protest until we correct the error.
If we, instead, choose to resolve the inner conflict between the 2 parts by (1) renouncing craving and clinging (condition 2) and seeking to see the world the way it actually is (condition 3), then we are removing the conditions for the emergence of the phenomenon of suffering.
i.e. We are "unconditioning" the phenomenon of suffering.

The purpose of unconditioned is to help unfix one's grasping of self (sankhara aggregate). Anytime it happens a person finds a good self, Buddha pulls the rug out from under them offering the conditions for their self. Then without those, self is unstableness. Unconditioned is nirvana? Unbinding? I guess also space? Not sure what else..
Edit: well i guess unbinding has attachment as its condition, perhaps, but hard to imagine it

The conditioned/unconditioned dichotomy is a tough one to reconcile with, especially using the intellect. It's just not compatible. All logical reasoning falls apart due to the sheer simplicity of everything. That's why the mind goes quite: it's been stunned into the truth.

i agree it's a fickle answer, but what else can you reconcile with if not the intellect?  2 sides of the same coin. both string us along.  both bound us to reason.

Well, I up voted your answer. I'm not sure what the down vote was about. Down votes should only be applied upon the condition that a comment is left to explain the down vote. But you're right, though. The intellect is all you have to work with up until a certain point.

If buddha wasnt then whats with the attraction...should not be that way

Formation is okay, back two other meaning are not okay.
Sankhara are coworker originators.
Sankhata are lucky men or victims.
Every aggregates must be many cause states (conditioners) and many effect states (conditioned).
There are only two unconditioned, Nibbāna and Illusion (Paññatti, included name).
Nibbāna, a reality, is not conditioned by any Sankhara because it is  the cessation state of Sankhara. It is the opposite of conditioned. Whoever , aggregates, knew Nibbāna must going to never born by conditioners again in 7 births. It is never arise but it is still a state either one know it or not. And  who want to know this reality must practice hard follow the Buddha only, except SammāSambuddha and PaccekaSambuddha.
Illusion (Paññatti, included name) is not conditioned because it is just imagination which must  imagined by  someone. It is not reality, not truth. And it is not the opposite of aggregates because erything, all aggregates, Nibbāna and all Illusions, can be imagined by thinking (mind;Cittu-Uppāda).
See Abhidhamma, especially Patthāna (24 conditions), for more information.

.. But is not Paññati conditioned by the one that imagines?

Nibbana and Pannatti never arise because they never be conditioned by anything. If one say "Paññati conditioned by the one that imagines" it means every imagine must has the right conditioners' relations to be a really arising conditioned effect. It is impossible. One imagines "I am a world's commander", but it is never arise, unreality, because it is never conditioned by any realities. All imaginations are lacking of conditioners to be real. (to be continue...)

(continue) However, minds can image an imagination by collecting realities and imaginations, so some Pannatti look really real, such as human is Pannatti  which minds generate it from Aggregate-Realities and Real+Unreal Aggregates' Pannatti. Another, this is just the beginning of the insight meditation there are many other things to know to meditate the meditations such as the smallest elements of minds' millisecond, etc. The smallest real elements are the way to make sure we understand everything real, not just an imagine. It causes Abhidhamma and causes the Buddha is the only best teacher.

Form is illusion no?


text:
Are ideas real?
If I have the idea of an "apple" or its taste,

is the idea as real as the apple itself?

Specifically

do the objects of the 6th consciousness depend on anything except the 6th consciousness?

In normal philosophical terms

does the idea depend on the mind having the idea, in order to exist?

I think these are all equivalent questions, because causation is the conventional truth - ideas, the ultimate - no causation, and the middle - the buddha nature or mind-body.

The illusion (AtthaPaññatti;UpādāyaPaññatti) and the name (NāmaPaññatti) are not real, never arise. I think they are called "Conceptual (Paññati)" in english, right?
Everything is Paññatti which imagine by mind, not real. except arisable 5 aggregates which depending on various origins each time and Nibbāna which never arise and not depending on anything. The mind uses them to imagine Paññatti.
The real is  each arisable element in 5 aggregates which mind using to create illusion and name. Even if we talking about the 5 aggregates which possible to arise in the future, this 5 aggregates is real as well. Opposite, the 5 aggregates which being not arisable, is NāmaPaññatti instead.
Each arisable element (both Nāmas and Rūpas) are depending on various origin to really arise.
So, the Buddhā said in SN SaṅkhataLakkhaṇaSutta:

Sankhatalakhaṇasuttaṃ –– The signs of a compounded

Bhikkhus, these three are the signs of a compounded. What three? The arising is evident, the fading is evident and the change is evident. Bhikkhus, these three are the signs of a compounded.

Nibbāna is real because it is the opposite of ariseable clinging 5 aggregates. no one can finish 5 aggregates while everyone are knowing Paññatti everyday. Only Nibbāna can finish 5 aggregates after one knows it.
Another, the special illusion is used in the concentration meditation to avoid 5 strings. This is like a stable brighter and brighter light which appear only at mind door only. This is the way to get out of 5 strings in CittaVisuddhi (mind purification).
See AbhidhammatthaSaṅgaha chapter 8 Paññatti.

this is an ok answer, but you're not answering directly enough. probably my english... do the objects of the 6th consciousness, ideas, depend upon the 6th consciousness only?

Yes, 5 doors accept only reality, only 5 strings reality. So, Self is imagined on mind door only. Then if we meditate Samatha&Vipassanā enough, we can analysis everything as only depending and uncountable smallest arising elements, then no controllable aggregates appear. 3 characteristics included non-self, are going to appear clearer and clearer after meditate that. Everything is Paññatti which imagine by mind, not real, except arisable 5 aggregates which depending on various origins each time and Nibbāna which never arise and not depending on anything. The mind uses them to imagine Paññatti.

sorry bonn, i'm not very au fait with buddhit jargon and terminology. are you saying that they DO only depend on the mind? i disagree, but will accept this answer in lieu of one i do agree with

People think 5 strings are real Self, person who being controllable, in mind door, but the truth is there are only uncountable uncontrollable arising elements at every doors, six doors. People don't realize and can't see  this truth on every moments, then  think "Self is reality".

And I said like this: we can know reality in every doors, but the imagination is only created by mind door because there are no any imagines (concept, illusion, name, self) which being real, ariseable. I'm sorry my english is not good enough. I'm a Thai, english is not my native language. And even it is, this still hard to describe.

The 6th c’ss works with memories of past experiences, as well as sense
impressions from the five sensory consciousnesses, in tandem or
separately.

the 2nd point
But

That the impressions are coalesced into the idea of an “apple” requires
having acquired that concept previously, learning what it means, and
then applying it to novel sensations.

the 3rd point
The three are not identical, according this "personal communication"


text:
Is there poetry in Pali, and where can I read it, in translation and in original?
Is there poetry in Pali, and where can I read it, in translation and in original? If so, who are the most important Pali poets, and is anyone still writing in it?

If you googled for Pali poetry, the first result is this page. There are at least 35 Pali poems on that page.
Andrew Olendzki extracted these Pali poems from the Pali Canon and translated them, as he explained here:

Here you will find many poems
that I have translated from the
Pali over the years. .....
These poems all come from various parts of the Pali Canon: Theragatha,
Therigatha, Dhammapada, Udana, Itivuttaka, Samyutta Nikaya, etc. They
are listed here from the newest to oldest, and I will add new
translations from time to time to the top of the list.

