text:
If someone insults you what should you do?
There is a famous story of such an encounter between the Buddha and a ‘difficult person’ named Akkosina. Akkosina’s name means “Not Getting Angry” but he was the exact opposite of his name. Akkosina was easily angered and was always angry about something or someone. When he heard that the Buddha did not get angry with anyone he immediately decided to visit him. He went up to the Buddha and scolded him for all sorts of things, insulting him and calling him awful names. At the end of this angry speech, the Buddha asked this man if he had any friends or relatives. “Yes.” Akokosina replied. “When you visit them, do you take them gifts?” the Buddha asked. “Of course, I always bring them gifts.” The angry man replied. “Then what happens if they don’t accept your gifts?” The Buddha asked. “Well I take them home and enjoy them with my own family” “And likewise,” said the Buddha, “You have brought me a gift here today that I do not accept, and so you may take that gift home to your family.”
source: Akkosa sutta (SN 7.2)
Is there more to learn from the story of the angry man? If someone insults you, it is hard to not be affected by it. So how to balance out your emotions and begin the day from a place of happiness, and how to respond in the same light?

Well actually your question has 2 different aspects,so does the Buddhism. They are 'laukika' and 'lokottara'.
The excellency of Buddhism always goes with its 'lokottara' content, where the path to nirwana. For a person who are in lokottara track, what to do when some one scolding is just to ignore. It is all about removing tanha from our mind. If we can't hold other's scolding that's just because we have tanha on our image/social aspect or any other.
But as most of us are just partially or not at all lakottara people, we may feel hard to do that. But at least we can behave thinking about the consequences what will be happened if we get into a counter argument/fight etc. So at least we should be able to understand that the best way to bear it is the silence and make that person convince, not to be get tempered.

I was thinking of writing an answer to my own question, but it never occurred to me that this can be seen in two different levels. Is the English meaning of the two words 'laukika' & 'lokottara', Mundane amd Supra-mundane?

@SapthaVisuddhi the English words you used have partially correct meaning, yet more Christianity oriented. But actually I don't know whether they are the standard words that are being used. In simple words, Laukika -> the more social aspects, we don't think much about nirwana, what we are trying to do is making our social life successful. Lokottara-> the more spiritual aspects, we are not going to measure any of our social success/recognition  etc. we are trying to understand that the most supreme bless in the world is 'nirwana', so we are trying to achieve it by removing tanha (the only path)

I am very good in my sinhala. English is my second language. I read and listen to Dhamma sermons of Kiribathgoda Gnanananda Thero and the Mahamevnawa monks. They are all in Sinhala. I only wish that someone someday will translate them into English. I understand Dhamma a lot better in sinhala.

@SapthaVisuddhi Is Sinhala your 1st language? Anyway yes. I'm also pretty much happy, but one problem is most English words (especially religious) have been created based on Christianity. We cannot use them directly for Buddhist content. Ex: Supra-mundane -> means much about heaven. But as Buddhist we are into nirwana, not heaven.

Yes, it is like re-birth & reincarnation. Time to go to bed. BTW I too am new to this site. Became active on May 22, my b'day (I am much older than you.)

Well, I am newer than you. :) However I am an active Buddhism researcher for some years. Well to go with Buddhism, the age is not a problem at all buddy. Anyway I would like to know your real name, if you like to share. :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

there's even more elevated aspect in the reaction to unpleasant and mean behavior of other people, that is to not just ignore it, but experience metta towards them despite their demeanor, namely to react in an opposite way as is customary for a worldling

Notice that when you are reacting to something you are always assuming a self. An ego. So this could be a reaction to anything from the outside, not just insults. For example, if someone praises me, I notice my feeling easier and happier. Some sort of pride rises within. It could be described as stroking the ego. Same way with negative emotions, that is, when something goes against the ego, it will react badly. I somehow find it inescapable. But I found that if I simply let go and not bother with that insult for that moment, after 5 minutes, I am fine. And after 2 hours if I remind myself of my ignoring reaction, I feel better.
In conclusion, it is mostly from the base of self, a mind concocted notion, that we act. Of course this applies to normal people. Enlightened people, I do not know.

If we could only see the error in our thinking about the ego and understand its harmful effects, we would let go of many of the problems that we face.

There are basically two ways to aproach everything. Two approaches to truth.
Someone could answer this question and
say, "If someone insults you then do X"
I will try to answer more like, "Do X, so that if someone insults you then you will know how to do what is appropriate".
Know that ultimately, you cant be insulted.
Know that conceptually you can be insulted.
As I stated above, know that there are two ways of approaching reality.
Learn the two approaches to right view.
Practice to learn loving kindness and acceptance.
Practice to learn Patience.
Practice to learn compassion.
Practice to learn the entire eightfold path.
Practice mindfulness.
If one is mindful then one is basically seeing one's own experiencial happenings as they happen, moment by moment.
Doing this, one see's beyond conceptual reality to what is fundamentally real.
This is seeing things as they are.
Seeing things as they are will gradually destroy the delusion that there is a fundamental soul somewhere inside. The less delusion the more virtue, wisdom and ability to make the most appropriate decisions.
So, the Buddha was able to do what was appropriate because of his previous works using both conceptual and ultimate approaches to problem solving.

Your reply reminds me of The Parable of the Second Arrow in which it is said that the second arrow is a choice and not a necessity.

In such situation there are different objects to note, e.g. "hearing, seeing, feeling or thinking".
Ultimately, all conditioned physical and mental phenomena are empty and ownerless. An insult can be a gift of Dhamma since it can show us our attachment to self and where we need to work.
One can use the above objects to cultivate insights into the 3 characteristics.
Following the Noble Eightfold Path and keeping Right View and Right Intention would be enough to start the day of a place of happiness.

When the Blessed One looked at Margandiya & her father and said “Brahmin, what have you seen in this body filled with urine and excrement.  So, what would I want with this.  I wouldn’t want to touch it even with my foot”.  This statement opened up the eyes of the parents to the truth.  Margandiya took offence on the insult to her body and tried to take revenge, and hence was reborn in hell.  Had she tried to find what the Buddha’s message was, she would have been free today.

Buddhists are supposed to be tolerate all things that are insensitive and even insulting of Buddhist sensibilities. @Supun in his answer has said to just ignore. It is true as insulting them back only transfers their problem to you. This person was probably having a bad day and took it out on you for some reason. If you reciprocate it can have negative consequences for both of you. Instead you can let it slide off you and not let their problem become yours. Also you can try to understand as to why would someone say something like that? Having a little empathy can make things a lot better for everyone.
Then again an insult can be a gift of Dhamma as @Lanka has said. Say if someone says to you, “You can’t do anything right! Why can’t you be like _ ?” This is comparing two people. People are different, with different ways of doing things, different strengths and weaknesses, different human characteristics. So from a comment like this everyone loses, as it is the opposite of celebrating our differences. At a time like this a good grasp of Dhamma helps, as the tendency to lash out, defame and belittle is an aspect of conceit.
Take for example the practice of spreading of loving-kindness properly – loving-kindness is a practical thing. If we can live without humiliating others when they disgrace us and if we can live without insulting others when they insult us, then that is true loving-kindness.

First off, you have to realize selflessness.
Selflessness is the entry-way to great understanding, and it is what sets us free from birth in the lower realms.
Consider that your name or your label, whatever you could connect as an "identity" no longer points to You.  Then, one can be patient.
There is a lot of depth to the story: the good qualities of patience are amazing.  The essential truth, as I have learned from writings by Tai Situ Rinpoche, are that circumstances arise based on karmic fruition and so being able to be patient makes what would otherwise be a recurring fruition into and empty husk.  It's almost like a bee that would be stinging you forever says "hey, if I sting you just this once, the causes for me to sting you again cannot arise if you maintain your patience with the situation"
However, patience is not simply waiting or stewing.  It is an openness, an acceptance that is dynamic.  Something that lets many aspects breathe.  All is transitioning and when we command identity, we are freezing flowing water.
Thus, depersonalize who is being attacked when you feel attacked.
Then, know that the situation itself is transformation.  The acceptance of what is as a clear recurrence-representation of reality is what lets the future fruitioning agent expire into an empty husk.
Rejoice, for patience is what lets us see that we learn patience with ourselves when we can admire the expression of nature through other peoples' experience.
There is sometimes scrubbing that must happen in order to clear up stains, in general consider such situations as valuable and see them as enlightened.  Then, you can reap the benefits of having being patient fully.
Adjust your intentions (for the limitless benefit of the innumerable sentient beings in the six realms) and take plenty of time to reach stability in meditative practice.
True natural balance comes from true natural harmony.  When we see life as teaching, impermanence as teacher, transition as change, we can finally begin to relax into the space that accommodates all life's situations.
From the expanse of creativity and openness, one can resign the normal atmosphere of control and extension, and be attuned with what is simply manifesting.

A good answer.. @sova... the quality of patience is for learning how to stick with something even through frustration, even through difficulty. One can never loose if one cultivates this one quality.

Excellent question!
There are a few ways to detach yourself from someone insulting you that I tend to use.
The first would be practicing something along the lines of ignorance is bliss in which you simply ignore - like water off a ducks back as they say.
Your best friends are using your peripheral vision and assessing inside you are not emotionally affected by the remarks.

