text:
Is Physical Attraction or Appreciation of the Human Form Considered Attachment?
Naturally as humans we feel many forms of attraction to other humans, but I am curious to know:
Is attraction (or more so, a mere appreciation of the human form) considered a form of desire and, by extension, attachment to be consciously avoided?

What you say "attachment", I think that the Pali word for 'attachment' is Upādāna:

In Buddhism, upādāna is a critical link in the arising of suffering.

When it says "link", there, it means that it is, "part of the causal chain of suffering",

In the twelve-linked chain of Dependent Origination (Pratītyasamutpāda, also see Twelve Nidanas), clinging (upādāna) is the ninth causal link:

Upādāna (Clinging) is dependent on Tṛṣṇā (Craving) as a condition before it can exist.
  "With Craving as condition, Clinging arises".

That Wikipedia article (as well as other references, like this one) also says that there are different types of attachment:

In the Sutta Pitaka, the Buddha states that there are four types of clinging:

sense-pleasure clinging (kamupadana)
wrong-view clinging (ditthupadana)
rites-and-rituals clinging (silabbatupadana)
self-doctrine clinging (attavadupadana).

Perhaps you can see how "physical attraction" might be related to all four types of clinging; for example:

"That person looks and feels and smells and sounds pleasurable, I enjoy perceiving them" (sense pleasure)
"I'll love that person forever" alternatively "It's just a one-night stand with no consequences" (wrong view e.g. eternalism or nihilism)
The "dating game" and "marriage" as a source of happiness (rites and rituals)
"I am attractive or unattractive, because I do or don't have a romantic partner" (self-doctrine)

The Upadana Sutta says,

In one who keeps focusing on the allure of clingable phenomena (or: phenomena that offer sustenance = the five aggregates), craving develops. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
Now, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

I think that the first paragraph is saying that attachment arises as a result of a process like the following:

"That person is physically attractive" (is focus on the allure of clingable phenomena)
"I enjoy the attraction, I like being attracted" followed by "That enjoyment/attraction has vanished, I wish it would reoccur" (is craving)
"I want that person, because they're attractive" (is attachment)

Conversely the second paragraph is recommending a process like the following:

"Sensual pleasures are impermanent and cannot be satisfactory (focus on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena ... not only sensual pleasures but the other types of clinging too)
"Seeing their drawbacks therefore I don't actually find them very attractive" (craving ceases)
I'm not attracted so I don't become attached (no attachment so the cycle doesn't continue).

There are mental exercises purposely designed to make the body seem unattractive (e.g. imagine it as a corpse, as a skeleton, etc.).

I think there are also other ways to approach the problem. One way might be via self-doctrine, for example, if you have the thought, "I want that person, because they're attractive" then you might think ... "Wait, it's not that 'they are attractive' it's that 'I perceive them as, I consider them, I find them to be, attractive. However 'I' am impermanent, the 'I' is just a reification of impermanent senses, and so that (i.e. 'my' view, that they are attractive) is impermanent and not something to 'attach myself' to."

In Thundering Silence: Sutra on Knowing the Better Way to Catch a Snake
 by Thich Nhat Hanh, he writes,

Many people think that to undergo spiritual discipline is to practice asceticism and austerities. But to others, the practice of the Dharma does not exclude the enjoyment of the fresh air, the setting sun, a glass of cool water, and so on. Enjoying things in moderation does not bring us suffering or tie us with the bonds of attachment. Once we recognize that all of these things are impermanent, we have no problem enjoying them. In fact, real peace and joy are only possible when we see clearly into the nature of impermanence.

It then mentions times in the suttas where the Buddha expressed appreciation for a good meal, or commented on the beauty of a landscape.
Thich Nhat Hanh is a Zen Buddhist monk.
I think he's saying that perceiving a sense-pleasure as unpleasurable isn't the only way to avoid craving and attachment: that you may be able to avoid attachment by enjoying such things in moderation and remaining mindful of impermanence.

Beware though that doctrine may warn there's a difference between food and sex (if "sex" is what you mean by "physical attraction and appreciation of the human form") -- e.g. the Bhikkhuni Sutta,

This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.
This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying on craving that craving is to be abandoned.
This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.
This body comes into being through sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is to be abandoned. With regard to sexual intercourse, the Buddha declares the cutting off of the bridge.

Buddhist monks (at least, if not lay people) are celibate.

Suffering (attachment) <= attraction <= (desire + other reasons + conscious).
Naturally,
 We feel many forms of attractions,
 We feel many forms of repulsions,
Suffering <= (attraction / repulsion) <= attachment <= (desire + other reasons + conscious).
This is a Natural process.
This is a cyclic process.(desire to attachment).
    Attachment <= (desire + other reasons + conscious).

        |>------------------------->--|

If we want to avoid suffering, we should behave against the natural process.
 This will seems unbelievable.
Without other reasons, conscious only, not get desired.
The trick is not removing desire or attachment, but the other reasons.
There are two processes.
1). reducing the governing force of the cycle.
2). removing the other reason (Catalysts).
These two process mutually helpful to each other.
So the "attachment to be consciously avoided" is first process. It reduces the forward cycle. But to completely stop, need completely remove the 'catalyst'(Avijja - Delusion).
In Sallekha Sutta: The Discourse on Effacement  Load Buddha shows how to remove this.

Thus have I heard. Once the Blessed One was staying at Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery.
Then one evening the venerable Maha-Cunda1 rose from meditative seclusion and went to the Blessed One. Having paid homage to him, he
  sat down at one side and spoke thus to the Blessed One:
"Venerable sir, there are these various views that arise in the world concerning self-doctrines or world-doctrines.[2] Does the
  abandoning and discarding of such views come about in a monk who is
  only at the beginning of his [meditative] reflections?"[3]

"Cunda, as to those several views that arise in the world concerning
  self-doctrines and world-doctrines, if [the object] in which[4] these
  views arise, in which they underlie and become active,[5] is seen with
  right wisdom[6] as it actually is,[7] thus: 'This is not mine,[8] this
  I am not,[9] this is not my self'[10] — then the abandoning of these
  views, their discarding,[11] takes place in him [who thus sees].

...

“So, Cunda, the way of effacement has been taught by me, the way of
  inclining the mind has been taught by me, the way of avoidance has
  been taught by me, the way leading upwards has been taught by me, and
  the way of extinguishing has been taught by me.
“What should be done for his disciples out of compassion by a teacher
  who seeks their welfare and has compassion for them, that I have done
  for you, Cunda. There are these roots of trees, these empty huts.
  Meditate, Cunda, do not delay or else you will regret it later. This
  is our instruction to you.”
That is what the Blessed One said. The venerable Mahā Cunda was
  satisfied and delighted in the Blessed One’s words.

Appreciation or physically attraction per se are not attachments.
For example, appreciation of Dharma is not attachment.
Another example, like being attracted to a beautifully crafted Buddha statue is not attachment.
Only when it is accompanied by greed and ignorance and hatred that it become attachment.
Since attachment causes us to lose wisdom, it should be avoided if we wish to gain wisdom.


text:
If there is no soul or self, why did the Buddha speak of his past lives?
How is it possible that he had past lives and how did he know they were his? What defines them as his?

How is it possible that he had past lives?

Because until he became the Buddha he hadn't eliminated craving.
Craving leads to clinging, clinging leads to becoming, becoming leads to birth.

how did he know they were his? What defines them as his?

Do you remember your childhood? If so, why do you call it your childhood? Because your current existence(assuming you are an adult now) is conditioned by how the child behaved. In the same manner, if your mind had the power to go further back in time, even before your birth, you would see what actions you performed in your last life to condition your present birth. In that sense, it makes it your past life.
But here we are merely talking about a causes and effect relationship. Such a relationship does not require an existence of a soul. A mango seed does not require a soul to result into a mango tree. It rather requires sunlight, water, fertilizer, air etc. Water does not require a soul to turn into steam. It requires heat.
In order for something to qualify as a soul, it has to be under your total control. Which means, it shouldn't be existing without your consent, it shouldn't be changing without your consent, it shouldn't be dying without your consent. Can you find anything in your mind or body that meets those conditions? Could the child have stayed as a child if he/she didn't like to become an adult?

Thanks for the insightful response. I have one more question, if you don't mind. You wrote: "you would see what actions you performed in your last life to condition your present birth." What kind of actions might those be? Did the Buddha ever explain this or go into detail?

Yes, that is what Karma is all about. Action means either good or bad Karma. Study the Paticca Samuppada
Sakhara Paccaya Vinnana : The first thought moment of your present life is a result of a past Karma.
ex: if you kill someone in this life, your next birth can be in a hell as a result

I very much appreciate your answer! This is one of the first times I've felt comfortable with an answer to this common question. You mention, "In order for something to qualify as a soul, it has to be under your total control." This is not something I've ever heard or considered. Why must a "soul" be in a person's total control?