Side note:
With details found in this answer, you will find that the original meaning of the word "pāli" itself is "canon", originating from the commentaries upon the Pali Canon. People from centuries ago couldn't even remember the original name of this dialect or language, so they mistakenly called it "Pāli", thinking the term "pāli-bhāsā" (which actually means language of the canon) actually referred to a name - Pali language. The term "bhāsā" means language. By the way, there is no upper case or lower case in Pali.
So you will find that Pali is used only in the Pali Canon, commentaries upon the canon and also later writings related to the canon like the Visuddhimagga. So, it's very unlikely that you will find non-Buddhist poems in Pali. Pali is not a common literary language unlike Classical Sanskrit.

what about outside the Pali canon? there's scope for a much more expansive answer than that

@sorta_buddhist With details found in this answer, you will find that the etymology of the word "pāli" itself means "canon", originating from the commentaries upon the Pali Canon. People from centuries ago didn't even remember the original name of this dialect or language, so they mistakenly called it "Pāli", thinking the term "pāli-bhāsā" (which actually means language of the canon) actually refered to a name - Pali language. The term "bhāsā" means language.

@sorta_buddhist So you will find that Pali is used only in the Pali Canon, commentaries upon the canon and also later writings related to the canon like the Visuddhimagga. It's very unlikely that you will find non-Buddhist poems in Pali. Pali is not a common literary language unlike Classical Sanskrit.


text:
How close is English to Pali?
How close is English to Pali? If you look at the etymological pages in wiktionary, for English words, it often includes a "Proto-Indo-European" root, and sometimes mentions Sanksrit too. Take e.g. 'mad'
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mad#Etymology

From Middle English mad, madde, madd, medd, from Old English ġemǣdd,
ġemǣded (“enraged”), past participle of ġemǣdan, *mǣdan (“to make
insane or foolish”), from Proto-Germanic *maidijaną (“to change;
damage; cripple; injure; make mad”), from Proto-Germanic *maidaz
("weak; crippled"; compare Old English gemād (“silly, mad”), Old High
German gimeit (“foolish, crazy”), Gothic  (gamaiþs,
“crippled”)), from Proto-Indo-European *mey- ("to change"; compare Old
Irish máel (“bald, dull”), Old Lithuanian ap-maitinti (“to wound”),
Sanskrit मेथति (méthati, “he hurts, comes to blows”)).

Is there anywhere I can read about Pali as a language that has influenced the etymon, development, of English today?

You can find this info on the wikipedia page for Indo-European Languages in the form of a family tree below, with Pali and English highlighted with a yellow box.
Legend:

Green: Language still in use
Red: Language extinct
White: Categories

English is a Germanic language, while Pali is an Indo-Iranian language. Both come under the major family of Indo-European languages.

Credits: Modified from this image


text:
In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause?
In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause? I'm not asking if the effect makes the cause, which I think would amount to "ontic" dependence; but if the effect can exist without the cause. I can't remember the word for this, but take smoking. It causes cancer, and some people's cancer is caused by smoking: but not all cancers are from smoking.
And what has that got to do with 'emptiness', in any Mahayana tradition?

a rather poor example, since cancers that are not caused by smoking are not the effect of smoking, so it has nothing to do with the question. and by definition, causality means the relation between cause and effect, so no, ontologically there can not be any effect without a cause.
and this is actually the precise approach for the noble truth on the eradication of suffering, since the eradication of the cause leads to the eradication of the effect. thus, eliminating craving, or tanha, one eliminates suffering or dukkha.

in Madhyamika,the effect depends on the cause,wich one can say IS the effect because arising and Cessation do not occur.in Theravadan Kshanabhanga however,the effect is independant of the cause and the effect arises only when the cause has ceased.

this is confusing.  can you rewrite it a little?

No effects can arise without multiple causes. The causes can still be in state just possible to arise or may vanished long time ago. The causes can be unreality as well, knowing person, car, etc. But it is impossible for every effect to arise without causes.
Although the aggregates, which called cancer, can arise without smoking, but that aggregates must cause by other various origins definitely. The doctor, practitioner, should find the other else instead.
That's why aggregates is called "sankhata (being caused by causes)".

Cause and effect are not independent but are meditated by mind.

Good householder,
As for Unbound, Nibbana, yes, it's independent from cause, all else, no, no single phenomena can be found in the world, not depending on cause.
Suññata, how ever, is conditioned, required nourishment.
[Not given for stacks, exchange, world-binding trades of other kind but to be used torward the Unconditioned]

In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause?

It depends which Buddhism, and especially which insight tradition.  But for the Madhyamaka the answer is a definitive no.
Why? Because effects depend upon causes and causes depend upon effects.
Moreover, all compounded phenomena - that is all existent 'things' arise in dependence upon causes and conditions. Nothing is independent.  In Madhyamaka Buddhism, the interdependent arising, momentary change, and eventual dissolution of all existent things demonstrates their lack of objective, independent, intrinsic, inherent, or essential existence.  It is because of the fact of causality that there is no ontological independence.  Indeed, ontological independence is what is known as 'self' - and the refutation of this - the emptiness or lacking of self in all phenomena, is emptiness, which answers your second question:

what has that got to do with 'emptiness', in any Mahayana tradition?

TL:DR; 'ontological independence' is a fiction - a fiction that ignorance superimposes upon all phenomena, especially our personal aggregates. Being a fiction it is naturally absent from all phenomena (all fictions are naturally absent). The natural absence of this fiction is called 'suchness'. The general term for the absence of inherent existence (aka ontological independence) is emptiness - which is merely shorthand for 'empty of inherent existence', where 'empty' merely means 'lacking'.
Why is the natural absence of a fiction important in Buddhism? Because we naturally assume it to be present - and this assumption is toxic, destructive, and binds us to continuing torment.
It is good to supply sources. Here is Candrakirti commenting on Aryadeva's 400 verses:

"We are not proponents of nonexistence, for we are proponents of dependent-arising." Are we proponents of real (ontologically independent) things? No because we are proponents only of dependent-arising. What is the meaning of dependent-arising? It means the absence of intrinsic existence; it means no intrinsically existent production; it means the arising of effects whose nature is similar to a magician's illusion (in that it appears to be inherently existent, but it is not); ... it means emptiness and selflessness"

In Buddhism, an the effect is generally not ontologically independent of the cause. For example, in the teaching of Dependent Origination, each of the twelve conditions contains the first cause of ignorance within them, as described below:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
arises. That fabrication [of self] is born of that. And that fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen.
SN 22.81
On seeing a form with the eye, he is infatuated with pleasing forms,
and gets upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness
unestablished, with limited awareness. He doesn't discern, as it
has come to be, the awareness-release & discernment-release where
those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Engaged thus
in compliance & opposition, he relishes any feeling he feels —
pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — welcomes it & remains
fastened to it. As he relishes that feeling, welcomes it, & remains
fastened to it, delight arises. Now, any delight in feeling is
clinging.
MN 38

It can be discerned in the quotes above, for example, feeling cannot arise without a form (sense object) and the feeling & delight must continue to persist for clinging (attachment) to arise & persist.


text:
How does one keep oneself motivated to follow the path of dhamma?
As a lay Buddhist, given that it is terribly difficult to attain to Nimmata or the Jhana and at point when Nirvana seems to be just a wishful thinking able to be attained by superhuman ability and exertion, how does one motivate oneself to continue?
Every single meditation seems like a postdated cheque in a non-existent bank, how to keep going?
I come from a non-Buddhist background and ask myself why should one continue if the path itself is full of suffering?

