text:
The "conventional" self - in what way can it be accepted?
Buddhist writers, such as Joseph Goldstein and Thupten Jinpa, say that although the self is not intrinsically real, that we still accept the "conventional" idea of self. For example:

If we arrive at the knowledge that the self at which we grasp is empty, we may imagine this means that we as individuals with personal identities do not exist.
  But of course this is not the case--our own personal experiences demonstrate that we as subjects and agents of our own lives, we certainly exist.
  So how then do we understand the content of this insight into absence of Self?
  What follows from this insight?
  We must be very clear that only the self that is being grasped as
  intrinsically real needs to be negated. The self as a conventional
  phenomenon is not rejected.
  This is a crucial aspect of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness.
  Without understanding this distinction, one cannot fully understand the meaning of no-self.

If we believe anatta, then how, specifically, can the "conventional" self be accepted? Do they mean we only pretend that the illusion of self is real in order to talk to people in everday language? Or is there some part of the concept of self that even Buddhism cannot reject?

The quote says "negate the self which is grasped as intrinsically real" and "self as conventional phenomenon is not rejected". Therefore I edited the title of the question, to say "accepted" (not rejected), rather than "real".

Immediately after that (quoted) passage in Essence of the Heart Sutra: The Dalai Lama's Heart of Wisdom Teachings by Thupten Jinpa, it says, "Later on, as we get more deeply into the discussion of the Heart Sutra, I will elaborate on this point in greater detail."

@ChrisW Thank you for the clarifying edits.  Essence of the Heart Sutra seems a bit over my head, and I was hoping that someone like yourself could help me (quote) "understand this distinction", in simple terms.

It now occurrs to me that Buddhism must recognize the existence of self in the conventional sense to even have a discussion of no self. Or is this incorrect?

This question is answered in Insight into Emptiness where an analogy is given that was helpful to my mind. The following is my paraphrase from the example given by this book.
The President of the United States is a self that exists conventionally, but is not the slightest bit intrinsically real.
This is a label that we designate on the basis of an individual person using human rules and customs. In order to use this label correctly it is necessary to have a valid basis of designation that everyone agrees upon. There is a specific context in which this labeling is valid. Outside of this context - the community of humans and our associated traditions - this label is meaningless. It is only within the context of human speech and human political/cultural traditions that this label has any meaning.
It is an agreed upon label by convention according to definite rules and customs. For instance, if I went around declaring myself to be "President of the United States" and then tried to assume some power of the President it would not work. So it is clear that just because something exists by convention does not mean that it does not exist at all. Nor does it mean that we can just magically label anything whatever we want.
In what way can the President of the United States be said to exist? When we say that the President of the United States is not intrinsically real, what do we mean? There is no permanent independent thing that is universally understood by all inhabitants of the universe that is "President of the United States" by means of its own inherent power. It exists only by convention and depending upon human rules and conditions.
Like this, all phenomena are said to exist conventionally without even the slightest bit of intrinsic reality. This goes for persons as well as generalized phenomena.

I found the book reference (I'll check it out!) and the concluding two paragraphs to be very helpful. While it is clear to me that just because something exists by convention does not mean that it does not exist at all, what did not make things clearer for me was the next sentence on how we cannot label things as we want. It seems  necessary only to understand that when something exists by convention as with all phenomena, it exists, but empty of any independent existence.

The part about labeling things as we want was included to rebut a common objection. The example above was from the viewpoint of the Prasangika, but another tenet system is the Svatantrika. A common objection the Svatantrikas give when Prasangikas posit that all things only exist conventionally without the slightest bit of intrinsic reality is that this would mean we could just give any thing any label willy nilly. In other words, they believe that positing this is akin to nihilism: the belief that nothing exists. The President of the United States is a counterexample to this.

So going further with the U.S. President example - even Donald Trump, with the ego and illusion of control he has, is empty of independent existence. I found Joseph Goldstein's remarks on emptiness helpful here, "We experience the meaning of emptiness when we realize that things are ungovernable by our own will; there is no self that is controlling the world.”

IMO this directly answers the question on how the conventional self is accepted - it is understood as the self that is not intrinsically real.

The usage of the word 'self' in a conventional sense is the same as the usage of the word 'chair'. There's nothing intrinsic in the material it is made of that makes a chair a chair. But the usage of concepts are useful in day to day life for the purpose of identifying functions.

It feels like I'm working through the hindrance of doubt here, but from the short answer, I have difficulty seeing that a chair (or the self) is not real, particularly when trying to see this wisdom in daily life, where, just saying it's not intrinsically real doesn't quite get me to me see through the illusion of chair. Similarly, I'm trying to see the wisdom of no self in day to day life, which is where the teachings of Buddhism are of value to me, not the meditation cushion.

If the chair is real, when you take it apart it should still be a chair. Not a pile of wood or metal. If the chair is real, it should be a chair to an ant crawling on it too. But it's not. It's a floor to an ant.

It seems somewhere we still admit the existence of a chair, however. If the chair is not real, then why do Buddhists still refer to it as chair? If "no chair" (or no self) is true in the ultimate, unconditioned sense, then why can we not talk in everyday language with "no chair", and not have to refer to the false sense of chair?

We use the labeling system to identify things that appear as real for practical reasons. Those with less ignorance know that labels don't refer to reality. Those with much ignorance cannot see through the labels. It's like people who still believe that the earth is flat because it appears that way.