@Zefareu By definition, it's a requirement for something to be considered as a soul. Otherwise what is the difference between a soul and your dog? The dog  is under some control. Another requirement is being permanent. I would recommend Anattalakkhana sutta

Very good answer @SankhaKulathantille

In Maha-sihanada Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar
section of Ten Powers of a Tathagata.

"Sariputta, the Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's
roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.[5] What
are the ten?

....

(8) "Again, the Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten
births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a
hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many
aeons of world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion, many aeons
of world-contraction and expansion: 'There I was so named, of such a
clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my
experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away
from there, I reappeared elsewhere; and there too I was so named, of
such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my
experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away
from there, I reappeared here.' Thus with their aspects and
particulars he recollects his manifold past lives. That too is a
Tathagata's power...

(9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathagata sees beings passing away and reappearing,
inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and
he understands how beings pass on according to their actions thus:
'These worthy beings who were ill-conducted in body, speech and mind,
revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong
view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, [71] after
death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad
destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who
were well-conducted in body, speech and mind, not revilers of noble
ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their
actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared
in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.' Thus with the
divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings
passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly,
fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on
according to their actions. That too is a Tathagata's power...

very good point of view

There is no independent soul, there is no independent self. Everything depends on something.
Buddha's past life depends on his past deeds.
Thus there are souls and self but they are dependent on past causes

the original question is about "jathaka Katha".My dear friends,there is huge discrepancy with doctrine of no soul(what the Buddha thought by Walpola Rahula thero) with Jathaka katha is mislead people towards continuous conciseness.so i think jathaka katha belongs to Buddhist literature.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is knowledge?
Understanding that there various kinds of knowledge, could somone please help elaborate on the kind of direct knowledge the Buddha referred to in the context of liberation.
As a conditioned being who tends to base his understanding of the world on observations, how does one differentiate between conventional knowledge and direct knowledge?
While conceptually there may be an understanding of the Dhamma, how do we know if truly this is knowledge that has been realized through investigation, or merely a manifestation of a wrong view aided by the ego? Even if supported by morality and concentration how do we know if we actually know what we believe we know if the root of doubt and restlessness are the last to go?

According to Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa, there are three types of knowledge:
1) conceptual or discursive knowledge, 2) knowledge of the underlying meaning or point, and 3) direct knowledge or insight.

The object of conceptual or discursive knowledge is nama (name or concept). This type of knowledge depends on hearing about or reading about things and relationships between them, designated by some names. As a result of acquiring this type of knowledge, one can share this knowledge in more or less the same form and closely follow the instructions contained therein. For example, if one is told an allegorical story, having conceptual knowledge of the story would enable one to retell the story with its characters and events, in one's own words.
The object of the second type of knowledge is artha (meaning, point, purpose). This knowledge requires some deep thinking about the layer behind the words, what's often called principle-and-function. In the story example, having this type of knowledge means understanding the moral of the story. Having this type of knowledge one can then share the same point in completely different shape and form.
The object of the third type of knowledge is tatha (suchness or truth). It is said that this type of knowledge comes from meditation on one's experience. The object of insight is the immediate experience, with no connection to words or their points. In the story example, insight is the type of knowledge that may for example start with recognizing the elements of the story in ones own life, and proceed to discover a whole new pattern in one's life and/or the world around that one has never noticed before. Insight means clearly seeing how things work - which then allows one to formulate various practical points and principles - that work and make sense exactly because they are based on how things work.

Now, there are all kinds of words, points, principles, and things in the world - many of which have nothing to do with Buddhism - the doctrine of awakening. So in Buddhist context when we are talking about liberating knowledge - we are talking about the ultimate referent of the above three types of knowledge as they pertain to what at conceptual level is known as the Four Noble Truths and the Three Marks of Existence.
So, at the level of concepts, this is being able to give the definitions of the Truths, the Marks, and various other Buddhist lists of N - and to literally follow the instructions contained therein. At the level of analytical knowledge, this is being able to explain the significance of, the role and application of, and the relationships between each of them - and to integrate the main points of practice with one's everyday living. And at the level of direct insight, this means to actualize the immediacy of more or less the same basic experience that Buddha had, in one's own life - which allows one to understand and explain all Buddhist literature effortlessly and perhaps, depending on one's capacity and temperament, to even formulate new points - based on the same vision of things that Buddha had had (same in principle, not in all aspects).
So, how do you know if your insight is true or fake? From the same Vasubandhu's Abhidharma-kosa it follows that true insight (pure wisdom) is:

permanent (as in, you can't lose or forget it - because it's kinda in your face all the time),
complete (meaning, you know there is nothing more to get or attain in principle, so for all practical purposes you feel that you are done-done - there is no striving),
prevents kleshas in the course of day to day living -- first and foremost of the kind known as the blinding emotions (because once you see how things work they lose their power over you).
prevents experience of dukkha (painful feeling of wrongness).

Now, there are two main schools of thought when it comes to the timing of the insight: gradual and sudden. "Sudden-ists" believe that True Insight comes like a bucket of water on your head and that is the Enlightenment. "Gradual-ists" believe that Insight dawns bit by bit in the course of practice and meditation. There is also a hybrid line that believes in sudden breakthrough followed by gradual cultivation of #3/4 above, due to karma/inertia/bad-habits. This is where the author of this answer belongs.
One day I was sitting in meditation and then BOOM -- I saw how mind craves for that to generate dukkha. Then, in retrospective, mapping my direct experience back to Buddhist concepts, I thought: this must be dukkha, the dukkha must be understood, dukkha has been understood. This must be craving, the craving must be let go. I saw it right in that moment, in my own mind - not as abstraction but as direct experience.
To summarize, we know our direct knowledge of Dharma is true in two ways: subjectively and objectively: subjectively we know if it comes as direct experience, if there is a feeling of completeness and permanency, if it prevents experience of dukkha - and objectively we know if we can deal with external problems without running into emotional issues, and if we can explain Buddhist teachings with ease.

Direct knowledge is the immediate intuitive apprehension of the transcendental object without the participation of any cognitive process. It is transdual, transrational, and translinguistic, ultimately uncharacterizable and yet expressible in rational language (which is nevertheless not it). It is doubtless so if there is any doubt that is not it. It is inherently beneficial so if there is any "bad fruit" then that is not it, but "bad fruit" must be understood in essential, not social conventional terms.

"and yet expressible in rational language" sounds like you could give an example...

I just did - "It is transdual, transrational, and translinguistic, ultimately uncharacterizable".

So you can make proper words about it, but you can't make others understand it. That would be frustrating, except...

That is the paradox of dharma.

There are multiple classification. In one such classification 3 kinds of knowledges:

Knowledge gained from learning
knowledge gained from logical deduction and thinking
Knowledge gained through meditation

Also another there are some knowledges gained as psychic abilities like the abhiññā.
In addition practicing Vippassana meditation does certain knowledges pertaining to the meditation process which are called insight knowledges. Also covered in Wikipedia entry - Vipassanā-ñāṇa. Also see: Wikipedia - ñāṇa, Wikipedia - Paññā
The above are some commonly refered Knowledges though there few more like the 72 specific knowledge of the Buddha.

Conventional Knowledge is those worldly things discussed in everyday life, ranging from law, science, business etc. Knowledge needs Wisdom.
Wisdom (Direct knowledge) in Buddhism refers to the mind stream of beings. Wisdom is there all the time, like clear blue sky.
Whereas wisdom is spontaneous, conventional knowledge takes time, and creates karma.

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


text:
Getting answers as per the perception of others only, not at all mine?
I am not good in english, but i am getting answers somehow. If i say about people who have had answered. They have suggested everything as per their own perception. Is that good to me?

As a "Dhamma"-rule of thumb, if answers lead you you further away from Samsara and towards Nibbana, i.e. by reducing greed, hatred and delusion, then those answers, can be considered wholesome.

Of course they are good to you if it changes you for the better. If nothing can be changed, like a solid rock, then it does nothing good.
But everything is impermanent, even a rock can change, so there will be changes which should be good.


text:
Buddhism and terminal illness
Even in my limited knowledge on Buddhism, it makes sense to see a connection between a terminal illness (like cancer) and previous negative karma. Is there a Sutta where Buddha talks about this connection?
Is it true that a terminal illness can be seen in a "positive" way, like purifying past karma?
From a Buddhist prospective, are there specific ways (like rituals, prayers) for curing (or helping with) a terminal illness?
Thank you all for your answers! Be well!