When I go to the doctor and he does a blood pressure reading, sometimes I am anxious about how the reading will turn out. This anxiety in turn makes the reading go higher, which is not what I wanted in the first place. To get a good blood pressure reading within a good range, I need to let go of my anxiety and expectation.
It's pretty much the same with regards to doubt and your practice.
More on doubt below ...

There are the five hindrances which can prevent you from progress in your practice. They are: sensory desires, ill will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and remorse, and doubt.
What you're experiencing here is doubt - "can I do this?", "is it possible?", "where am I going with this?", "is this the right way?".
The general advice for overcoming the hindrance of doubt is letting go and trusting the inner silence (see quote below).
Here's Ven. Ajahn Brahm's advice on overcoming the hindrance of doubt, from this essay:

Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one
should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ability
"Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right way?", or
even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be remembered
that such questions are obstacles to meditation because they are asked
at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion, obscuring one's
clarity.
The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
recognising any landmarks.
Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instructions, having a good
map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the unfamiliar
territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go. Doubt in
one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good
teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces the sports
team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one can, one
will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and patiently
follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'! Experience
also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt whether this
is the right path. As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of
the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable of the very
highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.
The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
"How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
the end to uncover its meaning.
The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full
trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner speech.
Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey out of
trust in the driver.

Also see his conclusion:

Any problem which arises in meditation will be one of these Five
Hindrances, or a combination. So, if one experiences any difficulty,
use the scheme of the Five Hindrances as a 'check list' to identify
the main problem. Then you will know the appropriate remedy, apply it
carefully, and go beyond the obstacle into deeper meditation.
When the Five Hindrances are fully overcome, there is no barrier
between the meditator and the bliss of Jhana. Therefore, the certain
test that these Five Hindrances are really overcome is the ability to
access Jhana.

Ven. Ajaan Fuang Jotiko gave a shorter version of the solution to overcoming the hindrance of doubt in  "Awareness Itself":

A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been meditating
for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His immediate
response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You meditate to let
go."

The answer to your inner doubts is ... just let it go!
Does it matter whether you gain Nirvana is 10 months or 10 years or 10 lifetimes? Is there a deadline?
Just keep practising with heedfulness, as the Buddha stated in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

Then the Gracious One addressed the monks, saying: “Come now, monks,
for I tell you all conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on
with heedfulness!” These were the last words of the Realised One.

That cheers me up, thankyou.  I had always thought I had no doubt in the teachings. Now you cleared many things. Love and Metta.

Just one thing, it matters when I attain Nirvana. I have been through so much in this life I seriously don't want a rebirth, to the point that I am almost scared to attain rebirth and go through it all, all over again.

I think a lot of people come to the dharma with the idea that they are going to sit down on the cushion, drop into deep concentration, and that suddenly all of their problems will be washed away by some intoxicating wave of bliss.  Were it that easy! The truth of the matter, the reality, is that progress in Buddhism is gradual, almost imperceptible.  While it follows a set pattern (like what you'd find in the Samannaphala Sutta), it only looks like that from the outside and in retrospect.  The first hand view of Buddhist practice is marked by constant doubt, sweat, discouragement...and an occasional parting of the clouds.  Our struggle is far more real to us that the maturation of our minds.  In fact, we only stand a chance at becoming a Buddha when our experience of our own ignorance thoroughly convinces us that we could never become one.  If you feel hopeless, lost, and inextricably bound to samsara, good, you are headed in the right direction!
But please take heart - you would only know to ask a question like this if you were actually making progress.  We don't face difficulties unless we are moving forward and away from the habits, ideas, and perceptions that characterized our untrained mind.  This phase in your practice could be a real turning point for you as it asks you to address a very fundamental problem that many people bring to the cushion - namely the idea of "progress", and it's fundamental unreality.  Buddha's aren't made, they simply are.  You can't progress toward something that isn't a destination.  The Buddhist path isn't transactional like a bank account is.  We don't deposit our effort checks at Shakya First Republic and expect to withdraw them at a later date, with interest.
The first paramita is dana, or geneorsity.  It is characterized by a giving that expects no reward, an effort that has no result.  In order to practice the great way, it's up to you to make a complete offering of yourself to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha with no precondition of your own enlightenment.  Be willing to accept failure after failure, lifetime after lifetime with no hope of ever waking up.  This is the true heart of faith, the trusting mind that is the road to Buddhahood.  Take your first steps into a dark room.  Proceed from the top of the flag pole.
https://youtu.be/xFntFdEGgws

The Buddha said:

AN4.162:1.1: “Mendicants, there are four ways of practice. What four? Painful practice with slow insight, painful practice with swift insight, pleasant practice with slow insight, and pleasant practice with swift insight.

So if practice is painful and slow the question then becomes...why not choose the pleasant practice?

AN4.162:5.1: And what’s the pleasant practice with swift insight? It’s when someone is not ordinarily full of acute greed, hate, and delusion. They rarely feel the pain and sadness that greed, hate, and delusion bring. These five faculties manifest in them strongly: faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion, and wisdom. Because of this, they swiftly attain the conditions for ending the defilements in the present life.

Acute greed, hate and delusion are painful, so we get rid of them. In fact, getting rid of greed, hate and delusion allows faith, energy, mindfulness, immersion and wisdom to grow. It's definitely more pleasant.
Consider the three practice categories: wisdom, ethics and immersion. People tend to skip the first two and fast forward to IMMERSION. I did. It worked for a while. Then it became unpleasant and slow. So I started to practice wisdom and ethics. And after a while, immersion became pleasant again.
Read the suttas and explore wisdom. We all think we're wise. But we're not:

MN44:11.5: Right view and right thought: these things are included in the category of wisdom.”

Read the suttas and explore ethics. We all think we're ethical. But we're not:

MN44:11.3: Right speech, right action, and right livelihood: these things are included in the category of ethics.

At some point, you'll want to meditate:

MN44:11.4: Right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion: these things are included in the category of immersion.

At that time, it will be pleasant and fast!
In particular, if you don't want to be reborn, find out what you're holding on to and let it go. That takes wisdom and ethics and immersion.

Thankyou for the answer. Very helpful. Metta.


text:
Does being a lay Buddhist have any advantages over a Monk?
That's the question. Is there any advantage in being a lay Buddhist over being a Monk who has gone forth, that is in as far as following the Dhamma-Path to Nirvana is concerned?