I'm not confident I can predict what the Dalai Lama was trying to say (and I haven't read the book you referenced), but here are some examples of what "this distinction" means to me.
Vices and virtues
The Zen story "Nothing Exists"

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

... implies that the self, the sense of self, conceit, identification (with form but also self-importance), is manifested as or associated with defilements and obstacles, fetters (for example, anger).
I guess this is what people mean when they talk about "the ego", being "egocentric", "selfish", etc.
The story may be, also, a reminder of social conventions: be polite (not boastful), don't attack people (be gentle), be skillful (appropriate interaction with the right person at the right time), etc.
I think that uprooting "defilements" is one the main aims of Buddhism, isn't that so?
Still, if there are bad deeds and afflictive emotions, there's also skillful virtue -- including generosity, for example, being a good friend, even avoiding bad friends -- which may lead to the next topic.
Social roles
If you look at the five skandhas, you can't (or shouldn't) look at them and say "that's me, that's mine, that's permanent" -- a body for example, or any single/specific thought, is more-or-less transient, impermanent. You might say, "That's me", but maybe you won't want to: because clinging to impermanent things like that is (or would be) a cause of suffering.
Socially though, in society, people exist -- with names and so on. As well as the five skandhas, there are also (or one might say, "people also have") names and relationships, duties, jobs, families, skills, assets (like a house or money), etc. These too are temporary, severable -- and may be dissatisfactory, a cause of suffering if you cling to them or identify with them.
Even so, society, human life, couldn't exist with them -- without parents, for example, or without children, and so on. One of the definitions of "wrong view", in the suttas, goes,

"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

I think that this is an important part of the conventional self -- it's relative -- there's a "this world" because there is (or was) "another world", there's a "next world" because there's a "this world", there's a "mother" and "father" because there's a "child", etc.
"Relative" also implies "conditioned" -- A exists because B exists, A and B are related, A is conditioned by B -- and anything conditioned is impermanent (A ceases or changes when B ceases).
Although these relations exist, they're impermanent (so shouldn't be taken to be a permanent self), yet they exist (to deny they exist would be wrong view).
Salvation
We're told to consider that,

‘I must be parted and separated from all I hold dear and beloved.’ …
I am the owner of my deeds and heir to my deeds. Deeds are my womb, my relative, and my refuge.
I shall be the heir of whatever deeds I do, whether good or bad.’

... where "deeds" is kamma in the above.
So perhaps "I am" (the owner) and "I have" (the fruit or result of good and bad actions), until I am able to "end kamma".
The Dhammapada says,

You yourselves should make the effort; the Tathagatas (Buddhas) only can show the way.

I guess this might be the kind of message which the Dalai Lama had in mind, when he was quoted as saying, "our own personal experiences demonstrate that we as subjects and agents of our own lives, we certainly exist".
Speaking of "refuge", I think the "island" passage from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta implies some agency or responsibility:

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

I think of that as a defining characteristic of Buddhism, perhaps unlike some other religions where worshippers might expect another agent (God) to be an instrument or agent of their salvation.
I think that other schools of Buddhism (e.g. Tibetan) might have slightly different doctrines, though, so, again, this is just how I understand the "distinction", based on the suttas (not the Heart Sutra nor the Dalai Lama's teachings, especially "a crucial aspect of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness").

By the way, even though this appears to emphasise "you" (or "self") as agent, it's also possible to describe the process (of following and/or not following the way, the dhamma) using a non-self kind of metaphor: as important as the conventional self is, it doesn't or needn't override a non-self view.
If you'll forgive my introducing it, here is one of the parables of Jesus (note Christian, not Buddhist):

"Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn’t have deep roots, they died. Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand."

The parable/metaphor there is:

Farmer "scattering seeds" = "giving dhamma talks"
"Unfertile ground" = "some people hear the talk but the dhamma doesn't take root"
"Fertile ground" = "some people hear the talk, and practice appropriately as well as spread the word"

Further to that metaphor you could argue that (notwithstanding what I said above about being the owner of or heir to the fruit of kamma) there is still no self and maybe even no "free-will" -- there's just ground, fertile or unfertile.
Curiously the last sentence of that quote ("Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand") is rather similar to the Buddha's "beings with little dust in their eyes":

Open are the doors to the Deathless
to those with ears.

Ajahn Brahm calls the sense of agency, the "doer", and that sense of self disappears during meditation. Then consciousness, or the "knower", disappears soon thereafter.

Geshe Thubten Jinpa is a Gelug-pa, and a translator of H.H. the Dalaï-Lama. His view is that of Madhyamika Prasangika as presented by lama Je Tsongkhapa. In this tradition, we hold that Buddhapalita, Candrakirti, Aryadeva and Shantideva are Madhyamika-Prasangika. I will answer from this viewpoint.
Whatever is an existant (1) does not exist ultimately but (2) exists conventionally. This includes conventional and ultimate truths: even emptiness exists conventionally.
The issue here is that 'self' has two meanings:

It refers to persons, and persons exist. Persons are objects of conventional valid cognizers. A valid eye-consciousness sees a person... a valid tactile consciousness touches a person, etc.
It refers to inherent existence, a mode of existence that is utterly non-existent. Persons and phenomena are empty of possessing such a self... they do not exist by way of their own characteristics... they are not established from their own side... they are not truly existent... they are not real...  they do not exist inherently. From a Prasangika viewpoint, all these are synonymous.