Even in my limited knowledge on Buddhism, it makes sense to see a connection between a terminal illness (like cancer) and previous negative karma.
Everyone who is born dies; and maybe 30% of all deaths are from cancer (other statistically likely terminal illnesses in developed countries include heart attack, stroke, and respiratory diseases).
I think that Buddhists see a connection between dying and being born.
The proposed cure for that (i.e. to prevent it happening again) is to be enlightened (e.g. to attain nirvana, which is also known as a "deathless" state) -- to avoid being born again in future, and avoid or minimize "suffering" in this life.
Note that if a person attains nirvana in this life, their body will (like the Buddha's did) still die eventually.
I think that seeing the effects of kamma (e.g. being able to say "your current life is like this because you did such-and-such in a previous life") is a supernatural (miraculous) power, attributed to the Buddha -- and (I think that) because it's a miraculous power it's not necessarily a sensible thing for an ordinary/unenlightened person to attempt.
If or when someone does have a terminal illness it might be tempting to ask "why me?" and "why now?" and so on, but I don't think I like to attribute it to negative karma -- that seems to me like blaming the victim: "Oh you have cancer? Well that's your fault." I prefer to attribute it to having been born.
Is there a Sutta where Buddha talks about this connection?
I think there are too many to name -- it (the cycle of birth and death) is  kind of recurring theme of the Pali canon.
For example in the beginning of the first sutta, where it talks about the first noble truth:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.

Is it true that a terminal illness can be seen in a "positive" way, like purifying past karma?
Yes I think there's opportunity for "spiritual advancement" or whatever you want to call it, opportunities to become a different, better, more enlightened, wiser person.
There's a verse early in the Dhammapada for example,

People, other than the wise, do not realize,
  "We in this world must all die,"
  (and, not realizing it, continue their quarrels).
  The wise realize it
  and thereby their quarrels cease.

If someone has terminal illness they might make peace with those around them, even if they hadn't previously.
Illness might furthermore be an opportunity for full-time practice.
To pick another example more or less at random, at time 13:55 of this video Yuttadhammo Bikkhu says that dying of cancer would be an opportunity (a chance) for us to understand the nature of reality.
From a Buddhist prospective, are there specific ways (like rituals, prayers) for curing (or helping with) a terminal illness?
There are many other references at A Buddhist Guide to Death, Dying and Suffering (the author is or was a chaplain at a medical centre).
And What nurses need to know about Buddhist perspectives of end-of-life care and dying (registration required) might be helpful.
Also page 82 of this commentary on the Vinaya describes the words a bikkhu might say during the dying process to inspire a patient.

Another quote I remember isn't from a Buddhist source, but it might be informative if or when you relate with a patient. From Randy Pausch’s Last Lecture,

So, you know, in case there’s anybody who wandered in and doesn’t know the back story, my dad
  always taught me that when there’s an elephant in the room, introduce them. If you look at my CAT
  scans, there are approximately 10 tumors in my liver, and the doctors told me 3-6 months of good
  health left. That was a month ago, so you can do the math. I have some of the best doctors in the
  world. Microphone’s not working? Then I’ll just have to talk louder. [Adjusts mic] Is that good? All
  right. So that is what it is. We can’t change it, and we just have to decide how we’re going to
  respond to that. We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand. If I don’t
  seem as depressed or morose as I should be, sorry to disappoint you. [laughter] And I assure you I
  am not in denial. It’s not like I’m not aware of what’s going on. My family, my three kids, my wife,
  we just decamped. We bought a lovely house in Virginia, and we’re doing that because that’s a
  better place for the family to be, down the road. And the other thing is I am in phenomenally good
  health right now. I mean it’s the greatest thing of cognitive dissonance you will ever see is the fact
  that I am in really good shape. In fact, I am in better shape than most of you. [Randy gets on the
  ground and starts doing pushups] [Applause] So anybody who wants to cry or pity me can down and
  do a few of those, and then you may pity me. [laughter]
All right, so what we’re not talking about today, we are not talking about cancer, because I spent a
  lot of time talking about that and I’m really not interested. If you have any herbal supplements or
  remedies, please stay away from me. [laughter]

I fear it's too easy/tempting to say to a patient, "maybe you'll get better" or "you have to really fight this cancer, you can beat it if you want to" or "try this new diet" or something like that. Whereas it might (I don't know, ask an actual expert rather than me) be more helpful for the patient to accept/see reality rather than try to "fight" it and it might help them if you would do that too.

According to the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta, certain types of karma leads to short lifespans and sickliness.

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or
  man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to
  killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having
  adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
  death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body,
  after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the
  bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human
  state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn.
"There is the case where a woman or man is one who harms beings with
  his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having
  adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
  death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead
  he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is sickly wherever
  reborn.

On the other hand, according to the Acintita Sutta, the precise working of karma cannot be clearly understood.

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them. Which four?
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

Also, according to the Sivaka Sutta, not everything that happens to a person is caused by their previous karma. Rather, it is also caused by other factors such as environmental factors.

"There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this
  doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure,
  pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous
  action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?"
"Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain
  kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in
  the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the)
  phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of
  climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of
  Kamma — (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of
  feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world
  it is accepted as true.
"Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view
  that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or
  neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,'
  then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted
  as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the
  part of these ascetics and brahmans."

In the Kucchivikara-vatthu of the Vinaya, the Buddha describes how a good patient and a good nurse or caretaker is like:

"A sick person endowed with five qualities is easy to tend to: he does
  what is amenable to his cure; he knows the proper amount in things
  amenable to his cure; he takes his medicine; he tells his symptoms, as
  they actually are present, to the nurse desiring his welfare, saying
  that they are worse when they are worse, improving when they are
  improving, or remaining the same when they are remaining the same; and
  he is the type who can endure bodily feelings that are painful,
  fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable, life-threatening. A
  sick person endowed with these five qualities is easy to tend to.
"A nurse endowed with five qualities is fit to tend to the sick: He is
  competent at mixing medicine; he knows what is amenable or unamenable
  to the patient's cure, taking away things that are unamenable and
  bringing things that are amenable; he is motivated by thoughts of good
  will, not by material gain; he does not get disgusted at cleaning up
  excrement, urine, saliva, or vomit; and he is competent at
  instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the sick person at the
  proper occasions with a talk on Dhamma. A nurse endowed with these
  five qualities is fit to tend to the sick."

According to the Girimananda Sutta, the Buddha teaches the ill monk Girimananda ten contemplations, through Ananda, which healed him of his disease. I take it here, that the Buddha wants to get the monk to contemplate on these things that helps him to overcome cravings.

(Thereupon the Buddha said):
  "Should you, Ananda, visit the monk Girimananda and recite to him the
  ten contemplations, then that monk Girimananda having heard them, will
  be immediately cured of his disease.
"What are the ten?
Contemplation of impermanence. Contemplation of anatta (absence of a
  permanent self or soul). Contemplation of foulness (asubha).
  Contemplation of disadvantage (danger). Contemplation of abandonment.
  Contemplation of detachment. Contemplation of cessation. Contemplation
  of distaste for the whole world. Contemplation of impermanence of all
  component things. Mindfulness of in-breathing and out-breathing.
(for details, please read full Sutta)
Thereupon the Venerable Ananda, having learned these ten
  contemplations from the Blessed One, visited the Venerable
  Girimananda, and recited to him the ten contemplations. When the
  Venerable Girimananda had heard them, his affliction was immediately
  cured. He recovered from that affliction, and thus disappeared the
  affliction of the Venerable Girimananda.

An adverse diagnosis can certainly be seen as the ripening of past karma. But it's not a cause to beat yourself up: we have all done countless good and bad acts during innumerable past lives, according to Buddhist doctrine. I've certainly read texts which encourage people to put a positive spin on difficult experiences by viewing them as a chance to work through some negative karma.
It can also give rise to compassion, realising that one's own suffering is mirrored in  that of countless other beings. Indeed the Lojong or Mind Training teachings include specific techniques for turning one's own suffering round, for instance by thinking "May this bit of suffering I'm experiencing stand for the suffering of all other beings... May I take on their suffering."
In my own experience a diagnosis is encouraging me to focus on Buddhist practice and to appreciate the present moment, rather than frittering my life away.
The specific Tibetan Buddhist practice most associated with relief of illness is Medicine Buddha (Menla) puja. It involves a mantra, ideally accompanied by visualisations, and is most likely to be effective if you get the transmission and empowerment for the practice from an authentic lama.
Sarve mangalem!

It is true that a terminal illness can be seen in a "positive" way, like purifying past karma.
From a Buddhist prospective, there are specific ways (like rituals, prayers) for helping with a terminal disease.
Also from a Buddhist perspective, one prays that if the disease can be cured, then let one's body be the vehicle to help many many other living beings.
Also from a Buddhist's perspective, one prays that if the disease cannot be cured, then let one die quickly and easily (to pureland).

First, from Tsongkhapa's viewpoint, there are three types of karmic results. One of them is the result similar to the cause. It is often thought that cancer or other deadly ones result from having taken life/lives in past life. A reason for thinking this way is that it may help the meditator to lessen anger (that would come from feeling that it's unfair or underserved). Thinking "cancer comes from such a negative action" is meant to generate regret (not incredible guilt or remorse that will have you paralyzed), and apply antidotes so as to stop engaging in negativities. One has to be careful with this way of thinking. For instance, telling a third person "it's just karma" or "it's because you killed in the past" might not be the best thing to do. It is first and foremost something to take for oneself, to improve one's own practice. To be taken and given carefully. These considerations are not so much to be taken as descriptive than instructive, so as to meditate, dwell on them, and generate within one's own continuum, antidotes to anger and so forth. Dwelling on the notion that "one created the causes of whatever awful turn of event occur" would otherwise be sterile or even possibly dangerous.
Also, a ripening of a karmic imprint is always "karma getting exhausted" but is not necessarily a sign of purification.
As to prayers, in Tibetan monasteries, we perform pujas ("ceremonies, rituals, prayers") on a regular basis, dedicating to specific people who requested (some giving donation, some not). The most common in this setting are Medicine Buddha Puja and Cittamani Tara Puja. This said, the practice we consider the best in these cases is animal liberation (i.e. saving life, as directly opposed to the cause that was taking lives).