I think there are some modern schools of "lay Buddhism" i.e. in which have no ordained monks -- including Triratna, and Soka Gakkai (and Navayana in India). Ironically,  Buddhist modernism suggests that schools which don't have ordained monks also do away with doctrines about nirvana.
The idea that becoming a monk might not be the best way, is I think more or less wrong or perhaps unthinkable according to more traditional schools (e.g. Theravada) and doctrine (e.g. the Pali Tipitaka). For example the suttas sometimes mention the holy life, which I think means keeping company with other monks.
In practice some people find the discipline of some modern monasteries disappointing -- more interested in money and so on than following the Dhamma path -- perhaps that has always been so, leading to advice like the rhinoceros sutta. That said, among the Pali suttas there is also SN 45.2 and a doctrine of friendship.
If you want to read more along these lines -- i.e. deemphasising the advantages of being or becoming a monk -- I might recommend:

The Broken Buddha: critical reflections on Theravada and a plea for a new Buddhism, by Ven. Dhammika, which criticises some self-serving customs he observed in South East Asia. This may be worth reading if you have an over-idealised or naive impression, maybe unpopular though because people usually respect or venerate the sangha and wouldn't want to criticise it
Note that this shouldn't be understood as a description or criticism of all monks, I think there are certainly are venerables and monasteries which take the vocation seriously.

The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, in the World, by Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula, which gives advice to laypeople by collecting, summarising, and commenting on the various suttas which were intended for laypeople. This may be worth reading because the suttas are recorded mostly by and intended for monks, this author explains that the sangha and the lay community are meant to coexist, and what doctrines (e.g. related to marriage and wealth) are especially or only intended for the lay community.

I don't know much about other schools, Mahayana. The introduction to a book I'm reading says that "meditation in everyday life" is an important doctrine of the Soto school of Zen (contrasted with Rinzai whose emphasis might be suprarational), maybe I'll understand that better later.
I just noticed that Ven Dhamika's biography mentioned Anagarika Dharmapala. An "Anagarika" is sort of half-way between a monk and a lay-person -- they keep 8 precepts instead of only 5, but not the hundreds of vinaya rules. Some of them may be "lay attendants", helping a monk or monastery by doing things (e.g. handling money, paying bills) which monks are forbidden to:

'Dharmapāla' means 'protector of the dharma'. 'Anagārika' in Pāli means "homeless one". It is a midway status between monk and layperson. As such, he took the eight precepts (refrain from killing, stealing, sexual activity, wrong speech, intoxicating drinks and drugs, eating after noon, entertainments and fashionable attire, and luxurious beds) for life. These eight precepts were commonly taken by Ceylonese laypeople on observance days. But for a person to take them for life was highly unusual. Dharmapala was the first anagarika – that is, a celibate, full-time worker for Buddhism – in modern times. It seems that he took a vow of celibacy at the age of eight and remained faithful to it all his life. Although he wore a yellow robe, it was not of the traditional bhikkhu pattern, and he did not shave his head. He felt that the observance of all the vinaya rules would get in the way of his work, especially as he flew around the world. Neither the title nor the office became popular, but in this role, he "was the model for lay activism in modernist Buddhism." He is considered a bodhisattva in Sri Lanka.

I'm not sure whether you consider that as "following the Dhamma path to Nirvana", but for completeness sake (see Anagārika etc.)..

Interesting answer. That speaks a lot. Thankyou.

There is the case of Ghaṭīkāra, who was asked:

MN81:11.2: ‘Dear Ghaṭīkāra, you have heard this teaching, so why don’t you go forth from the lay life to homelessness?’

Ghaṭīkāra responded:

MN81:11.3: ‘Don’t you know, dear Jotipāla, that I look after my blind old parents?’

And Ghaṭīkāra was a non-returner:

MN81:18.16: And since he has ended the five lower fetters, Ghaṭīkāra will be reborn spontaneously and will become extinguished there, not liable to return from that world.

Lay Buddhists are still tied to the world, but their practice can still benefit themselves and others. Ghaṭīkāra was the chief attendant of Buddha Kassapa.

MN81:18.1: ‘Great king, there is a market town named Vebhaliṅga,  where there’s a potter named Ghaṭīkāra. He is my chief attendant.

This story made the Buddha smile. Perhaps it might make you smile as well. There is a lot more in that sutta that what is posted here.

To answer simply the question: No, being (doing) a lay Buddhist has NOT any advantage over a (doing) Monk who is gone forth, as far as following the Dhamma path to Nirvana is concerned.

It is truly difficult to follow the path when being a lay person, just see how difficult it is to observe the 5 precepts as a lay person. You will find it much easier to follow the path with people who have a similar goal like you, i.e the Sangha.
That being said unless you can really live the minimalistic life of a contemporary monk (not the newer monk living style that is similar to a householders way of living) in a place with little to no modern facilities; I recommend living the lay life, being minimalistic and observing the 5 or 8 precepts to the full extent. As an Anagarika if you are serious in following the path.

That's the question. Is being a lay Buddhist has any advantage over a Monk who is gone forth, as far as following the Dhamma path to Nirvana is concerned?

A common stock phrase being used in many suttas:

Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?" ( DN 11 )

However, with that said, it was assumed that the monastic environment and lifestyle IS TRULY "like the open air", while nowadays, there're instances where monastics env. and lifestyle are really not that much different from us common worldlings, hence losing all its advantage over the household life!

Traditionally the two states are compared to a person's digestion, the lay state is likened to a weak digestion and being a member of the order is likened to a robust digestive system.
As a weak digestive system can not digest food dense in nutriment, so the lay state can not support Arahantship for long.
In practice, as i see it, there can now be numerous advantages to being a lay person for this or that person but not for another.
There is no need to get into the specifics but if one has the knowledge and resources to train then there is nothing stopping one from keeping whatever precepts one may want to keep and training however one sees fit.
The state of many monastic communities nowadays is straight unfortunate, read the book "Broken Buddha: Critical Reflection on Theravada" for details.
Nowdays people travel even to foreign countries and there subject themselves to these conditions, often ending up in a community where monks are merely monks by association.
People still choose to travel maybe because of the need for a livelihood that the monkhood provides, a need for instruction and or an opening to train.
The livelihood is plenty available but some compromises will usually have to be made.
A good teacher on the other hand is a rarity and one is lucky if one finds a teacher who can teach the jhana let alone one who is Ariya.
I think some 80-90+% monks disrobe within 10 years.
There are numerous pros & cons and are too many to list.
That being said, being a member of the order is ultimately better but one has to take the various circumstances into consideration.

this is a nice answer & interesting estimate of discontinuation; is that for particular regions? or include Lady Monks/Nuns? ; maybe they anticipate Traditional Buddhism kindliness & niceness and become disconnected & disengage if they encounter bickering & lack of kindliness & unwelcomingness & other dismeritorious things etc in some venues, which weren't, at least until apparently recently & only in some venues, typical aspects of 'Buddhism' or 'Buddhism' organisations; Buddhism is straightforward & remains nice in many/most regions; regrettable. eg, what happened to: 'Don't be mean.'

iirc a few years ago there was a ŕelease of official numbers from Thailand, 80% disrobed within first 3 years i believe. Those were males. I assume it's mainly due to lack of good teachers and thus not getting what they want from the monasticism. I assume that those who remain in robes either get some footing in meditation or just get otherwise comfortable, i also assume that not everyone has the option to disrobe for a better life so they make it work somehow.

For women there are even less options & opportunities. Less teachers to choose from, less monasteries where they can be accomodated and it is my impression that some of the places available are very politically engaged and with a limited teaching capacity. I've heard it's very tough for many women. It's next to impossible for a woman to detach from a community and go living alone as a man can do, so they get more stuck in those situations. That being said here are some options and i've seen women who seem happy in robes.

thank you for the detailed information! that is significant, and likely from various reasons, and mostly voluntary? hopefully isn't an increasing trend; if have additional information please be very welcome to pass it along(if that's possible to do here); and thank you for the additonal comment & information while was typing this comment!