Your peripherals are helpful by you looking 'through' them if they are demanding your attention by standing front on. This can be practiced by directly looking at one thing (in this case the person) and paying attention to everything but them - look for colours and things you appreciate.
This encourages selective association which means you chose what you are paying attention to.
Assessing inside means you becoming comfortable with the fact that you are learning, you are growing and your actions and responses will continue to cultivate how you treat others in the future. Acknowledging strengths and short comings is an important step to not being affected by the opinions of others.
Insults tend to be directed at things we are already self-conscious of, so when someone takes a stab at you it would feel twice as bad because you are already thinking the same thing and possibly ashamed it is being all laid bare.

The second method that I have made use of is simply not associating with individuals who are a negative impact on the environment - which in some cases is not easily done.
People sometimes are not aware they are bullying others and if they are; they themselves are copying behaviour they have been subject to.
If they don't know their actions are horrible, notifying them is an important lesson for you and for them.
If they know what they are doing and chose to continue to do so, they are limiting themselves, which is very sad. That energy they spend on hurting others will shape their personality in the future, maybe even stick and no one likes a bully.
Cultivate in harmony

A very good answer @Beau. D.  I see that you have the necessary aptitude to see the pristinely pure Dhamma that only a few have grasped in the present day. You and I living at a time that the True Dhamma that was hidden for over 1800 years has come to light. Do not be satisfied this this answer, Then one day you will come across the true wisdom of the Buddha that is four fold. The 4 terms sandessehi, sammadapeti, sammuccedeti and sampahanseti are it. With this knowledge you will cultivate a state of mental lightness and quietude that you will be truly forgiving of that other person.

Thank you Saptha Visuddhi! Your answer is incredibly insightful too, especially when explaining compassion is necessary for cultivating past something as small as a passing comment.
It had come to my attention a contributing influence on suffering is the integrity of an individual's perception, so the best education for perception is advice for those who are looking for it.
Every answer is an assistance; a perspective on how to breach a bottleneck in someone's cultivation. Even if one answer may not match one individual, it may fit another asking the same question.
Keep doing you brother.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Being called Buddhist
I always wondered why do people that practice Buddhist practices, label or opt not to label themselves "Buddhist".

Possible duplicate of Should one call oneself a Buddhist?

Uilium, do you think the questions are duplicate (i.e. do the answers to that question answer your question)? Or are they slightly different (e.g. that one is asking whether they should, and this one is asking why they do)? If you don't think they're duplicate, is this one a "polling" question of the sort that's usually off-topic (e.g. are you asking everyone to explain why they do or don't label themselves)?

@ChrisW Ok, I think I should reword it. Maybe put it on hold  until I can get to it later.

All labels are conventions & attachment to mental states of non-becoming can make the mind uncomfortable with conventions.
Also, the term 'Buddhist' is a stereotype, loaded with all kinds of worldly connotations, such as believing in the Dalai Lama, reincarnation, statues, etc.
Those people might be more comfortable if asked: "Do you practise the teachings (path) of the Buddha?".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
New to Buddhism
I am attracted to Buddhist principles and would like to learn more. It seems there may be a prescribed path or course that is preferred, but I don't know what that is. What is a good place to begin?  For instance, is there a "primer" book that should be read or should i visit a Temple, etc.

Welcome to the site! Would you like to add to your question: what are the Buddhist principles that you're attracted to, what (what text or what school of Buddhism) have you you read or heard or seen already? There may be quite a wide/varied set of answers to this question: I expect there are quite a few "primer" books (and temples).

Follow Below Basic Guidelines of Buddhism as a Start..

Do not take life
Do not take what is not given
Do not distort facts
Refrain from misuse of the senses
Refrain from self-intoxication through alcohol or drugs

Welcome to the site.
"What is a good place to begin?"
That's a good question and a broad one. Perhaps I should start by saying that there are different schools of Buddhism (e.g. older and newer), perhaps as much variation in Buddhism as there is in Christianity.

One place to begin could be with a popular book by a modern author: for example something written by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, or maybe by Thích Nhất Hạnh. I think you're likely to read, in such a book, that what's important is to be kind, etc.
Also all the books listed in Best Buddhist Books for Beginners: My Top 8 Picks are by modern authors (I haven't read all those books, but I have heard of or read other things by those authors).

Or you might like to read an account of the life of "the Buddha". Like the Christian Gospels (allegedly) include words spoken by Jesus, a biography of the Buddha includes (some of) the doctrine taught by the Buddha.
FYI when I was in a hotel in Singapore, they had in the night side-table: a Gideon's Bible; an English copy of the Koran; and a copy of a biography of the Buddha.
I think there isn't necessarily a single most-canonical biography, instead there are many. They're based on the same (not English) texts but translated differently, arranged differently, with different fragments selected. I don't remember which (edition/publisher/author) was the first biography I read.
A book that people on this site have recommended is In the Buddha’s Words by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Another possibility might be the Dhammapada, for example Wikipedia says that it is, "one of the most widely read and best known Buddhist scriptures".
Actually I'm not sure that it's understandable if you know nothing else about Buddhism, but if you do know maybe something of Buddhism you might find it a great summary? Its contents are considered to be canonical, i.e. among "the words of the Buddha".

The Pāli Canon is maybe the best record we have of the early/earliest Buddhist scriptures.
The Pali canon includes the Suttas which I think of as '(biographical/doctrinal) stories'. I expect the Suttas are the most important part of the Canon for a beginner, even then there are a lot of suttas. Fortunately there's some repetition.
It's probably worth saying that there's one sutta which has the reputation of being the first thing which the Buddha taught after his enlightenment: you should probably read that:

Wikipedia article
An English translation

I recommend you read the answers to this question: Chronological or other sequence for beginners

The "Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta" (referenced above) introduced items of doctrine named "Four Noble Truths" and "Noble Eightfold Way".
These are possibly (or arguably) the first (or the most central) tenets of early Buddhism, but there are others, for example:

"Three marks of existence"
"Four Brahmavihāras (a.k.a. Four Immeasurables)"
etc.

Google, Wikipedia, and Access to Insight are all good places to search for further details on any topic.
I recommend this collection of Dhamma Lists:

See what lists there are, to get an overview of what's seen as important
See what lists there are, to investigate each one further
These lists include the Pali words (a problem is that Pali words have several translations into English, so a search for "Three marks of existence" might not find articles which talk about the "three characteristics" or "three dharma seals" which are synonyms ... so it's sometime useful to know and search for the Pali word)

As a beginner or lay person, if there's one thing you should know/study it would perhaps be "the five precepts".
The "eightfold way" is sometimes categorized as a "threefold training" of which the first is virtue/morality. People say that morality is the first in the sense that it's a prerequisite for other training, e.g. that you can't practice mindfulness and wisdom without virtue.
See for example this description of Virtue or sila, e.g. where the first reward of virtue is described as "Freedom from remorse".
Alternatively see this article, Dhamma, which is introduced as,

An outline of the Buddha's teachings, organized according to his method of "gradual instruction" (anupubbi-katha). The Buddha frequently used this framework to guide his students from first principles through progressively more advanced teachings, all the way to the fulfillment of the Four Noble Truths and the realization of Nibbana.

According to this article the first training is Generosity (dana).
This too has a short biography of the Buddha that you could read before you read about the Dhamma.

If you want to read (investigate or study) any Pali word or any Pali sutta in more detail, you might find this answer helpful: English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon

So far I've mostly mentioned the Pali suttas which are associated with Theravada.
There are though several schools of Buddhism, perhaps for historical and geographical reasons.
Here is a map:

Plus there's so-called modern Buddhism.
The different schools appear to have some doctrinal differences but much in common; see for example, What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?
I don't want to be sectarian but I can't from my own experience recommend any Mahayana, Zen, or Vajrayana texts for beginners?
For example I read various Zen anthologies when I was young, and although they were appealing I couldn't really grasp/hold them, somehow?
Maybe it's just me but some of the (Zen and/or Tibetan) texts make more sense, are more understandable, to me now that I have an inkling of what's taught in the earliest/original suttas.

A high quality answer. The geographical overview of the different schools is very useful.

Now I feel new to Buddhism :)

Hi @ChrisW, You provided a collection of Dhamma list in your answer. I couldn't find the four thoughts that turn the mind to the Dharma in that list. Are they only discussed in Mahayana?

I would recommend you to listen to sermons and learn from a teacher rather than trying to learn from books. Because one can easily misinterpret what's in the texts. Try starting with this video wiki page. Also go through these Dhammapada videos. And here's a booklet on meditation.

To tell you @#ATLBarb63, this path depends 100% on the association with ‘Kalyana Mittas’ (people of integrity in the Dahmma Path). But it is very difficult for most of us to meet in person such Kalyana-Mitta (‘Noble or good Friends’).  So you are very fortunate to have found this site - Buddhism Stack Exchange. In this site you have the good fortune of finding the first of the four factors that the Buddha once told us, in SN 55:5.
There are English translations of many of the suttas online, but I haven't found an English translation of SN 55:5, so here's my English translation of it from this French translation:

One day, the Venerable Sariputta came to see The Blessed One, gave him homage and sat to one side. Once he was seated, the Blessed one said to him,

Sariputta, people say, "the factors of Stream Entry, the factors of Stream Entry". So what are, Sariputta, the factors of Stream Entry?