Self, in the sense of the person, do exist conventionally. Self, in the sense of inherent existence, is utterly non-existent. To put it another way: the person is an object apprehended by a valid cognizer while inherent existence is perceived by a cognizer that is not valid... a cognizer that is a wrong consciousness. The wrong consciousness apprehending inherent existence is called ignorance. This ignorance is the first of the 12 links of dependent-arising and it is the root of samsara.
The ignorance that is the conception of self of the person apprehends the self (in the sense of the person) as possessing a self (in the sense of being inherently existent). From a Prasangika viewpoint, the eye-consciousness in the continuum of an ordinary being apprehending a person is (1) valid with regard to the entity of the thing (i.e. apprehending a person as a person) but (2) is wrong with regard to the mode of existence of the thing (i.e. apprehending the person to exist inherently).

Once you understand the "non-duel" concept, the answer to this question becomes very apparent.
When we observe reality around us, our normal state is one of concepts.  Whenever we attempt to understand anything, we form a concept of what it is we are attempting to understand. What is a fish? How we conceptualize a fish is through the word "fish". Maybe a mental picture of the form of a specific fish we have seen in our lives. The thoughts of stories about that fish. (eg: A fish is a living creature. A fish lives under water. All of these things make up my personal concept of a fish.)
We also use the realm of concepts to describe ourselves. For example, I have many thoughts that make up the concept of who "I" am. (eg: My name is Alexander. I am a man. I have a mental image of my body. This experience is a part of the concept of self.) The trick of understanding comes here: Although there is a concept of self that can exist, there is nothing that can be identified as self. This conceptual understanding of "you" is what is meant by your "conventional" idea of self.
When I say "there is a concept of self that can exist", I mean there are thoughts that occur that make up a concept of a separate, permanent self. In reality though, if you are able to observe non-dual existence, you will find that all that exists is experience and Nirvana. Experience is fleeting and is born and dies through Nirvana. Nirvana is not observable, and experience is, hence the labeling of non-duality.
Initially, we conceptualize self as body, mind, experience. But under close inspection, body and mind are nothing more than experience. Experience is fleeting, constantly arising and passing, so therefore can not be self.
The bottom line is:

If we believe anatta, then how, specifically, can the "conventional"
  self be accepted?

It is possible for there to be nothing that can be identified as a self, while still acknowledging the fact that thoughts can occur that can create a concept of self.

Do they mean we only pretend that the illusion of
  self is real in order to talk to people in everday language?

The illusion of self is very real. It is the cause of all our suffering. Once non-duality is understood and the illusion is broken, the concept/thoughts of self are used as a tool to talk to people about your experience.

Or is
  there some part of the concept of self that even Buddhism cannot
  reject?

Thinking in concepts helps us understand our reality. The Buddha taught the Dharma as a path to help us discover our misconceptions. Believing in the existence of permanence, satisfaction, and a separate, permanent self are incorrect. There will always be a concept of self. What we need to break ourselves from is the belief that a concept is something that can be protected, harmed, bound, freed, birthed, killed, etc.

Namo Buddhaya. As far as I a understand there is no conventional self. The residual self which is present due to clinging, leads to existence of what you may call conventional self.
The 'I' which you read in the sentence above is due to clinging to one , few or all the aggregates.
The following sutta(SN 22.47) will help you understand better:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard
  anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five
  aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them. What
  five?
“Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the
  noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is
  not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in
  their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or
  form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self …
  perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as
  self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in
  self, or self as in consciousness.
“Thus this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ have not
vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a
descent of the five faculties—of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the
nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is,
  bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element
  of ignorance. When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a
  feeling born of ignorance-contact, ‘I am’ occurs to him; ‘I am this’
  occurs to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of
  form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will
  be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor
  nonpercipient’—these occur to him.

There is no residual self. "The notion of self" is just an ignorant feeling/thought/view.

This site is Anatta. Your answers are Anatta. Why are you identifying with it ? You are confusing Anatta with no soul. No soul is an Annihilation view. Wrong view. You are because of craving and clinging. You are because of ignorance.

Wrong again! Annihilation view is the belief that 'self' ends at death.

Sorry for the mistake.Little weak on terminology. I meant to ask whether you are suggesting that 'self' never existed ? If that was so then why didn't Buddha say it. If Self never existed then what use is giving the punishment and to whom? If Buddha said 'self' or 'himself' never existed then please quote him. Thanks.

The notion of a self is nothing more than just a notion. It's just a false belief that is removed when one attains the Sotapanna stage.

300 years ago many people thought that the earth was flat. Now we know that it is spherical. When people believed that earth was flat, do you think it was really flat or was it just a ignorant belief?

Honestly I believe Earth is flat but is made spherical in the consciousness. However that belief is debatable. What Buddha said is eternally relevant.Doubt is one of the five lower fetters.

Do you believe that the sun goes around the earth as well?

@SankhaKulathantille It may or may not be true. But I know the fact that sun and the earth are Anatta. Therefore any Truth made up of Sun and Moon are Anatta too.

The Anatta nature does not forbid you from learning how things work

It does not forbid but it is not a supreme thing to learn. Dhamma is the supreme thing to learn and practice. And remember things will not always work the way they are working even if it is quantum mechanics.

Its not about superiority. That was meant to be taken as an analogy. Just because people believe that the sun goes around the earth does not mean it is that way. In the same way, just because people believe that there is a self, doesn't mean that there is.

@SankhaKulathantille If there is no self then can I cut your finger or your arm ? You will say no because you will feel pain. You will feel because you identify yourself with feelings. Self is as real as that.

Injuring another person intentionally usually involves aversion unless it's a doctor doing a surgery. That is bad karma for you. Karma does not require a 'self' to work as I had mentioned in another post.

@SankhaKulathantille In which other post did you mention that karma does not require a 'self' to work?

@ChrisW It was in an answer/comment in another question by Dheeraj to a similar argument. I can't remember which.