What we experience now is not purely a result of past karma. It's both past and present actions combined. So this means that we can control our current karma to an extent depending on how we behave in the present moment. It's explained in the Devadaha Sutta.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN101.html

My first teacher, who could "see" people's karmic roots of their present conditions (including diseases), often explained cancer-type diseases. While he never gave one summary "rule" to map diseases to karmic roots - and was actually offended when I proposed that to him - I can try and summarize some of the main points here, and hope that they can be of more help than harm due to overgeneralization.
In case of this answer, unlike with some other answers I give, I don't claim to see these things directly by myself - so this is only my attempt to explain main points of what I received as conceptual teaching:

In general, physical diseases - just like most other types of troubles according to Buddhism - come from attachments. More often than not these attachments are subtle ones, like attachments to certain principle or a view system - not obvious/superficial attachments to a person or thing.
Many times (but not always) I heard cancer-types diseases explained through attachment to spirituality. In this context "spirituality" should be understood in general as orientation towards the high ideals of outworldliness and away from the lowly values of this world. My teacher emphasized that spirituality, intellect, principles, etc. should not be placed above the genuine nondual love (as a first approximation of bodhicitta).
As I understand, the person in this condition (again, I don't want to overgeneralize, but this seemed to be the gist of many of those cases) may actually be very selfless and noble - while at the same time projecting very strong contrast between him/her and the world or the corrupt society, which colored their attitude to life as a whole - not necessarily in a negative way but certainly in a way that made them somewhat isolated mentally or emotionally.
This coloration of experience / the feeling of isolation then supposedly creates certain hormonal dis-balance that could lead to certain diseases, cancer-type ones being one of them.

In theory, if above is indeed the case, the healing is always possible through a deep change of one's perspective on life. However, because karma is very inertial it may work better on early stages - and on the later stages the person may simply not have enough time left to transform themselves.
I apologize if this offends anyone by putting the responsibility for the disease on the bearer of it, and I don't want this to seem like the only possible explanation - there are many types of and many objective causes of cancer. But this is what I was told, as much as I can remember it in a very simplified form, so I'm sharing it in the hope that it will help someone to prevent cancer, if not to heal it.

Terminal illness like cancer takes birth like any other being.
First there was ignorance; with ignorance as precondition came volitional formations; with volitional formations as precondition came consciousness; with consciousness as precondition came name and form ; with name and form as a precondition came six senses; with six senses as precondition came contact; with contact as a precondition came feelings ; with feelings as a precondition came cravings ; with cravings as precondition came clinging ; with clinging as a precondition came attachment; with attachments as a precondition came becoming ;with becoming as a precondition came birth , ageing and death of diseases like cancer , AIDs , corona etc etc..
Doing the right karma and rectifying past mistakes can mitigate and eradicate a disease. But diseases due to ageing can not be eradicated. Ageing is inevitable. Such diseases are natural consequence of the fact that all sanskaras are impermanent. That is why where there is birth there is death.

Mittakali
Going forth through conviction
from home into homelessness,
I wandered this place & that,
greedy for gain & offerings.
Missing out on the foremost goal,
I pursued a lowly one.
Under the sway of defilements
I surrendered the goal
of the contemplative life.
Then, sitting in my dwelling,
I suddenly came to my senses:
I'm following a miserable path.
I'm under the sway of
        craving.
    Next to nothing, my life —
            crushed
    by aging & illness.
    Before the body breaks apart,
    I have no time
        for heedlessness.
After watching, as it actually was,
the rising & falling of aggregates,
I stood up with mind released,
the Awakened One's bidding
        done.

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


text:
Where can I find the Chinese Canon Agama in English translation?
Where can I find the Chinese Canon Agamas in English translation?

Dirgha Agama
Thanks to the reference contributed by ChrisW, I was able to find the following fragments:

DA 11, DA 12, and DA 30 translated by bhikkhu Analayo
DA 21 translated by Fan Dong Jing

The entire DA is available in print from BDK America (thanks for the link, Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena):

http://www.bdkamerica.org/catalog/indian-sources

Madhyama Agama
Online I was able to find the following sutras, translated by Charles D. Patton:

MA 1
MA 2
MA 10
MA 11
MA 17
MA 42
MA 45
MA 51
MA 186

There is also this BDK America version, containing the first 71 sutras:

MA 1-71

Samyukta Agama
According to the sutra commentaries in the Yogacara-bhumi Shastra, the Samyukta Agama was the earliest agama collection.
Turns out there are two version of Samyukta Agama, the long one (~1350 sutras), known by the scholars as T.99 or "ZA" and the short one (364 sutras), known as T.100 or "BZA". Most of the BZA is available in English translation by Marcus Bingenheimer either online or in one PDF. Most of the BZA sutras have almost identical counterparts in ZA.
Out of ~1350 sutras in the long Samyukta Agama, ~260 are available online so far, most translated to English by bhikkhu Analayo and some by an unknown translator at lapislazulitexts.com/tripitaka as well as by Choong Mun-keat:

SA1-32
SA33-58
SA59-87
SA103-110
SA111-138
SA139-187
SA188-229
SA 232
SA 236
SA 249
SA256-272
SA 273
T.100.6 / SA 275
(SĀ 276) “Attitudes Towards Nuns – A Case Study of the Nandakovāda in the Light of its Parallels”, (with an appendix by Giuliana Martini), Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 2010, vol. 17 pp. 332–400.  download
SA 287
SA 293
SA 296
SA 297
SA 299
SA 300
SA 301: Kātyāyana Gotra
SA 335
(SĀ 344 and SA 389) ” Right View and the Scheme of the Four Truths in Early Budhism, The Saṃyukta-āgama Parallel to the Sammādiṭṭhi-sutta and the Simile of the Four Skills of a Physician”, Canadian Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2011, vol. 7 pp. 11–44.  download
SA 371: The Nutriments
SA 374. The Nutriments
SA 379: Turning the Dharma Wheel
SA 383. Having Known
SA 451. The Realms
SA 474: Gradual Subsiding
(SĀ 505) “Śakra and the Destruction of Craving – A Case Study in the Role of Śakra in Early Buddhism”, Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2011, vol. 12 pp. 157-176.  download
SA 606. Bases of Mindfulness
SA 610. Correct Mindfulness
SA 615. Bhikṣuṇī Residence
(SĀ 619) “Protecting Oneself and Others Through Mindfulness – The Acrobat Simile in the Saṃyukta-āgama”, Sri Lanka International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2012, vol. 2 pp. 1–23.   download
SA 620. The Monkey
SA 621. The Young Bhikṣus
SA 623. The World Beauty
SA 746. Ānāpānasmṛti
SA 801: Five Dharmas
SA 802. Knowledge
SA 803. Knowledge
SA 804. Cutting Off Thoughts
SA 805. Ariṣṭa
SA 806. Kapphiṇa
SA 807. Two Months
SA 808. Kapilavastu
(SĀ 1042) “The Saṃyukta-āgama Parallel to the Sāleyyaka-sutta”, Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 2006, vol. 13 pp. 1–22.  download
T.100 equivalents of SA 1062-1225
(SĀ 1249) “Exemplary Qualities of a Monastic – The Saṃyukta-āgama Counterpart to the Mahāgopālaka-sutta and the Need of Balancing Inner Development with Concern for Others”, Sri Lanka International Journal of Buddhist Studies, 2010, vol. 1 pp. 1–22.  download

Ekottarika Agama
Unless otherwise noted, translated by Dr. Thich Huyen-Vi and Bhikkhu Pasadika in collaboration with Sara Boin-Webb, for the Buddhist Studies Review.

EA 12.1 translated by Thích Nhất Hạnh, Annabel Laity
EA 17.1 — Mindfulness of Breathing
EA 18.4 — Brahmin
EA 18.5 — Elephant
EA 18.8 — Broad-minded
EA 18.9 — Authentic
EA 18.10 — Praise
EA 19.2 - EA 19.11
EA 20.1 - EA 20.13
EA 21.1 - EA 21.10

See also this answer, which says that Bikkhu Sujato posted, "Chinese Agama texts are now on SuttaCentral" -- on Sutta Central starting here. Their being online even in Chinese may mean you can use dictionary/translation tools.

Most of the links are dead, unfortunately. :( Anyone have updated links?