The association with men of worth/virtue, venerable one, is a factor of Stream Entry; listening to the teaching / the authentic Dhamma is a factor of Stream Entry; wise considerations are a factor of Stream Entry; practicing the teaching (at the level of phenomena | in all its parts / in its totality | in accordance with the Dhamma) is a factor of Stream Entry.

Excellent, Sariputta, excellent. Friendship with virtuous people is a factor of Stream Entry; listening to the authentic Dhamma is a factor of Stream Entry; wise reflection is a factor of Stream Entry; and practicing the teaching is a factor of Stream Entry.

Sariputta, one hears being said, "The current. The current." So what, Sariputta, is the current?

It is the Noble Eightfold Way, venerable one, which is to say: correct view, correct aspiration, correct speech, correct action, correct means of subsistence (a.k.a. livelihood), correct effort, correct presence of mind (a.k.a. presence of spirit, or correct mindfulness), and correct concentration.

Excellent, Sariputta, excellent. It is this Noble Eightfold Way, which is to say: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

Sariputta, one hears people say: "A stream-enterer. A stream-enterer." What then, Sariputta, is someone who has entered into the stream?

Whoever, venerable one, is gifted with this Noble Eightfold Way, is called someone who is entered into the stream, such a venerable carrying such-and-such a name, issued from such-and-such a family.

Excellent, Sariputta, excellent. Whoever is gifted with this Noble Eightfold Way is called someone who is entered into the stream, such a venerable carrying such-and-such a name, issued from such-and-such a family.

Those four factors that he mentioned was Association with people of integrity, Listening to the true Dhamma, Appropriate attention to what is heard or read, and Practice in accordance with the Dhamma.
If I am to elaborate on the second factor, the true Dhamma is found in the Sutta Pitaka (the Scriptures).  Another such name the Buddha used to describe the Sutta Pitaka is the “the Order of the Buddha with Nine Distinct Parts (Navānga Sāstru Sāsana).” That is because it contains discourses that can be categorized into nine parts. Each Buddhist needs to have the knowledge of these nine parts. Once you obtain the knowledge about these nine parts, you can do many things in meditation and in this path.
The third factor is appropriate attention to what is heard or read. Here my advice to you is, no matter how much you learn of the dhamma, how deep you go into it over the years to come, to always have the mind-set of a learner. You always think that ‘you do not know’. Then you will not be in the position of “I know”. When you think that way the idea “I know” will wear off, no matter how far you go in this path. Then association with sincere friends will become delightful for you. You will not be able to be without sincere friends. You will get the opportunity to listen to Dhamma. Yonisomanasikara (thinking wisely as mentioned in Dhamma) will arise in you. Then slowly but surely you will develop the Noble Eight Fold path. This happens solely due to association with sincere friends. So do not be in a hurry.

I haven't found an English translation of SN 55:5 online. Do you know of one? Or if you don't, would you like me to insert my own translation of it (from the French) into your answer?

Yes, ChrisW please do. I am very busy today & will not get a chance till tomorrow. I wrote this in a hurry, so please do correct any errors too.

Into the Stream - A Study Guide on the First Stage of Awakening
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html
Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry.
Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry.
Appropriate attention is a factor for stream-entry.
Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry.
— SN 55.5

I added some links to Wikipedia too (for "Steam Entry" and for "Noble Eightfold Path"). Would you prefer these were links to Access to Insight?

Your reference is better. Thanks a lot @ChrisW

Buddhist practice can be divided into theory/study (in Pali, the language of the original texts: pariyatti) and practice (patipati). You learn the teachings and then try to follow it.
Teaching of the Buddha (= dhamma)
First you should know who Buddha was, who he claimed to be and what he taught. Buddha is not a name, it means awakened. So reading about the historical person Sidarta Gautama would be a good start.
There are more than 10,000 discourses (suttas). It's not recommended to read as many teachings as you can, but to get familiar with the core teaching, the Four Noble Truths. All teachings are within this teaching. I recommend to listen to this talk from Ajahn Sumedho. It's a really good and profound talk about Buddhism and the teaching.
The Four Noble Truths

dukkha (= suffering, illness, death, stress, sorrow, lamentation, being unsatisfied ...) exists
The cause of dukkha is taṇhā (means thirst for sensual pleasure, attachement to self and aversion)
There is the cessation of dukkha (nibbana, means not burning anymore, enlightement, awakening)
There is a path leading to the cessation of dukkha, the Noble Eightfold Path (Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration)

Practice
Knowing the Four Noble Truths, if anyone should be interested in the cessation of suffering, he/she should practice the Noble Eightfold Path (and test if it works).
Buddhist practice has 3 aspects:
sīla (morality)
Whether you are familiar with Buddhism or not, you should try to keep the 5 precepts.
samādhi (calmness of mind, 'concentration') & paññā (wisdom)
Concentration & Wisdom come from meditation and practice of mindfulness. See answer from Sankha.

Thank you!  I have much to learn and all of these comments are offering great suggestions to start.

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


text:
Individuality vs rebirth
One topic that confuses me is that of rebirth, and how individuality may relate to it.
I've heard/read that the buddhist concept of rebirth is different than the popular concept of reincarnation, though I haven't found a clear explanation of the difference.
One metaphor that I've seem more than once is that of the flame in a candle, that can be transmitted to another candle, the idea being that of a certain continuity.
However, I think that poses a challenge to the idea of individuality. For instance, a flame may be transmitted to another candle, and still exist simultaneously in the first candle. The equivalent in terms of human life would be some content of the mind of Joe being somehow transmitted to another person (or multiple individuals) while still existing in the mind of Joe (that is, during his lifetime).
Also, a flame can be formed from 2 or more sources, for instance, we might use  match and a lighter to light a single candle. Conversely, one candle can transmit its flame to several other candles or objects. In terms of humans, that would be like the contents of the mind, or the karma, of Joe, being transmitted to Peter, Mary and Jeff after Joe's death. In that case, if Joe's karma is a mix of good/bad actions, presumably some of his "heirs" could get a good or bad portion of the karma by sheer luck. Also, we might imagine that the karma, or the contents of the minds of three different people, Peter, Mary and Jeff, combine after their deaths and then "land" on a newborn baby, Joe. In that case, If, say, Jeff was a really bad person, but Mary and Peter were really good, then Joe might receive a good "inheritance", and, in that sense, Jeff's bad karma would have been "diluted" by those of Mary and Peter.
What I'm getting at here is that, the way the candle metaphor is presented, it seems to be incompatible with the idea of individuality.
On the other hand, if we think that the karma of Joe will be transferred to some individual being or entity or person after Joe's death, and that Joe's present conditions are affected by the karma of only a single being in the past (as opposed to being the amalgamation of 2 or more karmas), then in this case individuality is preserved. But in that case, how does the concept of rebirth differs or is incompatible with the popular concepts of reincarnation and soul?
If Joe's karma gets transmitted after his death to Jeff, and after Jeff's death his karma gets transmitted to Mary, etc, isn't that tantamount to the idea of a soul? I think some people might object and say that the soul is like a "thing" that has infinite existence, while in the buddhist view there's a constant change, and constant creation of karma. But, to use another metaphor, wouldn't that be like comparing a tree, from the seed stage to a full grown tree? We might say that the full tree is not really the sapling, and the sapling is not the seed it once was, and that is true in one sense, but in another sense, the tree is still the same "being" as the seed. One seed will not generate 2 or more trees, and 2 or more seeds will not combine to form a single tree. Regardless of the definition of "continuity" that we choose, there's clearly a sense of individuality.
Where does buddhism stand on that?

I think this topic is a duplicate of If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?

You are attempting to answer your own question disguised as "example" rather than using a clear, concise question format.

@Bonnie Topits. Not really. I used examples to clarify two different situations, explain why they are different and mutually exclusive in my understanding, and ask which of the two is the Buddhist view

The flame analogy is not logical to me since, to me, a flame must depend on the fuel & wick, similar to how the mind must depend on the physical body & food. Imo, a flame cannot be 'disembodied', just as a mind cannot be disembodied. For example, when sparks spread fire (say in a forest fire), the sparks of fire are attached to some physical matter, such as leaves.
Similarly, the Pali suttas appear to state in many places (such a MN 38, SN 22.53 & SN 12.67) that there can be no arising of consciousness without a physical body & sense organs.
I have only read about a dozen or so places in the Pali suttas from around 8,000 suttas that teach about literal reincarnation (eg. AN 3.15, MN 143, MN 50, MN 81, etc). Since these contradict the main teachings, particularly SN 22.79 (which is about 'past dwellings' rather than 'past lives' & states all recollections of the past are not a 'self'), the impression arises these literal reincarnation suttas are later additions rather than the words of the Buddha.
The Pali suttas appear to explain the word 'birth' ('jati') as the mental generation of the mental idea, view or 'assumption' of 'beings' ('satta') or 'self-identity' ('sakkaya'); that, apart from 'view' or 'conceptual thought', there are no 'beings' to be found. It seems each time the mind believes it is a 'self', that is another 'birth' or 'rebirth'.
The impression of Buddhism I have is, as Buddhism grew in India, the clergy, keen to expand Buddhism, introduced reincarnation teachings (which are very appealing to many people), the most prominent being the Jataka Tales about the Buddha's past lives & similar suttas in the Digha Nikaya.
On face value, my personal view is the core teachings of the Buddha do not include life-to-life physical rebirth.