If you want information about the options available to women, i think you should ask it as a new question. The suttacentral forum has many women who are informed of the situation. It is definitely complicated and different for this and that person. Choosing the right course will depend a lot on one's particular circumstances. I am not sure about the voluntary part, i guess that it too depends more or less on the particular circumstances.

Ven. S. Dhammika's book "Broken Buddha" is often quoted, but some people think that he is anti-establishmentarian. Personally, I think it's a great book to help you get rid of overly romanticized views of the monastic order in modern day settings.
To support this, I will quote other popular monks.
For the question of politics within the monastic community, Ven. Yuttadhammo answered here:

How are such situations handled within the Sangha today?
Rather poorly, for the most part. But "the sangha" is a huge and
diverse conceptual body that for all intents and purposes doesn't
exist as a single entity. Various sects, traditions, and even
countries have their own sanghas now, and each sangha has its own
means of dealing (or not) with such problems. For the most part, it
is far more difficult to actually deal with monastic transgressions in
modern times; without the stability of a large body of enlightened
beings, it's much more "every monk for himself", unfortunately.

In this answer, I quoted a story which I heard Ven. Ajahn Brahm recollecting in a YouTube video talk, but unfortunately, I can't remember which talk exactly:

There is a YouTube video where Ajahn Brahm, abbot of the Bodhinyana
Monastery in Western Australia, talked about the time he thought he
may have become enlightened. This was in Thailand, when he was still a
junior monk.
In this story, he said that after a long period of meditation (some
days), he woke up in a state of intense bliss. He thought he may have
become enlightened.
Later, he went to get alms. There was food distributed to the monks,
including one small pot of delicious food (I think it was pork curry),
and another big pot of unappetizing food (I think it was stinky
fermented fish stew). Pork curry was a rare special treat, while the
stinky fish stew is something ordinary. Both were distributed to a
group of monks.
The most senior monk gets to take his food first. He took only the
delicious pork curry for himself, and then he poured the remaining
contents of the small pot into the big pot and mixed them together,
saying, "They are all the same. As monks, we must not be choosy."
Having not eaten for several days, Bhikkhu Brahm was hungry. Seeing
the senior monk's actions, he became angry, but did not say anything
to him.
Then he thought, "if I became angry, then I'm definitely not
enlightened."

So, the lay Buddhist who does not join the monastic order, has the advantage of escaping many less-than-ideal monastic communities that may have conditions that are detrimental to their spiritual training.

Yes, of course. Okay, let's try once again: what is Nirvana? It's a pleasure. Does it differs from some desires (please notice that Buddha's key teaching was about freeding from desire, but you need a desire to freed from desire) like alcohol, cigarettes or sex for people who have had desires? Not really, moreover Buddhist Monks won't have children because the sex is 'desire', but does the conception of Niravana really differ? No, and most of Buddhism's true knowledge came from Sanskrit, how many people speak Sanskrit nowadays? Not many. Buddhism doesn't have holy Monks or a residence similar to The Vatican, so there is no adavantage of Buddhist Monks over Lay Buddhists.

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


text:
Buddhists view on NDE experiences
I have recently given some interest to NDE stories.
After reading a hundred of them, it seems pretty credible that people are telling at least some level of truth in their experience. One thing that seems to come back is that they meet their deceased loved ones, they feel a great feeling of peace/love and a huge increase in their consciousness / mental abilities.
Its a bit of "lalaland" and
I have several issues with that :
Most of them seem to imply that death instantly "upgrade" you to a level of well being/ spiritual knowledge / awareness.
They also say that the most important thing in life appears to be their relationship, how they treated others (christian term of "love"). That everything is surrounded in love and blabla it's all fine in the end if your life is hellish since when you die everything is fine. Life on earth as a human would be some kind of a choice, an experience to "expend" your consciousness.
I would tend to disagree with all of these things. I don't see any point to life and the suffering that goes with except getting over it by increasing your understanding and knowledge of the self, in order to get over those problems. I would never chose freely to incarnate to experience pain and suffering. To me life is a problem you have to solve. Sometimes the problem are pretty down to earth, like with medical conditions. People used to die because of tooth decay. Now they don't. How is that improving you as a being?
I tend to have more faith in the buddhists views that beings are stuck in the cycle of existences, and for most of them they experience unpleasant things/realm due to poor mental setups. To me existence is absurd, in the sense that all the pain is something we have to get over and be done with it.
How would experienced buddhists view all these NDE stories? What credit would you give to them and how would you reconcile them with the idea of the cycle of existences?

There's a huge difference between "clinical death" and the "death" defined in Buddhism. If someone share his/her near death experiences after sometime, he/she wasn't near his/her (so called) death at all. According to Buddhism we're very close to our death during each and every moment we spend.

have you ever read or gave some serious attention to near death experiences? Because these people don't care what your opinion is and actually died for a moment, and tell their stories. So funny that most people here can't cope with this

If we take an Abhidhamma stand point, once the "consciousness" (last thought before experiencing death) is released from this body it doesn't come back this body rather it takes root in a new body. Dependant Origination states it that way.
Therefore all these near death experiences, in my view, aren't exactly near death experiences rather experiences similar to a person waking from a coma. This is my understanding therefore it could be wrong.

Near-Death Experiences are phenomena like all others:

AN9.36:2.4: They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self.  They turn their mind away from those things, and apply it to the deathless:

We acknowledge them and let them go:

AN9.36:2.7: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’

And this holds true for all levels of meditation. Perceive without grasping at that perception. Emerge skillfully.

AN9.36:10.1: And so, mendicants, penetration to enlightenment extends as far as attainments with perception. But the two dimensions that depend on these— the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, and the cessation of perception and feeling—are properly explained by mendicants who are skilled in these attainments and skilled in emerging from them, after they’ve entered them and emerged from them.”


text:
'Antarabhava' existence between rebirth and the death
Does a state called "Antarabhava" an existence between death and rebirth exist?
Traditional Theravada sources, highly respected scholars and texts in Abhidhamma directly decline this as there is no such thing in the Dependant Origination. Arahat Moggaliputta Tissa Thero has also rejected this in the 3rd Buddhist Council.
Bhikkus who support the claim that "Antarabhava" exists takes examples from suttas such as Tirokudda Sutta the first few verses,
Kutuhalasala Sutta the last paragraph where Buddha states that a being who has left the present body but has not reborn in another body is sustained on craving (Tanha).

Looks like you've already answered your question.

Agreed. Just wanted to see if anyone had other answers but you may vote to close.

Bhava means birth, arising. While the aggregates are arising, born, they are being (Bhava) and being conditioned.
AN 3.47:1.6 SaṅkhataLakkhaṇaSutta:

“Mendicants, conditioned phenomena have these three characteristics.
What three?
Arising is evident, vanishing is evident, and change while persisting
is evident.
These are the three characteristics of conditioned phenomena.”

So, "existence between death and rebirth" is "present being (present being birth and not death) of  past death and future rebirth in succession".
Aggregates never stop to condition their effects. Even AsaññaSattaBhramma still be immagined by many real conditioner and conditioned. They have present 17 Rūpa which being conditioned by past Karmma and themselves.
So, there are nowhere "blank" or "special" between death and rebirth. There are only  death and rebirth between death and rebirth.