@SankhaKulathantille Thank you. Maybe it was this comment.

Yes, maybe just that one if there isn't another like it. Thanks!


text:
Experience of non self
When experience a cittarupa understand arise if no thoughts come regarding  them self  will  disappears. What is that experience?

What do you mean by "self will disappear"?

No craving no clinging

Your question is too broad.add more info

Understood  if no thoughts arises regarding cittarupa they will disappear automatically self will not create. No thoughts come out experience no self

Is that nonself

Craving a d clinging are just craving and clinging. They are not a self

Just  because of self that craving and clinging arise

Not! Craving arise due to ignorance. What you call 'self' is merely an ignorant notion.

What is an ignorant notion

Are you asking about the idea of a self or an independent observer?

The realisation of the enlightened pnes is that there is no self. Therefore it is not the case that some self disappears. The "self" was never there to begin with- but the ignorance which makes one think that what appears is the case- that ignorance disappears. How does ignorance disappear- with wisdom accumulated through cultivation of the right view.

Cittarupa is awareness without reflection: the body-mind at peace. It is sensing everything sensed without assigning value to it. The experience is composure, because the illusions that pull the mind and body in various directions are stilled for the moment.

Citta-Rupa simply refers to resp. the mind and the body. According to the Abidhamma, this is the everyday human experience where Citta conditions Rupa. What you are referring to as "self will dissapear" is called nirodha samapatti, as detailed in the Abidhamma. It refers to a state of Nirvana while still living in Samsara.
To attain Nirvana, the Abidhamma refers to a specific Citta called Cuti-Citta, this is the mental precognition of physical death:

Even though there is a single nibbana as its nature, nibbana is talked
  to have two different forms, saupadisesa nibbana and anupadisesa
  nibbana. Saupadisesa nibbana is nibbana when sattas are still in the
  samsara are when they are alive. This nibbana is only present in
  arahats or anagams while they are in nirodha samapatti. Nirodha means
  disappearance and samapatti means to be in a state of. Anupadisesa
  nibbana is the state immediately after cuti citta of arahats.
Immediately after cuti citta of arahats, there is no more kammaja
  rupa, cittaja rupa and aharaja rupa. That state from the sattas just
  gone to nibbana is said to be the state of nibbana called anupadisesa
  nibbana as there is no trace of so called satta that is no citta, no
  cetasika, no kammaja rupa, no citta rupa, and no aharaja rupa. Utuja
  rupa just left is like other bahiddhika rupa and not attached to any
  satta. So such nibbana is a complete and absolute peace. This is the
  state all Buddhists are trying to attain after their paccima bhava or
  final life .

Note that in Theravada Buddhism Nirvana without residing in Samsara can only be attained upon physical death. In Mahayana Buddhism, this "requirement" is eliminated, though many Mahayana traditions still refer to the moment of enlightenment as "The Great Death".

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
If our present suffering is the result of bad karma from a prior life, what is the real present remedy for suffering in this life?
Can all suffering be alleviated in this life through our efforts with the Eight Fold Path? Why engage in any effort related to the Eight Fold Path, if the only true benefits are to be realized in the next life?

Can all suffering be alleviated in this life through our efforts with the Eight Fold Path?

Yes. That's the promise

Why engage in any effort related to the Eight Fold Path, if the only true benefits are to be realized in the next life?

This is a misunderstanding. True benefits are realized now. At the present moment. Anyone who wait for next life or even tomorrow are simply in a state of suffering.

If our present suffering is the result of bad karma from a prior life, what is the real present remedy for suffering in this life?

Non of your suffering is based on bad karma. Suffering is something you do. Not something that happen to you. Enlightened person realize this and stop doing it.
You may have a back pain, which may or may not be karma from past life. But you don't have to suffer it.

thank you both for this question & answer, it is very helpful. If I may ask @rrr for a small clarification to test if I have understood the answer. In the last line where you say "you may have... but you don't have to suffer it." Does that mean that the events that come to us may be karmic (or not), but our response to those events are ours to choose, and the decision to have an experience that includes suffering is a choice ? thank you for your patience and generosity.

@Mishtook, You are correct. When you are driven by delusion / blindness you react and fight reality. This is suffering. Person with fully developed wisdom will act without suffering. I used word 'act' here because wisdom empowers you and sets you free, you are no longer controlled/triggered by external factors, so you take actions, not reactions.

Present suffering is a result of both past and present Karma.
Ex: Physical pain is a result of past Karma, but the mental suffering it causes is a result of being averse to pain. Losing  something valuable can be a result of past Karma, but the mental suffering it causes is a result of clinging to it.
The true benefits are realized both now and in the future. But the effort should always be made at the present moment.