The Five Aggregates of Attachment are the five ways in which people attach themselves to the world and to the Self. Basically, there are five factors in the human person, all of which are constantly changing, and which make up the illusion of the human Self.
What the Buddha is trying to say is that the sum of these five parts does not make up a greater whole called the Self; all that exists are the parts. The Buddha wanted to remove the notion of the Self because he believed that the idea of the Self is the root of all suffering. It is your desire for self-satisfaction, self-existence, and self-advancement that create pain. If you remove the Self (realise there never was such a thing) suffering will go away. Since there is no soul or You, then there is no reincarnation. Buddha instead taught Rebirth. Rebirth does not involve getting a new body for an old soul (as taught in Hinduism). Instead, it is the continuation of the Five Aggregates in a long chain of cause and effect. Buddha taught that prior “sensations”, “perceptions”, and “mental formations” determine the “sensations”, “perceptions”, and “mental formations” of the next life; death does not end this chain.

Rightly it should be said as "the five aggregates of clinging". Only an Arahant (an enlightened being) would have the five aggregates only - void of the clinging.

Noted that there is a difference between the Theravada and the Vajrayana understanding of the Five Aggregates

But in those 5 aggregates, there are some that, combined, could be equivalent to the idea of a soul. For instance, the rupa or material form is not important in this case and could be separated, and maybe feeling and perception as well. But if consciousness and mental formations stay together, meaning, they determine the next life conditions of a single being, instead of possibly separating and influencing the formation of more than 1 being, then this idea is equivalent to that of a soul.

@Southbob, why not ask this as a question, as it is a good one. 'Comment' space is too short for this. You are partly right, the two need each other. One cannot exist without the other. Also remember that   there are six vinnana. Eye consciousness; Ear consciousness; Nose consciousness; Mouth consciousness; Body consciousness; Mind consciousness. With Nama & Rupa as condition, Sense Gates arises. With Nāmarūpa as condition, Salāyatana arises.

@Saptha Visuddhi. I basically rephrased my original question. But thanks for the clarification.

You are right about a difference between the secular concept of rebirth and the Buddhist concept. Any secular definition will equate rebirth and reincarnation as the same thing. Within Tibetan Buddhism, it is the consciousness that is transferred from one life to the next, consciousness being one of the five aggregates that make up human existence; and more specifically subjective awareness. This process begins at death. It does not occur during the course of "Joe's" lifetime.
Karma belongs ONLY to the individual that generates it. That is cause and effect. I am not saying that in the secular world it does not appear that what I do cannot effect others, but within the definition of Buddhist karma, good or bad, it only applies to the person who generates it. In my experience, this concept is often misunderstood. "Joe" cannot pass on his karmic seeds to ripen in "Jeff".
I thoroughly agree with Dharmadhatu that the candle metaphor is bad as you interpret it. It should be dismissed entirely since it appears to be compromising your understanding.
Now as to individuality,it is that which distinguishes us for other human beings, our unique qualities. Given the correct understanding of rebirth (transfer of consciousness) and karma (individual cause and effect of actions), I see no challenge to the individuality of each person, other than the ramifications of their virtuous and unvirtuous deeds.

Buddhism is the middle way, between eternalism and nihilism, between an immortal soul and everything ends at death. The candle metaphor as I understand it comes from:

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not
transmigrate and one is reborn?"
"Yes, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."
"How, venerable Nagasena, is it that one does not transmigrate and one
is reborn? Give me an analogy."
"Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is
it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the
other lamp?"
"Certainly not, venerable sir."
"Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is
reborn."
"Give me another analogy."
"Do you remember, your majesty, when you were a boy learning some
verse from a teacher?"
"Yes, venerable sir."
"Your majesty, did this verse transmigrate from the teacher?"
"Certainly not, venerable sir."
"Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is
reborn."
"You are clever, venerable Nagasena."
-from The Questions Of King Melinda, Miln III.5.5. Canonical in Burmese Buddhism, a shortened version in some Mahayana cannon, and widely translated and
read in the Buddhist world. Dates to 100-200AD, & said to be about events 200 years before

My understanding of the Tibetan Buddhist stance, is that even though the Dalai Lama is an emanation of Avalokitesvara, other true genuine emanations have been recognised as existing at the same time.
What is the self? We require interactions with others, from DNA, to gestation, to nurturing, to education, and especially induction into community-developed & practiced language, just to get to the point we can say and understand: 'self'. So they are nested prerequisites, within this idea of being an individual.
Indra's Net is a powerful metaphor for dependent origination, for how we depend on interaction, reflection, of these other networks, and through our minds activity we help constitute others.
A modern term for this is intersubjectivity, the way we speak and show in ways that invite people to imagine or participate in our own subjectivity. This is the basis of physical-visual learning (mirror neurons), of communication, of morality. Our intelligence is fundamentally, intersubjective.
So we create something together. Is it a hive-mind, or a godhead? No. It is constituted of subjectivities, that can only see what one mind can see. In fact, there is no truly objective reality, because no one can ever experience that, we only have this network of minds, seeing things from their local, limited, subjective points of view.
I see 'attachments', as the things which we have not resolved in our own lives. Desires for more than we had. Contradictions we did not reconcile. Vengeance or justice which was not served. These are reborn. But not into cosmic soup. Into someone in particular's subjectivity. To recognise that reborn as connected, there has to be that mix of dilemmas & contradictions that makes you 'you', however you define yourself. It has to be pretty abstract though, because how much can you identify of your past lives has shaped you? Only that much goes on to sgape someone else.
But you were never your attachments anyway! You were Buddha all along. So who's attachments are reborn? No one's, only the attachments themselves. Until they get resolved, reconciled, let go of, extinguished. Whenever we do that, end suffering, it is for all beings, we empty the hells, make wherever we are more like the Pure Lands.

Sabbe dhamma anatta - all phenomena is not self.
What does that mean? What exactly is a "self"?
It turns out that what you call "individuality" is exactly what the Buddha called the "self". It may be pegged to consciousness or body or mind or anything else, but that's what it is.
The self or individuality is an emergent and temporary phenomena that doesn't exist absolutely or permanently.
Then what is rebirth in Buddhism? It's the rebirth of suffering, the rebirth of the self and the rebirth of individuality.
Do you see what I mean?
It's not the rebirth of the individual, but it's the rebirth of individuality.

while "rebirth" certainly is a rebirth of "individuality"; this appears not the purpose of the "rebirth" teachings, which appear to be about moral efficacy. The rebirth of individuality occurs due to clinging to the results of past kamma.

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


text:
Benefits of sleeping in a sitting posture
Occasionally some buddhists monks will take up the practice of only sleeping in a sitting posture for an extended duration of time - sometimes up to 3 months.

What are the meditational (preferably insight-meditational) benefits of such practice?
How would one undertake such practice regarding posture and technique?

I read that one could start sleeping 1-2 hours in sitting posture and then move to a lying posture. Then slowly increase the time sleeping in sitting posture while reducing the time spent sleeping in lying posture.
Thank you for your time.

A good question, @Sri Lanka !

The practice of sleeping in a sitting posture can be explained as one of the 13 Dhutanga.

Sitter's Practice (nesajjik'anga) — living in the three postures of walking, standing and sitting and never lying down.

The advantages of sleeping less as described by the Buddha can be found in Jāgariyasutta

Vigilance
This was said by the Lord…
"Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu should be vigilant; he should live mindful, clearly comprehending, concentrated, happy and calm, and should know when it is suitable to cultivate those things that are wholesome. Bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu who is vigilant and living thus, one of two fruits is to be expected: final knowledge here and now or, there being some residual defilement, the state of non-returning."
You vigilant ones hear this:
  Wake up, you who are asleep!
  Vigilance is better than sleep:
  There is no fear for the vigilant.
One who is vigilant and mindful,
  Comprehending and concentrated,
  Joyful and calm in his thoughts,
  By rightly investigating the Dhamma
  With unified mind, will in time
  Destroy the darkness of ignorance.
Therefore be devoted to vigilance,
  An ardent, discerning, meditative bhikkhu.
  Having severed the fetter of birth and decay,
  One may here and now attain
  Enlightenment which is supreme.

Note that the pali word 'Jāgaro' which means 'deprive sleep' is translated as 'vigilant' in the above sutta translation.

Thank you Sajeewa, for the the thirteen dhutanga practices.