I hope this finds you in good health and peace of mind.
Just to let you know that this sentence:
"and some (10 SA texts and 1 EA text) by an unknown translator at lapislazulitexts.com/tripitaka"
were my translations for my BA in Buddhist Studies at the University of Queensland, which I completed in 2004, under the supervision of Dr Rod Bucknell.
I intend to let that website know also.
best wishes
Joe
(Norman Joseph Smith)

Tripitaka (Chinese to English):
Dirgha Agama:

The Canonical Book of the Buddha's Lengthy Discourses, Volume 1 (Bdk English Tripitaka)The Canonical Book of the Buddha's Lengthy Discourses, Volume 1 (Bdk English Tripitaka) by Shohei Ichimura.
The Canonical Book of the Buddha's Lengthy Discourses, Volume 2 (Bdk English Tripitaka: Taisho Volume 1, Number 1)The Canonical Book of the Buddha's Lengthy Discourses, Volume 2 (Bdk English Tripitaka: by Shohei Ichimura.
The Canonical Book of the Buddha’s Lengthy Discourses, Volume 3 (Bdk English Tripitaka, 1-1)The Canonical Book of the Buddha’s Lengthy Discourses, Volume 3 (Bdk English Tripitaka,by Shohei Ichimura.

Madhyama Agama:

The Madhyama Agama: Middle-length Discourses: 1 (BDK English Tripitaka) Hardcover – September 30, 2013 by Bhikkhu Analayo (Editor), Marcus Bingenheimer  (Editor), Rodney S. Bucknell (Editor).
The Madhyama Agama (Middle-Length Discourses) Volume II (Bdk English Tripitaka, 2) Hardcover – July 29, 2020 by Bhikkhu Analayo and Roderick S. Bucknell (Author).

These are very nice. Dirgha Agama and Madhyama Agama


text:
Is there any research on physiology of deep and long meditative states (i.e. days and weeks of sitting)?
I keep hearing about Theravada monks who are able to stay in deep meditative states for days and weeks on end. While I do not [yet] question ability to stay in meditation for that long, what interests me is the physiological side of things: how human beings are able to spend that much time meditating without dying of dehydration or having some issues due to blocked blood flow etc.
Has anyone seen any research on topic or can offer a proper search query for Google scholar?

Check out this article: Meditation as a Voluntary Hypometabolic
State of Biological Estivation by John Ding-E Young and Eugene Taylor.
It's a really interesting, brief read. Basically, it is a review of several studies on the physiology of meditators. It provides evidence for the case that aspects of meditation may be similar to hibernation, or "hypometabolism". For example, like some bear species are able to not eat or drink for months on end (as far as I know) and come out fine, maybe meditators are able to lower their metabolism and thus meditate indefinitely without physiological upset. Some really cool examples of people meditating underground for days, or in airtight boxes for multiple hours with no ill effects.

This is a Youtube video about long term meditation: The Boy With Divine Powers - Buddha Boy

A meditating teenage boy in south-central Nepal who went without food or water for 10 months has changed the way we look at modern science and medicine forever. In 2006, Discovery Channel film crew traveled to Nepal to establish if it was possible for a human to abstain from all sustenance, water included, by filming "Buddha Boy" continuously for four days and nights.

Thanks for the video about Ram Bomjon! While I accepted the answer that refers to actual scientific research (as this what I was after to begin with), the Discovery vid is quite interesting as well.


text:
Who is really suffering in Hell and Enjoying in Heaven?
When a person dies, s/he goes to heaven or hell based on present life karma and any past karmas. In Buddhism, if there is no soul, who is punished in hell and who enjoys in heaven? as there is no physical body to feel pain and pleasure. If that person has learnt the art of detachment, how can s/he suffer/enjoy in hell/heaven?
Does different realms really exists and do we travel through them?

From Milindapanha:

-- “What is it, Nàgasena, that is reborn?”
  -- “Mind and matter (namarupa).”
  -- “Is it this very mind and matter that is reborn?”
  -- “No, it is not, but by this mind and matter deeds are done and because of those deeds another mind and matter is reborn; but that mind and matter is not thereby released from the results of its previous deeds.

Just like an adult "inherits" results of the choices made by the child - even though most of the original body cells are gone, similarly future existence "inherits" karma from the past existence.

--“Can there be any rebirth where there is no transmigration?”
  --“Yes there can, just as a man can light one oil-lamp
  from another but nothing moves from one lamp to the
  other; or as a pupil can learn a verse by heart from a teacher
  but the verse does not transmigrate from teacher to pupil.”

It is information and causation that is reborn, or is re-embodied. Or, as Chogyam Trungpa said, it is our neuroses that are reborn.
as there is no physical body to feel pain and pleasure?
Oh yes, there is definitely a body every time. Information always needs some kind of media, it does not exist without media... But that media could be virtual as well -- after all, form is emptiness and emptiness is form. Depending on a particular realm it may not be a crude material body. Besides, pain and pleasure do not require a body. Did you never experience mental pleasure and mental pain?
If that person has learnt the art of detachment, how can s/he suffer/enjoy in hell/heaven?
If that person has learnt the art of detachment, why would he or she be reborn in heaven or hell?
Does different realms really exists and do we travel through them?
Of course they really exist, just not necessarily in a naive way below the ground or above the sky ;) Yes, we do travel through them. Even in this world some people live in hell - don't you agree?

wonderful answer.  I would also like to point the asker of the question to the 31 Planes of Existence.  Perhaps I will elaborate in a proper answer if beneficial.

Hats off for including consideration of the formless rhelm in this answer.

When one dies, one goes to heaven or hell or animal realms or ghost or human or higher heaven realm based on present life karma and any past karmas. In Buddhism, if one dies , one goes to any of the 6 realms based on present life karma and any past karmas. In Buddhism, since there is no soul, it is the minds that are punished in hell and it is the mind that enjoys in heaven. If one becomes a buddhist and has learnt the art of detachment, one will not suffer/enjoy in hell/heaven or any other realms. Different realms does exists and we do cycle through them in our countless number of past lives.
The aim of Buddhism is to be free from cycling through these 6 realms which are suffering or eventually leads to sufferings.
Another example of understanding the 6 realms is through ones' everyday life when our mind goes from happy to sad to neutral to any moods which are beyond one's control. Buddhism teaches one to have control over the mind
and become free from these cycles. So that one is prepared when death comes

metta to all for their answers.

Quote from the Acela Sutta (This comes from here but the full text can be found here).
This is a similar question in the Sutta, to this question, where the Buddha says not to consider whether the one in the previous birth is the one causing the karmic responses in the current birth or not. Both assumptions are based on eternalism and annihilationism. Rather, the Buddha asks to consider dependent origination.
For the rest of the questions, I think Andrei has replied them well.

Again, when the Buddha was asked by the naked ascetic Kassapa whether
  suffering was of one's own making or of another's or both or neither,
  the Buddha replied "Do not put it like that." When asked whether there
  was no suffering or whether the Buddha neither knew nor saw it, the
  Buddha replied that there was, and that he both knew and saw it. He
  then said "Kassapa, if one asserts that 'He who makes (it) feels (it):
  being one existent from the beginning, his suffering is of his own
  making,' then one arrives at eternalism. But if one asserts that one
  makes (it), another feels (it); being one existent crushed out by
  feeling, his suffering is of another's making,' then one arrives at
  annihilationism. Instead of resorting to either extreme a Tathaagata
  teaches the Dhamma by the middle way (by dependent origination)" (S.
  XII, 17/vol. ii, 20).

ah, interesting! yes Buddha is right of course :) note that I did not say anything like "one's karma in a past life causes the suffering for his/her subsequent reincarnation in hell", I didn't use the words like being/life/reincarnation on purpose - instead, I used "existence" which is an uncountable noun, not an entity (existence at large, not individual existence) by saying future existence "inherits" karma from the past existence. I try to be very careful with phrasing when it comes to issues like this :)


text:
How many types of lying?
To fulfill a lie:
The statement must be untrue.
There must be an intention to deceive.
An effort must be made to deceive.
The other person understands the meaning.
One person says something he didn't intend to do. Realizing what he said was not truly right, he did what he said in order to fulfill what he has said. An example, someone was given a pamphlet and says "will check it later", do not want to be a liar, he check it later although he doesn't want to check it in order to fulfill what he already said.
If he just said without doing it, that is a lie. But what if do it later, will the lie cancelled?

As I understand Right Speech, the relationship between what one thinks and what one says makes the difference between a truth and a lie.
In your example, if the person says something and know that thing to be  untrue when he says it, that person just said a lie. The intention that person said the lie might not be completely unwholesome (maybe he didn't want to offend the other person etc), but nevertheless, he still is sure of not being honest to the other person and can be sure of just having done an unwholesome act. It seems to me ( but I am not completely sure about it) that the reason that person does read the pamphlet has more to do with his ego of not wanting to be considered a liar (even if only in his own eyes).
The bottom line is that all that matter is what person thinks at the moment that he speaks - if he says exactly what he thinks, he is telling the truth; if he says something that he knows it's not in line with what he thinks, he is lying.