In order to understand karma and how the concept relates to the Buddhist teachings, one must understand the concept of sankhara. The Pali term “sankhara” is translated as “karma-formations” by Nyanatiloka, the author of Buddhist Dictionary. Another translation could be “schema.” Strictly speaking, sankhara can be understood in two ways:
(1) It can be understood to refer to an unconscious decision-making process that makes use of past experience to select a plan of action (karma) in response to a perceived situation in the present.
(2) It can be understood to refer to a set or system of predispositions that cause this unconscious decision-making process.
Viewed in this way, sankhara is the cause of all intelligent behaviour. The mind consists of a vast number of sankhara(s). A sankhara can be wholesome (kusala), unwholesome (akusala), karma-resultant (vipaka), or functional (kiriya).
All Buddhist practice deals with the various sankhara each of us possess in two ways:
(1) Some practices can be viewed as “coping strategies” that serve the purpose of doing our best while controlling the influence of unwholesome sankhara. The practices of equanimity (upekkha), detachment (tatra-majjhattata), calm (samadhi), and the Eight-Fold Path can be viewed as coping strategies in this sense.
(2) Some practices can be viewed as strategies for undoing or unlearning unwholesome sankhara through recollection (sati) of the historical formation of an unwholesome sankhara.
The practices of mindfulness meditation (satipatthana) and insight meditation (vipassana) can be viewed as strategies that remove unwholesome sankhara that prevent Enlightenment (nibbana; nirvana in Sanskrit).
With this understanding of sankhara, the followings answers can be provided:
Question #1: If our suffering is the result of bad karma from a prior life, what is the real present remedy for suffering in this life?
Answer #1: The premise of this statement is false. Suffering has many causes, some of which are caused by our own unwholesome sankhara(s). Coping strategies mitigate the influence of unwholesome sankhara and thereby constitute a “remedy for suffering in this life,” as does the practice of mindfulness meditation or insight meditation.
Question #2: Can all suffering be alleviated in this life through our efforts with the Eight Fold Path?
Answer #2: No. A lot of suffering is caused by circumstances beyond our control. Following the Eight-Fold Path reduces suffering caused by our own lack of psychological insight.
Question #3: Why engage in any effort related to the Eight Fold Path, if the only true benefits are to be realized in the next life?
Answer #3: The premise of this statement is false. True benefits are realized both in the present life and in the next life.

Can all suffering be alleviated in this life through our efforts with
  the Eight Fold Path?

Buddha says if you follow the teachings exactly then you will be free of suffering. There is no time limit. It may happen in this life or it may happen after few lives.

Why engage in any effort related to the Eight Fold Path, if the only
  true benefits are to be realized in the next life?

Even if the benefits are realized in the next life, be thankful because otherwise you would have spent your time taking rebirths, many many rebirths.

If our present suffering is the result of bad karma from a prior life,
  what is the real present remedy for suffering in this life?

Follow the teachings of Buddha that is do the right thing.

This is not true. Results can be seen in this life itself.
According to the Datthaba Sutta:

Who sees the pain in happiness and views the painful feeling as a
  thorn, perceives the transience in neutral feeling which is peaceful —
  right outlook, truly, has such a monk who fully understands these
  feelings; And having penetrated them, he will be taint-free in this
  very life. Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways, when once his
  life-span ends, his body breaks, all measure and concept he has
  transcended.

According to the Akasa Sutta:

But if a monk is ardent and does not neglect To practice mindfulness
  and comprehension clear, The nature of all feelings will he
  understand, And having penetrated them, he will be taint-free in this
  very life. Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways, When once his
  life-span ends, his body breaks, All measure and concept he has
  transcended.

And what about lay persons who may not be ready for Nibbana?
According to the Appamada Sutta:

For one who desires long life,
  health, beauty, heaven, & noble birth, —
  lavish delights, one after another —
  the wise praise heedfulness
  in performing deeds of merit.
When heedful, wise,
  you achieve both kinds of benefit:
  benefits in this life,
  & benefits in lives to come.
By breaking through to your benefit,
  you're called
  enlightened, wise.

Also please see this answer on how to alleviate the experience of suffering through becoming developed in body and developed in mind.

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


text:
What are the requirements in order to happen a complete sin?
Imagine someone perform an action. What are the requirements should be completed for it to be a complete sin?
Explain it by using killing an animal as an exaple

What is the definition of sin? Does crime committed against oneself a sin too?

I don't think it's thoroughly explained in suttas.
I know you tagged this topic lay-buddhism, but it might be relevant to mention that the topic is extensively discussed in the Vinaya (the "discipline", the rules for monks).
Pages of 74 through 86 of The Buddhist Monastic Code says:

This rule against intentionally causing the death of a human being is best
  understood in terms of five factors, all of which must be present for there to be
  the full offense.

Object: a human being, which according to the Vibhaṅga includes human
  fetuses as well, counting from the time consciousness first arises in the
  womb immediately after conception up to the time of death.
Intention: knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wanting
  to cause that person’s death. “Knowingly” also includes the factor of—
Perception: perceiving the person as a living being.
Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing that person to die.
Result: The life-faculty of the person is cut as the result of one’s act.

It details a number of exceptions: if you kill a person by accident; if you thought they were already dead; or etc.
It also details some non-exceptions, e.g. telling someone else to kill does count as "effort".
Perhaps I could mention that attempted murder (where the victim doesn't die as a "result") is considered still an offence, and punished ... but with "lesser penalties".
The penalties (and the deeds for which monks are punished) in the Vinaya aren't necessarily the same as the working of kamma -- they're more well-defined (and so easier to list in detail).

to be honest, I didn't want to tag that topic. I was looking for a tag as Buddhism, but there is no such. Therefore I had to do it. I regret to see Buddhism as "tibetan buddhism/ chinese buddhism" etc. Because Lord Buddha didn't teach two things. As I bellieve and also as it should be there should be only one religion as Buddhism (Shouldn't have categories)

There are other tags you could use, like [tag:sila] or [tag:five-precepts] or [tag:killing]. The tag system isn't very controlled (few rules about which tags to use) -- one other tag with a well-defined meaning is [tag:reference-request].