How do you explain Kutuhalasala Sutta?: "Vaccha, when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."

“Good Gotama, at the time this body (flame) is laid down and the being is not born in another body, what is the supportive condition (wine blowing flame) that good Gotama points to?”

“Vaccha, at the time this body is laid down and the being is not born in another body, I say the supportive condition is clinging-craving.”. https://84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_item_s.php?book=18&item=799&items=2&eng=metta_e

Most who are born in the human world will wait in a mind-made body waiting for a suitable place to be born. However it is not a birth or an existence.
You can learn more from this Noble Eight-Fold Path Meditation: https://youtu.be/vu0UZDb3gKk?list=PLk22Pmbx-cNPA_vMHe4G9LOZaPm8GGpM_&t=5790
However the goal here is to understand the suffering nature of bodily pain (i.e. the 'dukka' part in dukka, domanassa, soka, parideva)

nice answer & link; more of this clear information would also be helpful

If you are interested in learning more, please see the meditations listed here: https://visuddhimagga.info/Med_English_video.php
Note: It is very important to actually try the meditations and do them in the way explained. Then see the experience for your self. These are focused directly on Nibbana and nothing else.

Thank you for kindly appending the nice link to additional material!


text:
Good website for sutta learning?
There seems to be two prominant websites/translations for learning the suttas:

accesstoinsight.org
suttacentral.net

As I was going through DN15 I see that the translations of important words differ in the two, may be in certain context even change the meaning.
So which one is the good translation to follow, read and learn the suttas?

I mainly use accesstoinsight.org and suttacentral.net. Another good source is themindingcentre.org. For the Dhammapada, tipitaka.net is good. A new website is dhammatalks.org.
SuttaCentral
SuttaCentral has more suttas translated to English compared to any other source, as far as I can see. You can find many uncommon suttas translated.
Both SuttaCentral and AccessToInsight have multiple translations from various translators.
Ven. Sujato's translations are completely on SuttaCentral, but you can also find alternative translations from other translators like Ven. Bodhi, Ven Thanissaro, Ven. Anandajoti etc.
SuttaCentral also has inline Pali with English translations for Ven Sujato's translations - this is the best source to compare Pali sentences with their English translation counterparts. There's also a Pali-English dictionary on the site.
One drawback is that there are no commentaries on SuttaCentral together with the sutta translation, but you may find this indirectly on their discussion site.
AccessToInsight and dhammatalks
AccessToInsight has Ven Thanissaro and other translators like Ven. Nanamoli, Ven. Buddharakkhita, Ven. Anandajoti, Ven. Bodhi, I.B. Horner, Rhys Davids etc. Some sutta translations here have short commentaries either at the top or on the footnotes.
AccessToInsight also has a very nice glossary.
The nice thing about AccessToInsight is that I can search it using Google's "site:" prefix.
Recently, I noticed that there is a new site hosting Ven. Thanissaro's translations - dhammatalks.org.
The Minding Centre
The Minding Centre's Dhammafarers / Sutta Discovery series has translations and commentaries by Piya Tan. These are pretty good. They are in PDF format.
The Minding Centre is a very good source of commentaries. Piya Tan also refers to the traditional commentaries in his research. His research is pretty good.
tipitaka.net
For Dhammapada, you can find translations on AccessToInsight and SuttaCentral, but you won't find the stories of each Dhammapada verse that come from the traditional commentaries.
For Dhammapada stories, tipitaka.net is the best source.
You can also search tipitaka.net using Google's "site:" prefix.
Whose translation is the best?
I tend to use Ven. Bodhi, Ven. Sujato, Ven. Thanissaro and Piya Tan as my preferred translations.
Of these, I usually find Ven. Bodhi using English terms in the most natural way to capture and convey the meaning of Pali sentences. This would be my first choice.
Ven. Sujato tends to be as direct as possible with his choice of words - trying to be word-for-word accurate. This would be my second choice.
Meanwhile Ven. Thanissaro tends to be grand (e.g. using "Lord") and using unusual translations, but they still convey the intended meaning.
Ven. Thanissaro and Piya Tan tie for third place in my opinion.

Below is a list of ten unusual English translations by Ven. Thanissaro, compared to Ven. Bodhi or Ven. Sujato. Ven. Thanissaro tends to use unusual or strange or archaic English words or phrases.

"Lord" instead of "venerable sir" (Bodhi) or "sir" (Sujato) for "bhante" (e.g. MN 147)
"Stress" instead of "suffering" for "dukkha" (e.g. MN 146)
"Inconstant" instead of "impermanent" for "anicca" (e.g. MN 146)
"uninstructed run-of-the-mill person" instead of "untaught ordinary person" (e.g. MN 1)
"Right discernment" instead of "right wisdom" for "sammappañña" (e.g. MN 146)
"Gnosis" instead of "final knowledge" (Bodhi) or "enlightenment" (Sujato) for I think "aññārādhanā" (e.g. MN 70)
Translating proper nouns like "LongNails" instead of just stating the original "Dīghanakha" (in MN 74) - this is a person's name
"Unbinding" instead of "Nibbāna" (Bodhi) (e.g. MN 75). Ven. Sujato uses "extinguishment" here which is slightly better than "Unbinding" - this is a well-known technical term that need not be translated.
"Worthy One" instead "Arahant" (Bodhi) (e.g. MN 1). Ven. Sujato uses "perfected" here which is better. This is a well known technical term that need not be translated.
"Seized" instead of "obsessed" for I think "pariyuṭṭhaṭṭhāyī" (e.g. SN 22.1)

For an example of a longer phrase - from MN 19:

"his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with sensuality" (Thanissaro)
"his mind inclines to thoughts of sensual desire" (Bodhi)
"Their mind inclines to sensual thoughts" (Sujato)

You can see Ven. Thanissaro's strange use of "bent" instead of "inclines" above. There are many such examples of strange translations.
Sometimes, Ven. Thanissaro has better translations e.g. "fabrications" instead of "volitional formations" (Bodhi) or "choices" (Sujato) e.g. SN 22.1. But usually it's the other way round.
Rarely, most of them get it completely wrong e.g. viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ - see this question. Here, it was translated as "invisible consciousness" (Sujato) or "consciousness without surface" (Thanissaro). Actually it should be "that which can be known or cognized" i.e. Nibbāna.

There are a few others that I know of too ...

http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/
https://obo.genaud.net/
https://84000.co/

... see also English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon (plus various books).
IMO the (translated) English words change (from one translation to the next), because a word of Pali might have a (narrow or broad) range of meanings, which might be translated (more or less well) by any of several English words.

I tend to use Ven. Sujato's translations, for example:

Go to https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/sujato
Click on Setting (the gear-wheel icon) near the top of the page
Enable "View original text with translation" (e.g. "Line by line"), and "Activate Pali word lookup"

Then you see the (original) line of Pali next to each (translated) line of English.

You can hover (with the mouse, unless you're using a touch-screen) over a word of Pali, to see a popup translation/definition:

And click on the title word in that popup to go to the dictionary definition:

https://suttacentral.net/define/viharati

Eventually you get to recognise various words of Pali, which then have a meaning of their own to you. You'll notice on this site that people slip words of Pali into their text -- dukkha, dhamma, and so on -- because that's less confusing than using several different English translations for the same thing.