Tsong-kha-pa. The Great Treatise On The Stages Of The Path To Enlightenment Vol 1 (p. 222) defines the karma of lying as follow:

The 'eight bases' of lying are that seen, that heard, that
  distinguished, and that cognized, as well as the four opposites of
  these [that not seen, etc.]. Lying is when someone else-the recipient
  of the lie-comprehends comprehends the meaning of the lie.
The 'discrimination' includes misrepresenting a perception, such as
  what you have seen, as something you have not seen, or misrepresenting
  what you have not seen as something you have seen.
The 'afflictions' are the three mental poisons.
The 'motivation' is your desire to misrepresent your perception.
The 'performance' is indicating something through speaking, through
  choosing not to speak, or through gesture.
It is said that even causing others to engage in the three types of
  speech-lying, divisive speech, or offensive speech-is the same as
  doing it yourself.
The culmination of a lie is someone else's comprehension.

If you tell a lie without being motivated by any of the three poisons: the karmic path is not complete. Also the aspect of 'discrimination/perception' implies that if you say something false thinking it is true, the karmic path is not complete. For instance, if someone ask you "What time is it?", and you answer "it is seven" thinking it is indeed seven while in fact it is six, the karmic path [of lying] is not complete.
As for breaking a promise or a commitment, although the text does not state it, I infer that it is a karmic path of lying. This is so because my teacher said "if you have the intention to give something away, and so stop holding onto it as yours, but later come back on your intention or simply never give it away, its a karmic path of stealing".

Suppose you are visiting a family member or a friend. It is quite late upon your arrival as you have been traveling to get there. You're offered drinks, and asked if you were hungry. Although you are hungry, you did not want to burden your host, out of compassion. You thank your host, telling them him or her that you're not hungry and that the drinks would suffice. In such circumstance. Is this a karmically complete lie, absence of greed, ill will, and possibly delusion. Would this in fact be a wholesome act?

@Amanasa This is something that is somehow quite grey to me too. In everyday conversation that is fine. But in order to break this precept, the statement must be untrue, there must be an intention to deceive, an effort must be made to deceive and finally the other person is deceived by the lie. In my opinion, saying you're hungry is probably not quite fit too in that situation but in some other situation probably acceptable. If you can give different response, I think that would be better.


text:
Question on a Mahayana Sutra (Three Svabhavas)
First time trying this. Much Metta to all beings here. I've been studying and meditating on a Mahayana based sutra for months, which is quite detailed in philosophy. I don't seem to understand the meaning of a particular passage.
"Now, Mahāmati, false discrimination rises from form (nimitta). How, Mahāmati, does it rise from form? In [the consideration of] the relativity aspect of Svabhāva, realities appear in various ways, as having forms, signs, and shapes; when, Mahāmati, these objects, forms, and signs are adhered to [as real], this adherence takes place in two ways. The Tathagatas, Arhats, and Fully-Enlightened Ones thus declare false discrimination to consist in attachment to names and attachment to objects. By the attachment to objects is meant, Mahāmati, to get attached to inner and external things [as realities]..."
-Lankavatara Sutra, Chapter II, Suzuki Translation.
I'm confused on what it means by attaching to objects as realities.
Thoughts? Thank you!

What are objects?
Worldly things, for ex. 'Table'. or 'Car'.
If we divide them to parts, is that 'thing' exist further?
can we say that 'thing' exist before divide to parts?
So that 'things' are considered as 'forms'(nimitta).
The 'things'(forms) has signs('name') and shapes('rupa'/form/object).
We believe(adhere to) these 'things' are real objects.
This is called false discrimination (attachment to names and attachment to objects).
This adherence takes place in two ways.('ajjhattaṃ'- Internal and 'bahiddhā'- External).  As shown in 'Sathipattana sutta'

.....In this way they meditate by observing an aspect of the body inside;
they meditate by observing an aspect of the body outside; they
meditate by observing an aspect of the body inside and outside.
(In Pali: Iti ajjhattaṃ vā kāye kāyānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā kāye
kāyānupassī viharati, ajjhattabahiddhā vā kāye kāyānupassī
viharati;)

So what is "get attached to inner and external things [as realities]..."
Inner things - person, I, Myself, Me, Body etc.
External  things - others, they, He/s ,It etc.

Thank you! I like how you stated that we think things are real objects by discrimination, but when divided it doesn't exist.~

The illusion is we believe after divided, the parts are exist. @MaxwellT. But the parts and whole both mind made.

The delusion is subject and object are real. By experience this nature can bypass the bondage of 'is'. There is 'state' not producing 'world' or anything.

Our experience of reality is made by the mind. We don't experience the world directly, instead our mind builds models - and this is what we experience, assuming that to be reality. You would think our models are more or less accurate except some small details - but no, not at all. They are like flat 2D cross-sections of the multi-dimensional reality. They are not just simplifications, they are more like schematics, like wire-frames.
What we habitually assume to be solid entities are mind-made wire-frames. Buddhism teaches that all entities are not solid (we say they are "coreless" or "empty" - shunya). What does this mean?
If you don't think of objects point-in-time, but watch the whole thing over time, you'll see that what you assume to be entities are really just temporary arrangements of various parts set in motion by chains of causes. So entities are just point in time assemblies of trajectories of causes traversing space-time. In addition to causes, there are also ambient conditions necessary for existence of certain entities: pressure, gravity, electromagnetic field, temperature etc. All of these: parts, causes that got them together at this place and time and ambient conditions that keep them together for now - is what we call components of objects. All objects are compound aggregates of components. Traditional term for this is Pali sankharo (Sanksrit samskara) - literally "co-made", made-up by many constituents.
If you think about the above really well, you may realize that the threads of causation I describe above are not really linear. Instead, there is a network of causes and conditions, infinitely forking, joining, and interacting. Depending on the level of observation and on the context the mind will delineate different entities. You are familiar with physical, chemical, biological, electromagnetic, informational levels of observation. These are all different ways to see the same reality. So your experience of entities always depends on you, the observer - providing the level and context, making the delineation, making the interpretation. And what are you, the observer? It is also a temporary arrangement of factors (physical, biological, social, informational etc.)! So what happens in the moment when experience of so-called reality takes place, is that many factors come together to create the so-called "external"/"objective" and the so-called "internal"/"subjective" components of the experience. So what we perceive as objects or entities at the moment the experience takes place are temporary arrangements of physical factors, assembled into a coherent experience by temporary arrangements of mental (experiential) factors - which themselves are temporary arrangements of factors! Actually, physical factors and mental/informational factors are not two different types of factors, they are two sides of the same coin. We say, "form is emptiness and emptiness is form". Nothing solid to rely on at all! This situation is known as "Emptiness" (Shunya-ta).
Besides physical objects, let's not forget that our lives are full of entities of other kind: abstract concepts. Do you know how many times people killed each other because of disagreement about the concepts? And yet, very few seem to realize the obvious: that abstract concepts don't and can never have well-defined meaning. They are just labels that make sense in relation to other labels that we arbitrarily designate. So concepts, ideas are not solid either. They have different meaning depending on context and on who uses it and for what. These dependencies of the concepts serve the role equivalent to the role of causes and conditions that physical objects depend on. We say that both so-called physical objects as well as concepts are both "compound" or "conditioned" phenomena (sankharas) - they are aggregates of factors, with label (nama - name) stamped on top.
One of such entities is "I" - we assume there is something stable, but there is no such thing - only factors, only trajectories, only forces interacting. There is no "internal" vs "external" world (that this separation is a mind-made fiction is proven by the fact that your "internal" is "external" for me). Objectively, there is no "internal" vs "external" - only an infinite field of interacting factors.
Unfortunately most people assume all types of entities (objects, groups, concepts, "I", etc.) to have solid identity that can be relied on (traditional term for this is "existence-by-itself" - svabhava). Not just assume, they insist that their delineation/interpretation of entities is the reality. This is what the sutra calls attaching to external & internal objects" and "attaching to names (concepts, labels, identities)".

Abbidamma use 'Vidyamana' instead of 'svabhava' in Theravada.

Thank you! I am grateful for your long but insightful answer. I am starting to understand what the Buddha meant when he taught that objects don't really exist, or at least not as we think of them. The idea of self or "I" is responsible for subject-object duality as you said, since it divides experiences into "mine, me, I" and "other, this, that." which is the experiencer and that being experienced. But I think you touched upon it well when you said that this is only an illusion produced by mind, and that really all things are interconnected. Object arises from subject, and vice versa.


text:
11th Soul - last lessons
My niece has very wrinkled palms and a Buddhist man all dressed in orange took her little 6 year old hand and told her it was a very special thing to have. He told her that her palms showed she was carrying her 11th soul and lessons of life had been learnt and she would be wise as she grew older and have an inner peace.
I have been trying to find some more information about this,  has anyone else hear of this before?

he was trying to sow good seeds :) If you water them well they will grow into wisdom and inner peace, as predicted.