People said it's sometimes useful to have school-specific tags -- see for example Theravada and Mahayana and/or How should we handle the different traditions of Buddhism in our answers? -- so you may use that kind of tag in a question; but a lot of questions don't use that kind of tag.


text:
How to develop Equanimity or Upeksha?
Namo Buddhaya.
This sutta asks for development of 7 factors of enlightenment including Mindfulness and Equanimity. Development of Mindfulness is described in detail but I couldn't find any sutta describing development of Equanimity.
My question is : Can you please suggest a sutta which describes how to develop Equanimity ?

I guess Cariyapitaka has a story on equanimity but I am unable to find it on the internet.

The Cariyapitaka  is here but not translated, only Pali and Vietnamese.

@ChrisW Does anybody know Pali? This is the target Sutta which I want translated.

This question may be a duplicate of Can anyone please translate a sutta from Pali to English?

@ChrisW Yes. I posted that question so that everyone can be aware of the problem. Here I had asked you individually.

Actually I don't know whether it is a duplicate unless the Sutta is translated into English.

@ChrisW I will close one of the questions as soon as I get relevant reply to any one of them.


text:
Spiritualism VS layman's path
I have followed the Dharma for the last ten+ years, and have been married for thirty. l have reached a stage where my progression is noticeably obstructed by the Layman's world. I've talked to my spouse(non Buddhist), but she is upset and doesn't want her world to change. What advice would you give to both of them?

l write with humility and humbleness; A level of samadhi associated with jhana.

There are several options for you.

Keep the marriage life and visit a monastery for meditation for couple of weeks every six months.
Give up the marriage and get ordained. But before you do that, make sure your family has a steady income to survive.
Keep the marriage and meditate whenever your wife does not need you.
Keep the marriage and just be mindful of everything you do in lay life.

What changes do you need to make? What roadblocks do you believe you can't overcome in your current situation?
Enlightenment can be attained no matter what your circumstances are in life are. Living using monastic princaples can assist in removing distractions that can be enticing, but if your practice is strong, you can walk the path no matter where you are in life.
There seems to be some sort of misconception that you must ordain to become enlightened or must live according to specific guidelines. The key to walking the path is cultivating morality, concentration, and wisdom. Use the five aggregates to help balance you along the path. Follow the Buddha's teachings in morality as best as you can. Cultivate concentration and wisdom through meditation. No matter your living conditions, you will still be observing and analyzing the same experience.
I encourage you to ask yourself while meditating, what makes up my desires to make changes in my life? The beautiful thing is, you already (and always will) have  everything you need to attain new wisdom!

In addition to Sankha's answer, I suggest that you could share the Dhamma with your spouse.
According to Itivuttaka 100:

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a
  gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things &
  sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the
  Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material
  things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help
  with the Dhamma.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

I think you should stay with your wife. Only you can really decide. You must think about reality. You made a promise to this woman and she made a promise to you. Also, though, many people get divorced, you must decide if wanting to go deeper into "pure" practice, is your only motive, well...
Please read the Vimalakirti Sutra http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln260/Vimalakirti.htm
I suggest you read this Sutra, over and over. I read a section every night, before I do a Tantric Sadhana of Manjusri and Saraswati, Father, Mother practice.
Also, Here is a great link The Suttas of spoken to Mahanama https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.025.kuma.html
Here is one more. the Buddha spoke over 5 times to this cousin of his, Mahanama.
Please find the other 3 when you have time.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.013.than.html
My last idea is, go slow, let the whole situation unfold. Don't try to make something happen. Let an unfoldment occur. I personally think you should do more weekend retreats and also give your wife a reward for putting up with living without you, while you are gone. Peace, my friend. You can do it. Well. I personally think, in this day and age, most people will not be happy in a Monastic life, forever. Finally, If it's not one thing, it's another. That's what people used to say when I lived in Philly. If you want more suggestions, message me anytime.

I just got one more idea. Instead of you going on retreats, take your wife and children camping. Start out slow. Go somewhere that is peaceful, like a mountain lake., with other people nearby. No wilderness camping. Or go to a beach resort: Get in touch with nature with your family.


text:
When a man life becomes complete
Everyone was on a run for their life doing something they don't like. Also there may be no sense of satisfaction in their life. So I am thinking, what makes a man's life complete?
Does the worldly things still matter for a man to make his life complete? Does only meditating makes a man complete? If there is no use in our life then what's reason for our existence. Why we came here into this world? Why are we in this cycle of birth and death?
What is the meaning of life?

How would an answer to this question look like?

The question "why?" with regards to existence comes from theistic thinking. Even some scientists cannot free themselves from this kind of thinking. It is a result of believing that there's some ultimate entity/force in the universe that decides a purpose for us.
Buddhism doesn't subscribe to ideas like that. Buddhism teaches about causes and effect. It never talks about an inherent purpose or something written in the stars with regards to existence. Because there is none. But that doesn't mean that there are no goals worth aiming for. In an ultimate sense, end of suffering is the goal that is worth striving for.
If your head is on fire, trying to put off the fire is the smarter thing to do. Not to ask "why me?".