Thank you Sajeewa, you gave me more information and understanding of something. with metta... _/_

From Vissudhimagga:

The benefits are these. The mental shackle described thus, “He dwells
  indulging in the pleasure of lying prone, the pleasure of lolling, the
  pleasure of torpor”,  is  severed;  his  state  is  suitable  for
  devotion  to  any  meditation  subject;  his deportment  inspires
  confidence;  his  state  favours  the  application  of  energy;  he
  develops the right practice.
The adept that can place crosswise
  His feet to rest upon his thighs
  And sit with back erect shall make
  Foul Mára’s evil heart to quake.
  No more in supine joys to plump
  And wallow in lethargic dump;
  Who sits for rest and finds it good
  Shines forth in the Ascetics’ Wood.
  The happiness and bliss it brings
  Has naught to do with worldly things;
   So must the sitter’s vow befit
  The manners of a man of wit.

Greed subsides.
Thus the Sitter's Practise is the only recommended practise connected to energy.

There are several online articles that relate to the question of sleeping upright:
Why do Buddhist monks sleep upright?
Why do Buddhist monks sleep upright?
How to Sleep Sitting Up


text:
Buddha's knowledge of prior births
Did Budhdha really got to know his previous births
....or was it just mind hallucinating because of hunger, thirst?

I don't mean any disrespect

Can you suggest, do you have any idea, what kind of information you're looking for? What could be a good answer to this question?

If ever you get a chance, @I don’t know,  please try to read the following sutta. It is rather lengthy, so let me give you the bit that is relevant to your question.
DN 2 - Samaññaphala Sutta: The Fruits of the Contemplative Life
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html
The three knowledges, as described in DN 2, are:
Recollection of past lives (pubbenivāsānusati-ñāṇa): "He recollects his manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, (recollecting,) 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus he recollects his manifold past lives in their modes and details."
Knowledge of the passing away and reappearing of beings (cutūpapāta-ñāṇa): "He sees — by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human — beings passing away and re-appearing, and he discerns how they are inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.
Knowledge of the ending of mental effluents (āsavakkhaya-ñāṇa): "He discerns, as it has actually come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are (mental) effluents... This is the origination of effluents... This is the cessation of effluents... This is the way leading to the cessation of effluents.' His heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance. …”
The first two of these knowledges, even though they comprised part of the Buddha's Awakening, are mundane, in that people may develop them without necessarily attaining any of the transcendent paths and fruitions. Thus they belong under the category of mahaggata dhamma, as they are based on the attainment of jhāna either in this or in a previous life. The third knowledge, however — because it describes the arising of the transcendent paths and fruitions — comes under the category of lokuttara dhamma, and is the only one of the eight knowledges to do so.
DN 2 describes the remaining five knowledges as:
Insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāṇa): "He discerns: 'This body of mine is endowed with form, composed of the four primary elements, born from mother and father, nourished with rice and porridge, subject to inconstancy, rubbing, pressing, dissolution, and dispersion. And this consciousness of mine is supported here and bound up here.'"
Mind-made body (manomayiddhi): "From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties, just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath."
Supranormal powers (iddhividhī): "He wields manifold supranormal powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahmā worlds."
Clairaudience (dibba-sota): "He hears — by means of the divine ear-property, purified and surpassing the human — both kinds of sounds: divine and human, whether near or far."
Mind-reading (cetopariya-ñāṇa): "He knows the awareness of other beings, other individuals, having encompassed it with his own awareness. He discerns a mind with passion as a mind with passion, and a mind without passion as a mind without passion (etc.)."

or was it just mind hallucinating because of hunger, thirst?
No. You are mixing up chronology of events. The Buddha gave up extreme asceticism before gaining Enlightenment.
Did Budhdha really got to know his previous births
Yes. By entering the 1st jhana, one can even recall one's past lives. The below passage from MN 36 indicates Buddha went to 4th jhana before doing so, recalling many more. I would refer to the book Mind Experiment by Bavo Lievens for references on Buddhist texts, as well as beautiful Buddhist cosmology and how to go about doing this. Go to page 80.
Here is an excerpt from MN 36: <-- read the full sutta

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
  rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my
  past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth,
  two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand,
  many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many
  eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name,
  belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food,
  such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a
  name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my
  food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life.
  Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my
  manifold past lives in their modes & details."

The Pali words "pubbe nivasa" do not mean "past lives". This is not an accurate translation, which any good scholar will admit. Read the same passage at this link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html Also, recollection is not a factor of the 1st jhana.

Many other Buddhist manuals say the same as I have said. One does not recollect in the jhana but once one is stabilized in jhana one can exit jhana and use the focused state to understand ones origins or penetrate into any other issue.

@Ahmed, I am sorry to have to down vote you. You mentioned of a 1st jhana not once but twice. If you had said 4th jhana at least I would have forgiven you. When those knowledges arose in Him, the Supreme Buddha has gone beyond the 4th & had attained worldly absorptions (rupajjhana) and formless absorptions (arupajjhanas). Development and attainment of these absorptions enabled him to gain supernormal knowledge which produced in turn experiential knowledge of the cycle of life.

Yes the scriptures say 4th jhana. But it can theoretically also be done via 1st jhana, espdcially according to other commemtariee i have read. I have no desire to convince you though and if you must cling to such didactics then you may!

The Pali suttas appear to explain the word 'birth' ('jati') as the mental generation of the mental idea, view or 'assumption' of 'beings' ('satta') or 'self-identity' ('sakkaya'); that, apart from 'view' or 'conceptual thought', there are no 'beings' to be found. It seems each time the mind believes it is a 'self', that is another 'birth'.
Therefore, when the Buddha recollected his previous 'births', this could have been the recollection of each time in his life when he truly believed something to be 'him' or 'belonging to him' (such as when he was 4 years old & had a fight with another child over a toy, which he believes was his toy).
If the word 'birth' is taken to mean 'ego birth' then it is easy to understand how the Buddha, on the night of his enlightenment, recollected the millions of times the mind in the 35 years prior to the Enlightenement believed it was a 'self'.


text:
How do we know that the suttas talk about past lives?
As a follow-on from Dhammadhatu's answer here, if it's alright to ask this, do we know, how do we know that the suttas talk about "past lives"?
Here is a translation of the formula which Ahmed quoted from MN 36 and which also appears in MN 4:

Pubbenivāsānussatiñāṇa
— Knowledge of the recollection of former living places —
  [pubbe+nivāsa+anussati+ñāṇa]
  This is the stock formula describing the first of the three vijjās attainable on the basis of the fourth jhāna, which consists in remembering one's past lives
So aneka·vihitaṃ pubbe·nivāsaṃ anussarati,
  He recollects many former living places,
seyyathidaṃ: ekam·pi jātiṃ dve·pi jātiyo
  that is to say: one birth, two births,

Translations of nivāsa
The buddha-vacana.org dictionary translates nivāsa as:

nivāsa: residence, dwelling, abode, place of residence (w. ref. to past lives)

The PTS dictionary translates it as:

Nivāsa [fr. nivasati2] stopping, dwelling, resting -- place, abode; living, sheltering J i.115 (˚ŋ kappeti to put up); ii.110; PvA 76, 78. Usually in phrase pubbe -- nivāsaŋ anussarati "to remember one's former abode or place of existence (in a former life)," characterising the faculty of remembering one's former birth

Translations of jāti
The buddha-vacana.org dictionary translates jāti as:

jāti: birth, i.e. the entire process from conception to parturition. Jāti is defined by the Buddha at SN 12.2. For some beings, the birth is not immediate and requires a maturation in the mother's body, as it is the case for humans and animals; for some other beings, the birth is immediate: those are called opapātiko.
Jāti is the eleventh link of paṭicca-samuppāda, conditioned by bhava and giving rise to jarā-maraṇa.

If I look at its translation of SN 12.2 it says,

And what, bhikkhus, is jāti? For the various beings in the various classes of beings, jāti, the birth, the descent [into the womb], the arising [in the world], the appearance, the apparition of the khandhas, the acquisition of the āyatanas. This, bhikkhus, is called jāti.

The PTS dictionary quotes the same passage from SN 12.2 as the definition of jāti. I note that sañjāti (translated as "birth" in that translation of SN 12.2) is alternatively translated as "origin" or "outcome".

Questions
Dhammadhatu's theory/answer was that "birth" meant "a time in the Buddha's life when he believed something to be 'him' or 'his'".
If I look at the Pali (beware that I'm not even a novice, let alone a scholar) I don't see anything to necessarily contradict that. So my questions are:

When people translate nivāsa why do they translate that as "former lives" instead of as, for example, "former living places" or "former homes", or maybe "former conditions" or something?
For example, Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of MN 36 says,

I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two, etc.

When people translate jāti why do they translate that as "birth" instead of as, "appearing", "coming into being", "consolidation", "becoming aware of the khandhas"?

Supplementary questions:

Is the Pali is more ambiguous, perhaps deliberately more ambiguous, than the English?
There seems to be two views among Buddhists: one that Buddhist doctrine is literally about "previous lives", and the other that Buddhist doctrine is about a non-continuity of oneself within this/one life. Does the Pali support either or both these views; and does it require either or both these views, i.e. would it contradict the scripture to not subscribe to one of these views?
Is there further evidence (for one view or the other) within the Pali text?
Is there further evidence (for one view or the other) outside the text, e.g. is there a separate commentary where it's stated unambiguously?
I guess it's part of the teacher-to-student lineage.
To the extent that there is ambiguity or uncertainty, is the ambiguity or uncertainty known and even accepted by scholars and monks? Or are 'they' sure that it's supposed to mean one or the other?