You can see the same happening in http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn56-011.html -- i.e. the text on the right includes some Pali words untranslated, but you can hover or click on them for dictionary/glossary support.
The "Resources" on this site (see the navigation menu on the left side the home page) are a gentle introduction to some Pali words and phrases.

Piya Tan's (i.e. Dhammafarer) is interesting too what you want to study and not just read a sutta: because for some suttas he has written commentary; and read commentary (traditional and from modern authors) which he might summarise; and cross-references with other suttas, footnotes, etc.

I like the Search function on Access to Insight -- Access to Insight doesn't include all the suttas but it does include:

Essays by various authors (which a Search may find)
Some reference material (collections of sutta extracts) which I like, for example, A Path to Freedom -- A Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings.
Beginnings -- Suggested Entry Points to this Website.

good and helpful answer & inclusion of instructions for Study

Interesting & good question.  Maybe better to read both! Certainly both imply that they're 'correct', yet they differ, so that means one, or both, have errors, even though that's a fairly prolific text. And both sites may have material which isn't avalable on the other site. 'Good' may be somewhat subjective, but neither seem perfect. For example, perhaps to sound unique, both use an English pronoun in first person as Name for The Buddha. Both are incorrect. In that usage, the pronouns are being used as Names: even in business letters Sir & Lord are capitalised! Let alone in person and a conversation transcript.
That obviously is ok with those sites, however, this answerer wasnot the editor. Wouldnot recommend Either site. Maybe for a quick reference, but Notfor Study, Notfor Analysis. Zero faith in any veracity for either site based on even 3 pages of cursory reading. Perhaps to learn the material may require learning an additional language or two, at least to the extent where one can actually compare a specific word or phrase, and then the manuscripts or texts may vary. Both sites also use words in English which maybe havenot been specially defined on the sites re the particular books: So even if the translations are correct, maybe the English words selected are used in different ways, and so the material won't be accurately understood. If there are actual nonEnglish texts on the sites (which didn't see) that are attributed, then that would be very good. Both sites may be just fine in the opinion of the Asker, likely both sites are fairly accurate, the words in the translations seem to be fairly ok. It depends on why the Asker wants to 'learn the Suttas'. Little things like notcapitalising etc apparently are acceptable to many, but it reflects a less conscientious translational work. And some words maybe should just be Romamised. Some words maybe neither need to be translated, nor perhaps should they be. That also suggests overtranslation: trying too hard to make it poetic in English, or in current modern English etc. It also may indicate less esteem for the original material, which can make for uncorrect translation. Good conscientious question.

Of the modern translators Thanissaro's & Bodhi's translations are semantically most accurate but they are both not without mistakes as i see it.
Most peculiar to Thanissaro's translation is;

'Frames of Reference' for 'Satipatthana' is not a good translation. Sati is close to 'to keep in mind'.
the occasional use of 'stress' for dukkha.
translating bhava as becoming, not sure if consistent at that.
somewhat extensive use of [...] to to express or to complement the sutta expression, these are as i see it often meant to explain what the translator thinks the texts mean and are then essentially commentary & a personal interpretation and can [optionally] be ignored.
His translations often come with a summary of commentarial interpretation and often his own analysis in the footnotes which is quite informative but can be wrong ofc.

Bodhi's translations are generally alright and have been revised many (3-5) times. Controversial to his translations is the translation of;

'..gadha' which he in the later edition occasionally translates as 'culmination' whereas the literal translation is obviously closer to 'gaining a footing'.
'volitional formations' for sankhara. 'Volitional' therein is not necessary as i see it and is clearly not in the text as sankhara is quite literally just formations, whether they are volitional or not is a moot point in as far as a beginner is concerned.
Translations also come with a summary of commentary positions and personal interpretation in the footnotes, but these you won't find on the suttacentral.

Sujato's translations are as i see it only useful for their parallel pali reading. Points of controversy include;

Generally translating 'lokadhatu' as a 'world system' but occasionally as 'a solar system' and 'cula lokadhatu' as 'galaxy'. 'Loka' is 'a world', 'dhatu' is here semantically close to 'a discernable element' with 'cula' denoting 'a lesser'; this is major point of controversy with significant doctrinal implications. His translations here are, as i see it, indefensible and are at the very least inconsistent.
Translating sankhara as 'choices' (!). This is also extremely controversial considering that the semantics of sankhara are close to 'being put together [that which is put together], created[creation], generated[generation] and genesis or synthesis' and is hence consistently translated as 'synthesis' by Rhys Davis and 'formation' by Thanissaro. It is etymologicaly derived from sankhato which is the opposite of Asankhato which translates as 'unmade'. Furthermore sankhara are also defined as 6 classes of intention that sankharate the conditioned.
Also follows Bodhi's lead in '..gadha' controversy and has admitted that even tho the literal translation is 'to gain a footing' he sees it to be an idiom and chooses to translate it otherwise. Thus his translations are a representation of what he thinks the Buddha meant rather than what he said.
There are other points that i don't recall the particulars of. I think it is fair to say these translations are more like a person's personal interpretation largely based on Bodhi's translations. I don't consider these to be a literal translation of pali discourses but they are useful for studying in pali due to the parallel reading.

For accuracy where it counts id say Thanissaro is sometimes better than Bodhi but Bidhi is likewise better in some spots. It's hard to give weight to their mistakes to say which is better.
There are other translators, some are quite good and id say all the famous translators are better than Sujato.
As for learning the Sutta your best bet is critically analyzing the public discourse on this site and on the sutta central. I would avoid DW because that place the bottom of the barrel but there are some [for the most part retired] users with some expertise that don't post elsewhere, so you could try it if you want to inquire about commentary and abhidhamma expression.
There is also a good facebook group, there are a lot of Sutta excerpts being posted.
In general just stick to places where people recite & post texts held to be true and cross examine what people say based on texts known to be true.

I read your answer and decided to support mine with more evidence. I quoted ten unusual English translations by Ven. Thanissaro. He tends to use archaic or unusual English words or phrases.

I see you quoted a few cases. Id say it's all trivial stuff and of no importance. Ie inconstancy is direct synonym of impermanence, discernmenr a direct synonym of wisdom/knowledge, stress is short for distress denoting hardship & oppression and is not always thus translated ie dukkhata sutta he translates as suffering, lord instead of venerable sir is for the lack of direct translation, gnosis is a word for 'to know'. I think these are trivial matters, as for Unbinding i do prefer Extinguishment but Unbinding is semantically similar as they are both denoting a metaphorical cessation.

Also metaphors are sutta based Unbinding the tangle is a simile for Nibbana likewise is a fire being extinguished. As i understand it Extinguishment is the lit translation tho. As for 'mind bent by sensuality' idk what the actual pali is but it's not a big deal to me either way. As for Vinnanam Anidassanam inferring that it's meaning is uncognizable is a theory of mine but it's impossible to prove.

Taken as a noun with an adjective which does seem to be the most reasonable thing to do then imo vinnanam anidassanam would be something like; ‘Consciousness not-appearing’ and this would make sense given that one is talking about the cessation of consciousness which is explicit in the later lines.
It can be summed up that i hold that the compound ‘vinnanam anidassanam’ is probably therein an adjective or descriptive characteristic/factor rather than the referrent, so the meaning when drawn out would read something like (simplified);

That [which isn’t included in the allness of the all] where ‘consciousness doesn’t appear’
[It] is luminous and boundless all-around.
There name & form gain no footing
With the cessation of consciousness
All is brought to an end or extinguished

As for Bodhi vs Thanissaro, i find the flaws of Bodhi's translations more significant and therefore i still prefer the Thanissaro.