Your purpose and mission in life is the pursuit of happiness.
This includes avoiding suffering, and achieving happiness. Whatever that could make you happy, makes you complete. Even a newborn baby cries when she is hungry and is happy when she is drinking delicious milk.
Working on your hobbies, advancing your career, developing a family, nurturing a child, going on vacations, increasing your wealth, raising your status in the world, attaining fame in society etc. could all make you happy.
But the point is that these types of happiness would not last forever.
The goal in Buddhism is the end of suffering. But why do you want to reach the end of suffering? The reason is to attain the only permanent happiness, which is Nibbana.
So, the mission in Buddhism is really the pursuit of happiness, which is the purpose of your life. The Buddha discovered that both over-indulgence and over-asceticism are not conducive to the path to the end of suffering. So, he prescribed the middle way through the Noble Eightfold Path.
If you follow the middle way, you can have long term, medium term and short term goals of happiness.
The long term goal associated with this mission is attaining Nibbana (permanent happiness). It might take multiple births, maybe even aeons to achieve this.
The medium term goal would be to try to achieve: at least stream entry for Theravada and strong cultivation of Bodhicitta for Mahayana. You can also get more info on stream entry in this YouTube video talk.
The short term goal would be to try to achieve and maintain "materialistic" happiness in this life and future lives (which includes avoiding unfortunate rebirths). At the very minimum, you need to keep the five precepts with heedfulness (appamada). Going a little further, you need to practise more of virtue (sila) with heedfulness (appamada).
This short term goal is described in the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor, heaven, high birth: To those who
  delight in aspiring for these things in great measure, continuously,
  the wise praise heedfulness in making merit.
The wise person, heedful, acquires a two-fold welfare: welfare in this
  life & welfare in the next. By breaking through to his welfare he's
  called prudent, wise.

For lay followers, there is plenty of advice on achieving the short to medium term goals in the Gihi Sutta (or Discourse to the Householder), Sigalovada Sutta, Dighajanu Sutta and Anana Sutta. The minimum training rules imposed on lay followers are the five precepts. Also see this answer for the question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?"
For those in a hurry to Nibbana, there are the more advanced training paths of anagarika (sort of a pre-monk or pre-nun), novice monk or nun, and fully ordained monk or nun. Please see this answer for details.

When you ask 'why', one can come up with an answer involving cause and effect looking at past. But if you ask what is the meaning of life. Or what is the purpose of life, I am guessing you are asking something else.
Life really has no meaning. The meaning and the purpose of life is a collectively imagined idea to convince that the race, the thing you try to do, the thing you try to get is worth the trouble. It is not. Life is to live at present moment, instead of sacrificing the present moment for some never arriving future.
One can argue the meaning/purpose of life is happiness. And that's why we do everything we do. Thinking that it will make us happy we end up in a roller-coaster ride of emotional highs and lows. If you argue in this line, only true lasting happiness, joy and fulfillment, is enlightenment. Then one can say that purpose/meaning of life is enlightenment. But this is still just an argument.


text:
Prayer vs Meditation
When we have a powerful practice called Meditation, why prayer?
Does the prayer deals with the worldly things, because everyone pray to god like I want a car or I wanna be rich. Is that only deals with the law of attraction.
So what are the difference between them. Does prayer too take us to levels of enlightenment. How effective is Meditation compared to prayer.

What form of prayer, what school of Buddhism, are you asking about? Can you give an example of, a reference to, what you're asking about?

@ChrisW No I dont reference any form of prayer or meditation here. I just ask what's the basic difference between them.

"Prayer" is described (e.g. Is there a difference between prayer and petition? and What is prayer?) on Christianity.SE -- prayer may be "petitionary" (i.e. asking for things) but is not necessarily. Whether prayer is petitionary, what forms of prayer there are and how they're described, varies some from one (Christian) Church to another. I don't know what you mean by "prayer" though, what you understand as being prayer, an example of prayer, in a Buddhist context.

The closest analogy I know (i.e. to a practice which is maybe like prayer) is this topic (which, again, describes a specific form of Buddhism).

Prayer doesn't take us to higher levels of Enlightenment.Where did you read this? You should reference and narrow down the question.Too broad and should be closed

Theravāda buddhism has only reciting, we don't have prayer. Reciting is like when you want to speak thai language, you have to recite thai vocabulary and thai grammar to memorize it for using it in every where and every time you want to speak in thai.
So, when you want to practice follow the buddha, you have to memorize the buddha's teaching, first.
Also, there are many types of reciting in buddhism, which depending on situation, such as:

Reciting for meditation of the practitioner, such as in Sutta. Aṅ. (5): dasakanipātā Dutiyanalakapānasuttaṃ.
Reciting for keep tipitaka going on of the tipitaka-memorizer, such as in 1st saṅgāyanā.
Reciting in thai  tradition, which follow to the virtual chapter of the path of purification.

The definition of "prayer" in the Oxford dictionary:

1 A solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God
  or another deity.
1.1 (prayers) A religious service, especially a regular one, at which people gather in order to pray together.
1.2 An earnest hope or wish.

A popular Buddhist prayer (based on the definition of "an earnest hope or wish") from the Karaniya Metta Sutta can be found below. The benefits of this prayer can be found in this answer.

Think: Happy, at rest,
  may all beings be happy at heart.
  Whatever beings there may be,
  weak or strong, without exception,
  long, large, middling, short,
  subtle, blatant, seen & unseen,
  near & far, born & seeking birth:
  May all beings be happy at heart.
Let no one deceive another
  or despise anyone anywhere,
  or through anger or irritation
  wish for another to suffer.
As a mother would risk her life
  to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
  with regard to all beings.
With good will for the entire cosmos,
  cultivate a limitless heart:
  Above, below, & all around, unobstructed,
  without enmity or hate.
  Whether standing, walking,
  sitting, or lying down,
  as long as one is alert,
  one should be resolved on this mindfulness.
  This is called a sublime abiding
  here & now.


text:
Can you translate, from Pali, this sutta about Equanimity?
I have been trying to find out the meaning and nature of Equanimity or Upeksha.
I came across this Sutta which says something about Equanimity but it is in Pali.

Mahālomahaṃsacariya (Cp 35, i.e. number 35 in the Cariyāpiṭaka)

Can anyone please translate this Sutta from Pali to English ?