It's true to say, isn't it, that a belief in "rebirth" was a feature of the beliefs of non-Buddhists at the time. For example, Wikipedia says,

Reincarnation is the philosophical or religious concept that a living being can begin a new life in a different body after biological death. This is also called rebirth or transmigration, and is a part of the Saṃsāra doctrine of cyclic existence. It is a central tenet of all major Indian religions, namely Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism. The idea of reincarnation is found in many ancient cultures, and a belief in rebirth that was held by such historic figures as Pythagoras, Plato, and Socrates.

Is it possible that Buddhist doctrine is expressed in a way which doesn't contradict these beliefs (i.e. it would be understood as "not annihilationist" by an audience which already held that belief), yet also doesn't require such a belief?

‘Past life’ would be translated in Pali as ‘pubbe-jīv(it)am’ and ’re-birth’ would be ‘punna-jāti’, but I have not found either of these terms in a digital search of the whole Pali Tipitaka. The Buddha could have easily used those terms, if that's the meaning he wanted to give. So, to me, translating words with those meanings, is only interpretation and I think one should be concerned with putting words into the Buddha's mouth that were not there - i.e. misrepresenting him will have vey negative consequence to both the interpreter and those who have faith in him. The passage about the first of the three vijjā includes the word 'birth', but not the word 'life'.
For me the important questions are: 1. ‘do we believe the Buddha’s teaching is FOR THIS VERY LIFE? If so, which of the two possibilities: past lives and past births, best help us live a truly happy life here and now? Even ‘past life/lives’ itself would seem to be against the idea of ‘this very life’. 2. I understand the qualities of the Dhamma: akāliko and ehipassiko as: timeless and verifiable. So, which of the two possibilities: past lives and past births, can be seen and tested immediately?
Now we could assume the Buddha used words such as 'birth' 'aging' and 'death' as the common person does, but I think that would be very dangerous. To me one of the main evidences that he did not, is that he often said "in this Dhamma-Vinaya, this means x'. Or for example the well-known quote: 'I call intention action' (misquoted/translated as 'I tell you, intention is action' which implies word and deed are NOT action).
That the Buddha did not use 'birth' the common way, or that he meant something quite different when he said it, seems evident to me from the story of a conversation between him and Monk Aṅgulimāla. See: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html.
When I read the story, I do not assume that the Buddha did not know who he was talking to, as the Buddha had personally converted Aṅgulimāla. So he knew that the monk had killed many people before conversion. I do not assume the Buddha was testing the monk either, but rather that the Buddha used 'birth' with a psychological meaning and he only had to change it to 'noble birth' because Aṅgulimāla did not yet understand the Buddha's usage of such terms.
For me it is only with understanding 'birth aging and death' in with psychological meanings (birth, aging and death of ego/the five CLINGING aggregates) that the two parts of the First Noble Truth can be understood together and that the whole of the Buddha's teaching (the Dhamma) is FOR THIS VERY LIFE, akāliko and ehipassiko: timeless and verifiable.
In the passage about the first of the three vijjā, I believe the Buddha spoke of recalling his past life and seeing numerous births (NOT lives) and these were births of ego (the five CLINGING aggregates). This happens each time we cling to one of the five aggregates, which then become the aggregates of CLINGING and suffering. The First Noble Truth summarises 'the five aggregates OF CLINING are suffering', NOT 'the five aggregates are suffering'. Most 'summaries' of the First Noble Truth are 'life is suffering' but that would be 'the five aggregates are suffering'. That leaves out the very important idea of CLINGING.
re: suttas explaining jāti as birth into the womb: I remember reading in a sutta, the Buddha called 'mother' 'craving' and 'father' 'ignorance',; so ‘womb’ could also be understood in such a way, that is, figuratively, not physically.
best wishes

Clinging to an aggregate takes the form of 'identity view' and involves the 'I am conceit'. Thus, we tend to think and say: I am fat (not my body/form is fat); I am hot (not I feel hot); I am Buddhist (not I believe the Buddha is fully enlightened); I am angry (not I feel angry); I am one with the universe (not I perceive unlimited space).

Hello Dhamma-Daasa. I have started a study thread about language & 'rebirth' at http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?6671-Exploring-rebirth-in-the-Pali-suttas . Maybe you would like to join in & contribute. Regards

Hello Dhammadhatu. Thanks for the invite, but I do not want to join more internet discussion groups. Your study of the words seems quite good and I would agree with you conclusions. I just don't translate 'attaa' as self and 'anattaa' as not-self or non-self any more. The Buddha could easily have used the term an-aham for not self. It seems to me, the Buddha was focussing on the impermanent aspect and self can be believed in as impermanent as the atheists and possibly agnositcs do. Soul on the other hand cannot be believed in as impermanent as that would go against the essential meaning of it.

Before coming to the subject proper – rebirth – let me give you an introductory note on the first couple of links to rebirth (rebirth is part of the continuous process of change.)
According to the Scriptures, tanha is craving. It is the chief root of suffering and of ever continuing cycle of rebirths. Dependant on tanha arises upadana (tanha paccaya upadanam). Upadana is a three-dimensional term which represent attachment, clinging and grasping. If one does not grasp things as one’s own and eradicate “I” concept (upadana) completely, one can achieve liberation.
The Buddha presented and explained the teaching of Paticcasamuppada (Dependent origination ) in the Maha Nidana Sutta (The Great Causes Discourse) of the Digha Nikaya (DN15). It is a deep and complex doctrine. By not understanding, and not penetrating this doctrine beings have become entangled like in a knotted ball of thread, unable to pass beyond the woeful states of existence, and Samsara, the cycle of existence.
We should realize that according to the Paticcasamuppada (Dependent origination ), “dependent on becoming arises birth” (bhava paccaya jati).  That is kamma-process, or actions and the kamma-resultant rebirth process is the condition of the birth. In this way life continues from one existence to another.
Of the many numerous suttas that talk about past lives, the way life continues from one existence to another, the most intriguing examples are given in fifteen suttas that are found in the Anamataggasamyutta (Connected Discourses on Without Discoverable Beginning).  You may not find it on internet. The best translation of it is THE CONNECTED DISCOURSES OF THE BUDDHA - A Translation of the Saṃyutta Nikāya by Bhikkhu Bodhi (pages 651 – 661).  In one of the 15 suttas Buddha confirms rebirth and that every creature has been reborn so many times that all are related to each other, every creature was either mother, father, brother, sister , son or daughter in past.
A short description of it given in:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/

Anamatagga-samyutta — The unimaginable beginnings of samsara

•   SN 15.3: Assu Sutta — Tears {S ii 179; CDB i 652} [Thanissaro].
"Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time... or the water in the four great oceans?"
•   SN 15.9: Danda Sutta — The Stick {S ii 184; CDB i 656} [Thanissaro].
We bounce from one birth to the next, as a thrown stick bounces along the ground.
•   SN 15.11: Duggata Sutta — Fallen on Hard Times {S ii 186; CDB i 657} [Thanissaro].
When you encounter an unfortunate person, remember: you've been there, too.
•   SN 15.12: Sukhita Sutta — Happy {S ii 186; CDB i 658} [Thanissaro].
When you encounter a fortunate person, remember: you've been there, too.
•   SN 15.13: Timsa Sutta — Thirty {S ii 187; CDB i 658} [Thanissaro].
Which is greater, the blood you have shed in your long journey in samsara, or the water in the four great oceans?
•   SN 15.14-19: Mata Sutta — Mother {S ii 189; CDB i 659} [Thanissaro].
It's hard to meet someone who has not been, at some time in the distant past, your mother, father, son, daughter, sister, or brother.

The Buddha obviously did not speak DN15, since it contradicts the other suttas on dependent origination. Also, the translations & your interpretations of the Anamatagga-samyutta may not be accurate since the Anamatagga-samyutta is making you PASSIONATE about rebirth where as the intention of the Anamatagga-samyutta is the make the mind DISPASSIONATE. Also, it is a Dhamma principle to only accept what can be VERIFIED and your personal opinions cannot be verified. If you are interested in enlightenment, follow my posts. If you have craving for rebirth, follow yours.

I do not get into arguments @Dhammadhatu, when it come to Dhamma. No two people see the Dhamma the same way. The advice that I live by is "Listening to what other people say, looking things up in the texts, can't resolve your doubts. You have to put effort into the practice to give rise to clear insight knowledge. That's when doubt will be totally resolved on its own." with metta..

What you have said cannot be "seen" nor can it resolve "doubts" nor can it be the object of "insight". It is not possible to follow your advice. All the best.

Dhammadhatu are you an annihilationist? Rebirth and other realms are real. You can't deny them if you have never reached the fourth jhana and see it. Furthermore, we need faith or conviction in the Buddha not on outsiders like scientists.