Agreed.  I get a little annoyed when people think that Buddhism is this monolithic, vacuumed sealed entity and that all monks must therefore be perfect representations of it.  The monk was probably recounting something from his culture...a little folksy nicety that people share from time to time.  It would be no different than an American monk saying "that one's got big calves!  He's going to be a great leader!" (That is a thing, ps.  Hah!)    He was very obviously trying sow some good seeds.with the child - nothing more.

It doesn't sound anything like Buddhism. A Buddhist monk violates a Vinaya rule, if he touches a girl or woman, regardless of age or relationship, but Buddhist monks aren't the only ones who wear yellow clothing.
Anyways, it sounds like he was simply trying to say something magical to make the child feel fascinated. Most of us like to hear someone saying something special about us to feel good, depending on a body feature or some other external factor. Instead, we should examine our mind states to see if we really have the wholesome qualities praised by the wise.

It also doesn't sound anything like Buddhism because of the "11th soul" (LOL to self).

If the man was indeed a Buddhist monk, then he is one of negligible virtue and likely of little merits. Esoteric utterance from such individuals should be noted for what it is.
A wise meritorious monk with good virtues and a cultivated mind would not abase himself to palmistry regardless of cause. In fact unless an answer is relevant and beneficial to your development - he might not even provide you with a response to some of the questions you direct towards him.
DN11

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such lowly arts as:
reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry];
  reading omens and signs;
  interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams;
  reading marks on the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice;
  offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil;
  offering oblations from the mouth;
  offering blood-sacrifices;
  making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy;
  laying demons in a cemetery;
  placing spells on spirits;
  reciting house-protection charms;
  snake charming, poison-lore, scorpion-lore, rat-lore, bird-lore, crow-lore;
  fortune-telling based on visions;
  giving protective charms;
  interpreting the calls of birds and animals —
he abstains from wrong livelihood, from lowly arts such as these.
"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such lowly arts as:
  determining lucky and unlucky gems, garments, staffs, swords, spears,
  arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, boys, girls, male slaves,
  female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
  fowl, quails, lizards, long-eared rodents, tortoises, and other
  animals — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from lowly arts such as
  these.


text:
Can Buddha Damma be reduced to Paticca Samuppada?
Can the teaching be reduced to Paticca Samuppada? Has lord Buddha preached so in any Sutta? During vipassana meditation, the practitioner focuses on impermanence, dissatisfaction and non-self. After this, when getting Arhantship, is it Paticca Samuppada that is understood by the disciple?

The Buddha's Dharma is beautiful in the beginning, beautiful in the middle, and beautiful in the end. Absent need for addition or reduction. It would be overly simplistic to reduce the entire teaching to one doctrinal aspect - even if it were dependent origination.
Having said that - one who sees dependent origination, sees the Dharma. One who sees the Dharma sees dependent origination. Without realizing the knowledge behind paticcasamuppada, it would not be possible progress to sainthood. For even Sotapannas need to see the Dharma in order to eradicate the first three fetters.
Rather than postulating what it is that an arahant realizes at the point of fruition that successfully eradicates the asavas, focus more on the cultivation of morality and concentration. This will arm you with the tools you need to investigate phenomenons for yourself. As your paramitas mature, you will realize these truths progressively.

Thank you for the answer, I find the answer really enlightening.

Can the teaching be reduced to Paticca Samuppada? Has lord Buddha preached so in any Sutta?
Sariputra said (MN 28):

Now, the Blessed One has said, whoever sees paticcasamuppada sees the Dhamma; whoever sees the Dhamma sees paticcasamuppada.

Unfortunately, Sariputra's quote is the only place this phrase occurs in the entire Canon, so we can't see its meaning from the context Buddha has said it in - as we can and should with most canonical phrases.
In another place (MN 22) Buddha said:

Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.

-- although this was said in context of polemics with "some brahmanas and shramanas" who misunderstood nirvana as "annihilation, destruction, extermination of the existing being".
In Uposatha Sutta (KN Ud 5.5) Buddha said:

Just as the great ocean has one taste, the taste of salt, so also this Dhamma-Vinaya has one taste, the taste of liberation.

When getting Arhantship, is it Paticca Samuppada that is understood by the disciple?
From many, many places in other texts and commentaries, it is apparent that the gist of Dharma are the four noble truths and the three marks of existence. In my own words, liberation (cessation/prevention of dukkha) is attained on the basis of seeing things as they are (second noble truth / idampratyayata, three marks of existence, pratityasamutpada) which plays the role of causing disenchantment which plays the role of preventing the arising of thirst.
This said, I agree with Amanasa - I think that trying to boil down Buddha-Dharma to a single concept is dangerous and outright wrong. Instead, from my personal experience implementing it in practice, it feels more like falling out from all concepts and being able to juggle them as needed. It feels like having no home in any position or philosophy, no ground under your feet. Amanasa is right in advising to focus on cultivation of morality -- and in Mahayana cultivation of morality goes hand in hand with deconstructing the ego:
At the beginning, this process is very coarse. There is a huge obvious difference between egoistic and altruistic behavior. As you proceed forward however, you start noticing more and more ambiguous situations. What looked like an altruistic act on the surface, quite often turns out to be a hidden move for preservation of one's self-image.
At this early stage we must stop trusting our own thoughts, and get in the habit of critically examining our motives. This change in attitude to self marks the turning point when consumer turns into practitioner.
At this next level, ego often manifests as "spiritual materialism" -- a subconscious tendency to accumulate goodness as food for one's ego, to get a kick out of being "perfect" -- a secretly perverted spirituality driven by a hidden motive of self-aggrandizement. One may easily get as far as acting egoless as a way of feeding one's ego! Now our game must get a lot more subtle. Practitioner has to learn to be a hunter, quietly stalking its pray -- the ego playing its tricks.
When you're doing this right, you will eventually find yourself intentionally acting "bad", as an antidote for spiritual materialism. (It is a lot subtler than regular uncontrolled misbehavior though, and its motive is very different.) And guess what, as you go further, you may realize that this too could be an ego's trick, at which point you double up and get back to being good, now with 8 times less ego flavor than originally!
At some point, when the process of doubling up your mindfulness upon itself gets to its 16th or 32nd degree (or 64th, or 128th etc. depending on a person), the game becomes too subtle to maintain. The whole thing explodes, destroying any sense of division into "observer" and "observed".
This is what I would recommend to focus your practice on, stalking and starving the ego. Once ego gets thin enough, realization of theoretical concepts (like  pratityasamutpada) comes easy.

As shown in visuddimagga there are 18 insights to develop.
They are develop in The 7 Stages of Purification and The Insight Knowledge.

Perhaps the image of text could somehow be converted to actual text, to facilitate searching, quoting, etc?


text:
Should a person never lie?
If someone would hide from the Nazis and then the Nazis came and asked me if I'm hiding a Jew - should I say "yes" or "no"?
When is it ok to lie?

to save life!!!

Related question: "How is white lie damaging?"

In Good Question Good Answer, in the chapter about the five precepts,  Ven. S. Dhammika wrote,

QUESTION: If you were sitting in a park and a terrified man ran past you and then a few minutes later another man carrying a knife ran up to you and asked you if you had seen which way the first man had gone, would you tell him the truth or would you lie to him?
ANSWER: If I had good reason to suspect that the second man was going to do serious harm to the first I would, as an intelligent caring Buddhist, have no hesitation in lying. We said before that one of the factors determining whether a deed is good or bad is intention. The intention to save a life is many times more positive than telling a lie is negative in circumstances such as these. If lying, drinking, or even stealing meant that I saved a life I should do it. I can always make amends for breaking these, but I can never bring a life back once it is gone. However, as I said before, please do not take this as a license to break the Precepts whenever it is convenient. The Precepts should be practiced with great care and only infringed in extreme cases.

A Mahayana-style answer, by a Theravada bhikkhu! As I said before, there are both levels in both schools

" ...but I can never bring a life back once it is gone. " so true.  It is considerably easier to fix all the other "errors"

@ChrisW - I find the answer intriguing since the assumption is the first person hasn't committed any harm to the second e.g. what if the first man had killed the mother of the second man, etc. Without context and background, how do you make a call?

@Motivated I'd be more inclined to answer a question from a policeman than from another man with a knife.

If serious with the practice, if having real faith in the Buddha, or even insight, YES: never ever lie and become more innovative in complicated seeming cases. There is no reason to ly. If starting reasoning all precepts have no use at all, but actually to simply cut of the danger of reasoning (opposition of the defilements) is the Sīlas purpose.
In regard of this merely polemic question, Breath had posted, here some general and specific answers to help those still having the need of reasoning in regard of strict precepts for a strict aim: release.

from a letter of Ven. Thanissaro in response of the undermining undertaking by Bhikkhu Bodhi in regard of justifying the break of precepts for "higher" seeming purposes:
5) The Buddha never said that the intention underlying the precepts was something as vague as “reducing harm and suffering” or “the preservation of life.” Those principles can be used to justify all sorts of evil. The only general principle he expressed for ideal actions is one that he expressed both negatively—that such actions not afflict oneself or afflict others (see Majjhima 61)—and positively: that they benefit oneself and benefit others (Anguttara 4:99). As this latter sutta makes clear, you benefit yourself by abiding by the precepts. You benefit others by encouraging them to abide by the precepts. When you try to get others to believe that there are times when it’s morally laudable to kill (equal in regard of the other 4 precepts), you’re working for their affliction.