Another is 'Frames of Reference' for 'Satipatthana' that one is disagreeable but also not that big of a deal really.

As for 'mind bent by sensuality', it's not bad because what is bent that is crooked, is 'bent on sensuality' one can say. 'What is crooked they make straight' by developing, i don't mind it.

Thanks for your comments.


text:
Is Buddhism life denying or life negative?
My question tag is similar to this one but I am asking a different question.
I am reading DN15 the mahanidana sutta where the Buddha says;

Suppose there were totally and utterly no rebirth for anyone anywhere.
That is, there were no rebirth of sentient beings into their various
realms—of gods, fairies, spirits, creatures, humans, quadrupeds,
birds, or reptiles, each into their own realm. When there’s no rebirth
at all, with the cessation of rebirth, would old age and death still
be found?

"No, sir.” “That’s why this is the cause, source, origin, and
condition of old age and death, namely rebirth. ‘Continued existence
is a condition for rebirth’—that’s what I said. And this is a way to
understand how this is so. Suppose there were totally and utterly no
continued existence for anyone anywhere. That is, continued existence
in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, or the formless
realm. When there’s no continued existence at all, with the cessation
of continued existence, would rebirth still be found?” “No, sir.”

Suppose in a hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings which the Buddha mentions attain Nirvana and there is no rebirth here on planet Earth, wouldn't life as we know it vanish (Except for the trees)?
If there is no life, there is no Dhamma and no Buddhism. In that case wouldn't lifeforms emerge and evolve all over again on Earth or on some other habitable planet as they came to being in present form and all cycle of samsara and suffering and birth of Buddha all over again leading to absurdity of the whole endevour?
In that case wouldnt Buddhism be an effort to finish the sentient life and act against lifeforce as it is an effort to finish rebirth?

Related to or perhaps a duplicate of this question: Anti-natalist overtones in Buddhism

@ChrisW I went through the question and the answers provided but sorry that neither answers my question nor is it similar to what I am asking.

interesting question; the hypothesis conflates several concepts and then extrapolates successive results that aren't necessarily direct consequences; maybe it could be interesting to hypothesise more about If certain suggested outcomes are implied, and what sorts of Profound Responses there might have been to those outcomes; Buddhism is Middle Way

The translation selected to quote from for this passage is an example where the noncapitalisation of Sir not only is incorrect from the standpoint of correct English, but also results in ambiguity in shade of meaning: capitalised Sir in this sort of context implies a more pensive and attentive response than if the three letter word is noncapitalised, which in this passage reduces how much is shown to readers of the translator's impression of the attitude, manner, & engagement of the replying/ listening Student

Why your question and all the other similar questions you linked are not getting a direct answer, but a shuffle is because the Buddha did not give an answer for such questions.
You may read many shuffles here, but the truth is questions such as Begining of life, end of life (i.e. beginner and end of Samsara); or hypothetical scenario in which all sentient beings attain Nirvana will receive a cold silence as an answer from the Buddha.

or a kindly silence :)

Of course, the Buddha is kind, but I choose the word cold  just to highlight that he was indifferent to these kinds of questions because he saw them as nonessential to end suffering which was his main goal. Please read the parable of the poisoned arrow, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow)

Thank you for your kindly comment; yes, considered that that is exactly what you meant, and added kindly for readers who mightn't; and His nondiscussion of many things was of compassion to effectively guide Beings & to share The Dharma with as many Beings as possible

The ultimate cause of birth, death, disease and suffering is ignorance. Not rebirth. Not prevention of birth.
The way to end suffering is to end craving by ending ignorance through cultivation of virtue, concentration and wisdom.
For e.g. if you see a lot of foolish citizens who are not wearing face masks or social distancing in the time of the pandemic - the solution is not to prevent the birth of foolish people or to kill foolish people. The solution is to educate them.
Similarly, the solution to end suffering by ending craving and ignorance, is really by cultivating virtue, concentration and wisdom.
You can only end YOUR ignorance. You can help others reduce their ignorance. But there will always be ignorance somewhere. And because of that, there will be birth, death, disease and suffering.
Don't ask "whose suffering?", "whose craving?", "whose ignorance?"
Remember sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self. There is suffering, not my suffering or your suffering. There is craving, not my craving or your craving. There is ignorance, not my ignorance or your ignorance.
One day, our Sun will grow hotter, expand and eventually explode. This will happen at least 5 to 8 billion years later. All life on Earth will eventually be destroyed.
But just as how life started on Earth through chemical interactions, it can start again somewhere on another planet. Perhaps it already has. With the start of life, followed by evolution, eventually, the mind will reemerge, and with it, ignorance will also return. With ignorance, we would have the birth, death and rebirth of sentient beings.
Rebirth here is the rebirth of ignorance, rebirth of the individual existence of a sentient being, and the rebirth of suffering. Not the rebirth of a specific countable and distinctively identifiable individual self that is permanent and standalone - that would violate the fact of anatta.
From SN 15.1 (translated by Ven. Sujato):

Transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is
found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by
ignorance and fettered by craving. For such a long time you have
undergone suffering, agony, and disaster, swelling the cemeteries.
This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate,
and freed regarding all conditions.”

Or from another translation of this same paragraph in SN 15.3 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

“From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
swelling the cemeteries—enough to become disenchanted with all
fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
released.”

This stock paragraph is in most of the suttas of SN 15.

(Oddly, I am studying DN15 myself as of yesterday...)
Buddhism is not life denying and negative. Buddhism is craving denying and negative. Craving leads to suffering.

DN15:3.1: So: name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name and form are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling. Feeling is a condition for craving. Craving is a condition for grasping. Grasping is a condition for continued existence. Continued existence is a condition for rebirth. Rebirth is a condition for old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress to come to be. That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.

Your quote from DN15 is actually not denying life. Rather, it is part of a gentle discussion that guides the listener to this:

DN15:18.2: Suppose there were totally and utterly no craving for anyone anywhere.

Craving is the weak link in the chain of dependent origination and DN15 explores many nuances here (e.g., desire, lust, seeking, assessing, etc.). The other aspects of dependent origination keep happening. People keep being reborn. Contacts resume after immersion. Etc.
So my understanding of DN15 is that Buddhism affirms life and death without grasping at either. Denying and negativity are aversive dukkha.

DN15:18.3: That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for continued existence, and craving to end existence. When there’s no craving at all, with the cessation of craving, would seeking still be found?”

The Buddha did not deny or negate life. After his enlightenment, he lived content, without wishes in this very life. He lived a full life and taught for about forty years. And here, 2500 years later, the Buddha's teachings have eased my own life and brought happiness. Relinquishing craving and rebirth is not life denying and negative. Relinquishing craving and rebirth is affirmative of gratitude for all that we are given without greediness for more.

Ok, do you believe rebirth is the cause of death or death the cause of rebirth?  Sounds like the former.  However the buddha was enlightened and he still died.

IMO this isn't the right/expected kind of answer for this site -- https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/1920/254