Three other translations of SN 12.2 are below:

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent,
  coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of
  [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings,
  that is called birth. Thanisssaro

~~

What is birth? It is being born, arising, coming to be among the
  various groups of sentient beings, the appearance of the various
  aggregates, the arising of a particular sense door. This is birth.
  Birth conditions the arising of old age and death. Buddhadasa

~~~

The birth of the various beings into the various orders of
  beings....etc..Bodhi

Each of the translations above emphasises the birth of a 'being' or 'beings' ('satta').
In the suttas, a 'being' ('satta') is not a biological organism. A 'being' is a state of 'attachment', a 'child's play thing', a 'view', a 'convention', a 'verbal designation' & a 'social & self identity'. The suttas state Mara believes a 'being' arises from parturition. To quote:

‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’? Any desire, passion, delight or craving for form,
  feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness Radha: when
  one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being....Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles...you too should smash, scatter & demolish...and make it unfit for play. SN
  23.2

~~~

Why now do you assume ‘a being’? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found. Just as,
  with an assemblage of parts, the word ‘chariot’ is used, so, when the
  aggregates are present, there’s the convention ‘a being.’ SN 5.10

~~~

In human bodies in themselves, nothing distinctive can be found. Distinction among human beings is purely verbal designation….For name
  & clan are assigned, originating in conventions…Whoever makes his
  living among men by agriculture is called a ‘farmer’…Whoever makes his
  living among men by merchandise  is called a ‘merchant’…that is how
  the wise truly see…seers of dependent origination. MN 98

~~~

Angulimala, say to that woman: “Sister, since I was born with a noble birth, I do not recall that I have ever intentionally deprived a
  living being of life”. MN 86

~~~

Wikipedia: Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ, Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally “birth”) is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities and sub-communities and religions in India. Each
  jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe.

~~~

There is the case where an uninstructed person assumes form, feeling, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness to be a ‘self’. That
  assumption is a mental formation. 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 mental formation of ‘self’ is born from that. And that mental
  formation is impermanent, fabricated, dependently arisen. That
  craving… That feeling… That contact… That ignorance is impermanent,
  fabricated, dependently arisen. SN 22.81

This is a neat answer. I see in this translation that okkanti and nibbatti too have alternative translations (so they don't necessarily help to disambiguate). In this answer you're saying that even if jati does mean "born" it's explained as "born as a being" rather than "born as a baby" (and there is a lot of scripture explaining a 'being').

When you wrote, "it is only Mara that believes a 'being' arises from parturition", which sutta[s] were you referring to?

SN 5.10 has Mara.

'Okkanti ' is used in the SN (Okkanta-samyutta) for 'entry', as in 'stream-entry', which is something mental. I think one can only guess what it means in the definition of 'jati'.

The 1600 year old Visuddhimagga contains 7 meanings of 'jati': Now, this word birth (játi) has many meanings. For in the passage “[He recollects … ] one birth (játi), two births” (D I 81) it is becoming....  monastic order....whatever is formed....(Vin I 93) it is rebirth-linking...(M III 123) it is parturition.... (A III 152) it is clan....  (M II 103) it is the Noble One’s virtue.

Knowledge of the recollection of former living places [pubbe+nivāsa+anussati+ñāṇa]
The word 'nivāsa' is interesting because it is very similar to the word 'nivesa', which is found in this stock phrase as something mental:

And how does one not live at home? Any desire, passion, delight, craving, any attachments, clingings, fixations of mind ['adherences': nivesa], biases
  or obsessions with regard to the property of form: these the Tathagata
  has abandoned, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump,
  deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future
  arising. Therefore the Tathagata is said to be not dwelling at home.
  Haliddakani Sutta

~~~

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get
  involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of
  mind ['adherences': nivesa], biases or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He
  has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is
  arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his
  knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana,
  that there is right view. Kaccayanagotta Sutta

Note: the word 'home' above is not 'nivāsa' but its metaphor is very interesting, just like when the Buddha referred to the 'House-Builder' in his 1st words.
Note: I do not know the difference between nivāsa & nivesa however based on the PTS, there is no difference:

Nivesa [Vedic niveśa, fr. ni+viś] 1. entering, stopping, settling
  down; house, abode Vv 82 (=nivesanāni kacchantarāni VvA 50). --
  2.=nivesana 2, in diṭṭhi˚ Sn 785 (=idaŋ -- sacchâbhinivesa -- sankhātāni diṭṭhi -- nivesanāni SnA 522).
Abhinivesa [abhi + nivesa, see nivesa2 & cp. nivesana] "settling in",
  i. e. wishing for, tendency towards ( -- ˚), inclination, adherence;
  as adj. liking, loving, being given or inclined to D iii.230; M i.136,
  251; S ii.17; iii.10, 13, 135, 161, 186 (saŋyojana˚ iv.50; A iii.363
  (paṭhavī˚, adj.); Nd2 227 (gāha parāmasa +); Pug 22; Vbh 145; Dhs 381,
  1003, 1099; Nett 28; PvA 252 (micchā˚), 267 (taṇhā˚); Sdhp 71. --
  Often combd. with adhiṭṭhāna e. g. S ii.17; Nd2 176, and in phrase
  idaŋ -- saccɔ âbhinivesa adherence to one's dogmas, as one of the 4
  Ties: see kāyagantha and cp. Cpd. 171 n. 5.

In the Khajjaniya Sutta, it is unambiguous that what is recollected in pubbe+nivāsa+anussati+ñāṇa is not a 'self' but merely the five aggregates formerly mistaken to be 'myself'.

At Savatthi. "Monks, any brahmans or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates,
  or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such
  a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when
  recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is
  recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such
  a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or
  when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the
  past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when
  recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one
  is recollecting just consciousness. ...is to be seen as it actually is
  with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self.
  This is not what I am.' This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble
  ones who tears down and does not build up; who abandons and does not
  cling; who discards and does not pull in; who scatters and does not
  pile up.

Questions asked:

When people translate jāti why do they translate that as "birth" instead of as, "appearing", "coming into being", "consolidation",
  "becoming aware of the khandhas"?

Generally, ancient languages first began describing physical things, then moved on to mental things & borrowed words from the physical.
In India, historically, the word 'jati' generally means 'caste'. The word 'birth' meaning 'social-identity' or 'social-status' does not only occur in India. For example, definition of 'noble born' in English: 'Belonging by birth to the aristocracy'. While 'birth' here means physically born into nobility, it also has a social class connotation.
The same as the word 'house'. In my parents Middle-Eastern culture, your family is called 'house'. When people know your name, they say 'House of XXXX", just as in England, they refer to the 'House of Windsor'.
Thus in The Parable of the Great Ocean, the Buddha states: "Just as the great rivers lose their names when they flow into the great ocean, so do those of the various castes lose their names when the enter into the Sangha".

Is the Pali is more ambiguous, perhaps deliberately more ambiguous,
  than the English?

Imo, no one knows Pali exactly. There are myriad words in the PTS dictionary that get translated with the same meaning. I guess understanding of the subtleties has been lost.
The translators are sometimes like a line of 'blind men'.

There seems to be two views among Buddhists: one that Buddhist
  doctrine is literally about "previous lives", and the other that
  Buddhist doctrine is about a non-continuity of oneself within this/one
  life. Does the Pali support either or both these views; and does it
  require either or both these views, i.e. would it contradict the
  scripture to not subscribe to one of these views?

If we ignore the dozen or so suttas (from 1000s) about literal reincarnation, the language of the Pali can give to two different views because words used in the teachings, such as kaya ('body'; 'collection'), birth (jati) & death (marana) have dual meanings, i.e., a physical meaning & a mental meaning. Thus we can only do our best to investigate the suttas because most words are officially defined in the suttas (such as 'jati').

Is there further evidence (for one view or the other) within the Pali
  text? Is there further evidence (for one view or the other) outside
  the text, e.g. is there a separate commentary where it's stated
  unambiguously? I guess it's part of the teacher-to-student lineage.

Definitely not. MN 22 and DN 16 are explicitly clear that the Dhamma taught by the Buddha is open, straightforward, free from patchwork, with nothing hidden or secret. It is simply a matter of understanding the Pali words used.

To the extent that there is ambiguity or uncertainty, is the ambiguity
  or uncertainty known and even accepted by scholars and monks? Or are
  'they' sure that it's supposed to mean one or the other?

There is no ambiguity or uncertainty because this is against the essence of the teachings. All that is exists is either genuine different interpretations of the teachings or, otherwise, ulterior agendas.
It appears quite obvious, particularly under King Ashoka, that as efforts were made to increase the social popularity of Buddhism, suttas were introduced (particularly the DN; Jataka Tales, a few in the MN & AN) to expand the scope of the teachings.
Mahayana is a perfect example. Mahayana literally took various Hindu deities and transformed them into Mahayana Bodhisatva (such as Tara, Jambhala, etc).

Is it possible that Buddhist doctrine is expressed in a way which
  doesn't contradict these beliefs (i.e. it would be understood as "not
  annihilationist" by an audience which already held that belief), yet
  also doesn't require such a belief?

It is quite obvious to me that the teaching of Dependent Origination was hijacked & doctored to form the basis of a Buddhist reincarnation doctrine because terms such as "kamma-formations" & "re-linking consciousness" are not found in the suttas. The three-lifetimes version of Dependent Origination simply makes little sense plus it contradicts suttas such as MN 38, which state birth & death arise or cease while "the eye sees a form, ear hears a sound, etc".
The suttas show the Buddha generally did not teach higher dhamma (such as the 4 noble truths, dependent origination, not-self) to lay people. Howevever, over time, as lay people became more aware of the teachings, it is obvious many of the main teachings were doctored so fulfil the wants of those lay people who were not interested in Nibbana but had faith in the goodness of Buddhism.


text:
Insights of the Middle Path
Everything in moderation is the key to the Middle Path.
There are times when one can clearly see the outcome (insight or out of experience) and actions of other person and their way of thinking.
What is the right way to react in those situations:

when one doesn't have any take away from situation / outcome.
when one can gain from situation/outcome because the action of other can affect you or you have stake in the outcome.

Does one just observe and let the nature/ karma take its course or act to moderate the outcome?

When there’s interaction with other people, and as you focus more carefully in that present moment, you begin to realize that you choose where to focus and how you want to shape the situation. You could let yourself suffer, fall victim to these things, or you could make a change. But if for instance when you’re being mindful, say, of feelings, you just watch whatever feeling comes up and don’t make any changes. Don’t meddle with it. Just be non-reactive, allowing whatever’s happening to happen. What this attitude does, though, is to drive underground some really important sources for insight: the ability to see to what extent you’re shaping your feelings of pleasure and pain right now. This applies to physical pleasure and mental pleasure, to physical pain and mental pain. So the way you think, the way you interpret, filter, make choices about how to shape the present moment is a purely internal matter. Mindfulness is to remind you that you can make choices, and that you want to learn to make them skillfully. You can learn how to think in a comfortable way, to fashion your thoughts and your perceptions so as to shape a greater sense of wellbeing. Just take time and use your powers of observation.

In both situations you should be acting to try to minimize the suffering of everybody. This can involve:

Giving one person worldly pleasure because it is a temporary relief from suffering
Giving yourself worldly pleasure instead of somebody else because you are in greater need of a temporary relief
Giving someone else worldly pleasure instead of yourself so that you can observe your suffering and learn to overcome it
Giving somebody worldly displeasure to open their eyes to reality and avoid later suffering (e.g. exposing a difficult truth)

how worldly pleasure give relief from suffering?

@8CK8 If you are craving a slice of cake and I give it to you then you are temporarily relieved from suffering.

not the answer i am looking for. the context of above question is how to use wisdom gained from following the path.

@user25299. How can giving in to sense desire issue liberation from the rounds of suffering? Isn't that instead like drinking salt water - it might quench the thirst shortly but soon after the thirst returns with an even stronger intensity.

@Lanka If somebody was to stop indulging in sense desire entirely they may make things too tough for themselves and end up quitting their Buddhist practice as a result. In this sense the sense indulgence is a skillful act which stops one from straying from the eightfold path.
It's quite like quitting smoking, reducing smoking over time can be more successful than quitting immediately even though the indulgence in one cigarette encourages further indulgence.


text:
A pigeon settled on my balcony. What should I do?
A pigeon is going to build a nest on my balcony. I tried to make it fly away but it comes back. I rent this flat and not sure if I'll stay there till winter. I mean if another person rents the flat he'll definitely get rid of it. In my country people have no respect for animals. Besides the hostess doesn't like that. Should I insist in chasing the bird from my balcony or let him stay there?

You cannot predict the future of the bird or take responsibility for it. Also, the bird may nest on your balcony temporary (for breeding) rather than permanently. If the bird does not harm you, then you should let it nest.
If the hostess (landlord) disapproves of the bird, they should remove it. It is not your responsibility to make modifications to the property of the landlord or hinder the landlord in the maintenance of their property. Instead, if you think the bird will damage the property, it is your duty (as a tenant) to report this to the landlord.
In summary, the bird is not your responsibility (karma) and the external structural problems of the apartment is not your responsibility (karma).
The problem is the bird's karma & you should not interfere with the bird's karma.

I am new to this website, and have little training, but wish to be helpful. I have been in a position, several times, in my life, where I wished to help an animal, but didn't know what action would be most helpful. My advice would be to let the pigeon do what it thinks best. It surely knows more about pigeon life than you do. If you drive it away, it may try to nest in a place even less suitable than your balcony. IF you do end up living there until it has offspring, AND you know what food would be healthy for them, and you can give them food, without giving your "hostess" cause for complaint,do so. That may allow the young pigeons to mature faster, and leave in time to avoid problems.Otherwise, I think it best not to interfere.

A pigeon settled on my balcony. What should I do?

Right View (Samma Ditthi) would be the overall frame of reference when choosing how to act in such situation.
It's important and necessary to understand the ethical distinction of kamma into wholesome (kusala) and unwholesome (akusala) and the roots from which these actions spring.
Unwholesome kamma is action that is morally blameworthy, harmful to spiritual development and contributive to suffering for oneself and others. Wholesome kamma is action that is morally praisable, conducieve to spiritual development and beneficial for oneself and others.
Kamma is wholesome or unwholesome if its roots (mulas) are wholesome or unwholesome. These roots are three-fold.
The unwholesome roots, also called the root defilements or kilesas are greed (lobha), aversion (dosa) and delusion (moha).
The wholesome roots are their opposites, expressed in negation as non-greed (alobha), non-aversion (amoha) and non-delusion (amoha). Within the negation lies their corresponding virtues, ie. renunciation, detachment, generosity, loving-kindness, sympathy, gentleness and wisdom.
A distinctive feature of kamma is its capacity to produce resultants corresponding to the ethical quality of the action, ie. the root cause. Actions originating from the wholesome roots will always produce wholesome resultants which in turn will prepare and make the mind conducieve to the practice of meditation by calming and tranquilizing it, making it steady and less wavering. Also wholesome, meritorious actions can be/is recommended to rejoice in. Afterwards the impermance of the meritorious action should be contemplated in order to achieve insights.
In MN 91, the Buddha explains;
"When, friends, a noble disciple understands the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, in that way he is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma, and has arrived at this true Dhamma".
To sum up, only you can decide how to act or if it's appropriate and ethical to act at all. If you do choose to act and want to base your action in the Noble Eightfold Path, then the action should be motivated by the wholesome roots, thereby producing a wholesome result for you and other beings.

1 MN 9: Sammaditthi Sutta: The Discourse on Right View.

In my home I let the pigeons be there year after year. I can’t remember ever killing an insect in my house in the past 12 years. It’s live and let live, as we are all here for a short time.  But if you want to get rid of the nest just wait for a while. You could let the birds build the nest and live with them until their babies have fledged.  Then when the winter comes get rid of it. It can be fascinating to watch the birds sitting on the nest, the eggs hatch and then the young grow up and fledge.  It doesn’t take that long for the baby birds grow. They will only stay in the nest and around your home for only a short time. They will then fly away to find their own mates. The parents too will move on and then you can get rid of the nest.
If I’m to quote from “Milinda Panha”… there is a lesson that we can learn  from this little bird. (44. THE HOUSE-PIGEON.)
'Venerable Nâgasena, that one quality of the house-pigeon you say he ought to take, which is it?'
'Just, O king, as the house-pigeon, while dwelling in the abode of others, of men, does not become enamoured of anything that belongs to them, but remains neutral, taking notice only of things pertaining to birds; just so, O king, should the strenuous Bhikshu, earnest in effort, while resorting to other people's houses, never become enamoured of women or of men, of beds, or chairs, or garments, or jewelry, or things for use or enjoyment, or various forms of food that are there, but remain neutral always, addicted only to such ideas as become a recluse. This, O king, is the quality of the house-pigeon he ought to have. For it was said, O king, by the Blessed One, the god over all gods, in the Kulla Nânada Gâtaka:
"Frequenting people's homes for food or drink,
In food and drink alike be temperate,
And let not beauty's form attract thy thoughts."'


text:
Sutta with firefly simile
What is the sutta that uses the following metaphor?

Firefly(Samsaric being) jumps into candlelight seeking a
  pleasure(Tanha), not knowing(Avijja) that the candlelight will burn
  the firefly to death(Samsaric Dukkha).

Ud 6.9  - Adhipataka Sutta: Like Moths to the Flame
translated from the Pali by Andrew Olendzki

“The insects are drawn irresistibly in the dark night to the shining
  lamps, but in their zeal to approach the light they go too far and
  only meet their doom. Humans likewise are drawn to the pleasures of
  the senses, to what is seen and heard, not realizing the dangers
  involved. When we get too close — when we hold on with too much
  attachment — we get burned by suffering. The senses can still be
  enjoyed, as the moth can stay circling the flame, but only when one
  holds the proper distance. This quality of "stepping back" or
  "standing off" from obsession with the senses is something that is
  cultivated with the practice of mindfulness meditation.”

Great job finding that sutta. I was not able to find it yesterday.

When the young monks of the Mahamevnawa explain to us these sermons in Sinhala, we never think of finding the English translations. Just now I looked into the story of "Katakirilli" - of the Hawk & the Quail (Saṃyutta Nikāya 47 - The Hawk). This is another exemplary story.   https://suttacentral.net/en/sn47.6