Essays explaining the function of Sīlas:
Virtue without Attachment
Justice vs. Skillfulness
Monks and lay teacher, seeking favor under their target followers and for a broad audience, jet still worldling, not full faith in the Three Gems come constantly up with ways to pull the Dhamma into their own tendency rather to let Dhamma form one fit for liberation.
Note that doubt into the absoluteness of the simple precepts is a clear sign for not having gained path or fruit on the Noble Eightfold Path.
The only way to really find out the impact of practicing the precepts like they are, simple, is to put it by one self into action, based on convidence at first place.

In Mahayana, the Lotus Sutra in specific, the issue of truth telling is complicated by Upaya. So in the case of teaching the Dharma, a Buddha himself might lie for if move the student forward towards enlightenment, or was a suitable thing to do for other unfathomable reasons as long as the end point was okay.
Anyhow, I find the five precepts sort of un-Buddhist--
1-- no killing- A more Buddhist precept would be cause no suffering.
2,3-- no lying, no stealing- These have to do with not upsetting the basic order of things, i.e. don't break the law and get the Sangha into trouble with the local government.
4- no sex. This is an organization thing, the Sangha wasn't set up for taking care of kids.
5- no alcohol. This is trying to solve an ancient and modern social illness by decree. It provides a foundation for throwing misbehavers out of the sangha, but
As such, I don't look to it for guidance on ethics.
You have to read the ancient and modern texts, get a feel for what the ancient monks were driving at and on those grounds, I think a better criteria is what choices create and lead to suffering and which don't.
Letting Nazis, mass murders, spree shooters, rabid dogs, the neighboring country hellbent on genocide kill creates suffering. Killing the aggressors to put an end to the suffering is okay and so is lying to them to thwart their goals.
If I had some time I'd say something about consequentialism and utilitarianism, (the principle that what matters is the outcomes and the greatest good for the greatest number), which to me appear to be similar to Buddhist ethics, but I'm out of time.


text:
Is there some technique to surpass noises when meditating?
I'm having a lot of troubles with noises. I try to close my ears with cotton, but it does not works great.
Is a little bit difficult to me try to meditate rounded by noises (here, where a live, people seems to be sensible to noise, and worst, they like to put their automotive stereo system at high decibels despite the fact that it is forbidden by law (here the State does not get to apply its own laws), its like some kind "meat show").
So, is there some technique to surpass noises when meditating?

What type of meditation do you do? They way you are supposed to react [to noise, and so forth] depends on it.

Some years ago I was trying, I'm not sure, "nispanda bhava". But, some week ago,  I come back to try meditation, and now I'm trying to practice  this.

I am not familiar with it. Is it actually Buddhist? It seems related to yoga and practiced by yogis and babas. Still, to come back to my first question: what do you emphasize among the three factors that are: mindfulness, concentration, and alertness/introspection?

When I was a boy and occasionally had to spend days at my grandma's I remember having sit on the floor, may be looking into a child's book with fantastic frogs and trees and elfes and mushrooms around a spot of water, sometimes I simply sat there without looking and in the silence between the steady ticks of the wooden clock I "got lost". When then the sound of the tram or a bus or a truck came into my ears, they they did not "protest" - it just came in and it become the same type of noise which one can have, when one sits silent at the beach and hears the ocean. Sometimes I resort to that ...

... mental mood: just letting in the sound and letting make itself familiar with me. However, that's not completely true. The omnipresence of the noise here in my town kills that mental ability. It needs a special moment to concentrate on this, and because I cannot make it a continuous mood for over the whole day it is not a real recipe, only a hint. It is still possible for me outside of the town, when noises are not permanent. I remember a film about the annexion of Tibet, where there was a statement: they (the conquerors) kill the silence and this is the most effective weapon.

Good earplugs are a simple fix and can make you acutely more aware of your body.  When your awareness of your breath and your body is strong and regular then you will not need the earplugs.

@TenzinDorje , the "nispada bhava" is surely an Yoga practice, concerning [this] (http://www.dragonsofjustice.org/regular/removeBarriers.html), I don't really know, I just found it after watch a Buddhist priest talking about "Pingala, Ida and Sunshumna", and then  I searched on Google.
I'm searching a way to get energy, internal peace  and annihilate bad thinkings, no matter what way: Buddhism or Yoga meditation, Catholic or Islamic prayer, etc.. But, I feel that Buddhism and Yoga may be the better way to get some spiritual progression individually.
(continue...)

(...continuation) I don't know surely what to emphasize among mindfulness, concentration, and alertness/introspection - just know I have a lot of introspection, and I need both mindfulness and concentration.

You should watch this Youtube video, in which Ajahn Brahm speaks about his experiences with mosquitoes in Thailand, when he first became a monk. As a monk, he is not allowed to kill them and his teacher also did not allow them to use mosquito repellants or coils.
Instead, his teacher Ajahn Chah, told his students to see the mosquito as their teacher. From then on, they became Ajahn Mosquito (Ajahn means Teacher in Thai). He explains that when he went deeper into his meditation, he became unaware of the mosquitoes. If his mind wandered, the pain from the mosquito bites would draw him to that fact, and he would go back to his concentration. Later on, the mosquitoes left him, possibly because his metabolic rate dropped and he produced less carbon dioxide that attracted mosquitoes.
Similarly, I suggest that noises can also be considered a training medium.

Noises are going to be a problem if you are just starting out.  This is especially so if they are the abrupt, jarring type of sounds that you seem to be contending with.  I would highly recommend that you do your best to find a quiet place to sit at first - even if this means leaving your home and sitting somewhere else.  You might be surprised to find that many of the more liberal Christian denominations and the Unitarians might offer you some space in their respective sanctuaries to practice.  The same goes for campus chapels.  My own sangha has used everything from a classroom in a Methodist Sunday school to a yoga studio!
If you must sit in a noisy area, my best advice is to treat sound just as you would any other distraction or phenomenon you might encounter on the cushion.  This is going to vary depending on your tradition, but coming from the samatha school that I practice, I'd advise you to double down on your meditation object.  If you are following the breath, continue to watch the whole body of your breathing as closely as you can.  Be with it for its entire duration.  Watch the blankness in the space between your exhalation and inhalation.  Sound is a difficult obstacle to work with, but like pain, agitation, sensual desire, or really any of the five hindrances, it won't be able to gain a foothold in a mind that is closely applied to its object.
Also, for the love of Pete, don't spend your time on your cushion fantasizing about how much better your meditation would be if only it were quieter!  That'll kill your concentration faster than the sound of a truck driving through a nitroglycerin plant!

This sounds like perfect opportunity to practice insight meditation! If you watch your mind when these noises happen, you can notice how you become unhappy due to the mismatch between "is" and "should" (aka "this" and "that"). If you examine this mismatch very carefully as it happens in your own mind, and learn to let go of the "that" - you will realize the meaning of the Third Noble Truth.
Another technique as per Thrangu Rinpoche is to imagine even worse sounds (shrieking screams etc.) and reflect on how much nicer the present sounds are, in comparison.

Shamata meditation would be beneficial as it improves continuous focus and awareness of the mind state. I did read about advanced stages of Shamata practice which would produce a kind of trance, but it would require a lot of meditation within reclusive retreats.
But I think at the beginning it is mostly impossible to meditate with the kind of sounds you describe. There are sounds with more abstract nature like of wind, birds, people walking or whispering and even machines, cars, trucks and horns. Its possible to to not get disturbed by these sounds and keep the meditation going. Now if there is loud harsh music or people is chatting close to you it is very likely these sounds will inevitably pull your attention to them, and out of the practice.
Of course this division is arbitrary. People can get annoyed with birds singing, others aren't bothered by the neighbor's late night party.
My advice is that the best way to surpass these intrusive noises is going to a quiet place. I think that in the beginning you need some silence to learn and progress. And with practice you can train to be mindful even in noisy situations. There is no need to make it difficult right at the beginning.

My recommendation maybe it's not the more orthodox, but the best way to ignore noises, if your meditation skills do not allow you to ignore them yet, is to hide them with another noise less annoying and easier to ignore. These kind of noises are called "White Noises", and you can find a lot of resources online:
(Wind, waves, rivers, rain, fire, etc..)
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=white+noise

I'm with the 'Old School' on this one.. if noises are a problem while you meditate, then you should surround yourself with noises.. perhaps gradually, perhaps abruptly..  thus your practice will become rapidly better, even though it may seem at the time that it is very difficult.
If it is not noises, then it will be something else. The idea of meditation is not to get into some kind of state, but to practice, over and over again, in different conditions, the discipline of meditation and thus improve.
In that sense, any type of meditation has "The Goalless Goal"