This is not a sutta spoken by the Buddha: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariyapitaka.

The Pali is:

Susāne seyyaṃ kappemi,  Chavaṭṭhikaṃ upanidhāyahaṃ;  Gāmaṇḍalā
  upāgantvā,  Rūpaṃ dassentinappakaṃ.
Apare gandhamālañca,  bhojanaṃ vividhaṃ bahuṃ;  Upāyanānūpanenti,
  haṭṭhā saṃviggamānasā.
Ye me dukkhaṃ upaharanti
Whatever difficulty presents itself
ye ca denti sukhaṃ mama;
Whatever comforts he is offered/Whatever happiness he offers (?)
Sabbesaṃ samako homi
Always/everywhere existing (with) the same (calmness)
dayā kopo na vijjati.
Kindness but no irritation is found
Sukhadukkhe tulābhūto
Remaining/existing/being balanced in pleasure, pain [feelings]
Yasesu ayasesu ca
Fame/success & obscurity
Sabbattha samako homi
Always/everywhere existing (with) the same (calmness)
Esā me upekkhāpāramī”ti.
That is perfect equanimity
https://suttacentral.net/cp35/pli/ms

Click on the Sutta Central link; then click on the cog wheel at the top right; active the Pali-English function; highlight the Pali & try to do the translation for yourself.

I have got to thank you for showing me the way.


text:
Dhamma makes one dispassionate then how can one be compassionate?
Namo Buddhaya. After practicing Dhamma one becomes dispassionate. However Buddha says one should cultivate and practice Compassion. So am I not killing my own profit of dispassion by compassion?
My question is: how can I remain compassionate if Dhamma makes me dispassionate? Or how can I remain dispassionate if Buddha asks me to remain compassionate?

Maybe this article will be useful: Detachment and Compassion in Early Buddhism

Viraaga literally means the absence of raaga: the absence of lust, desire, and craving for existence. Hence, it denotes indifference or non-attachment to the usual objects of raaga, such as material goods or sense pleasures. Non-attachment is an important term here if the Pali is to be meaningful to speakers of English. It is far more appropriate than "detachment" because of the negative connotations "detachment" possesses in English.

The word which Thanissaro Bhikkhu translated as "dispassion", e.g. starting this sutta, is virāgā.
And,

In fact, at least three strands of meaning in the term "compassion" can be detected in the texts: a prerequisite for a just and harmonious society; an essential attitude for progress along the path towards wisdom; and the liberative action within society of those who have become enlightened or who are sincerely following the path towards it. All these strands need to be looked at if the term is to be understood and if those who accuse Buddhist compassion of being too passive are to be answered correctly.

IMO a simple analogy might be that a doctor doesn't need to be ill in order to help their patients -- it's better if they're not.

I also recommend this article on the Brahmaviharas in general (including compassion and equanimity): The Four Sublime States by Nyanaponika Thera.

There's also for example this essay, Toward a Threshold of Understanding, which says that it's a mistake to see Buddhism as "indifference" toward the world:

he Pontiff describes Nibbana as "a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world," adding that in Buddhism salvation means "above all, to free oneself from evil by becoming indifferent to the world, which is the source of evil" (p.86). By such statements he represents Buddhism to his readers as a quietistic doctrine of withdrawal which can address the momentous problems that face humanity today only by politely turning its back on them. This is hardly a satisfactory depiction of Early Buddhism, in which transcendence of the world is stressed, let alone of Mahayana Buddhism, in which the bodhisattva's compassionate activity on behalf of the world becomes the guiding ideal.
The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably upekkha. The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune. It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor, praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the "divine abodes": boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.
If Buddhism in practice has not always lived up to the high ideals posited by the original Teaching, this is to be understood as a result of the downward gravitational pull of human nature, not as a consequence of any emphasis on apathy and indifference in the pristine Dhamma. The Buddhist texts provide ample evidence that the attainment of Nibbana does not issue in a stolid indifference to the world. The Buddha himself, the ideal model for his followers, led an active life of 45 years after his enlightenment dedicated to the uplift of humanity. Throughout Buddhist history, the great spiritual masters of the Dhamma have emulated the Awakened One's example, heeding his injunction to wander forth "for the welfare and happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans."

Yup. A metaphor I wanted to give was,  a parent is compassionate about child's crying over toys, even though as adult he or she is "dispassionate" about toys. This answer covers it well.

By tending to your own renunciation, you may become dispassionate (which is a way to deal with your own suffering), but by cultivating compassion, you can create the balance needed in dealing with others. Renunciation and equanimity is how you deal with your own suffering. Meanwhile, compassion is how you deal with others' suffering.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in "The Balanced Way":

Like a bird in flight borne by its two wings, the practice of Dhamma
  is sustained by two contrasting qualities whose balanced development
  is essential to straight and steady progress. These two qualities are
  renunciation and compassion. As a doctrine of renunciation the Dhamma
  points out that the path to liberation is a personal course of
  training that centers on the gradual control and mastery of desire,
  the root cause of suffering. As a teaching of compassion the Dhamma
  bids us to avoid harming others, to act for their welfare, and to help
  realize the Buddha's own great resolve to offer the world the way to
  the Deathless.
Considered in isolation, renunciation and compassion have inverse
  logics that at times seem to point us in opposite directions. The one
  steers us to greater solitude aimed at personal purification, the
  other to increased involvement with others issuing in beneficent
  action. Yet, despite their differences, renunciation and compassion
  nurture each other in dynamic interplay throughout the practice of the
  path, from its elementary steps of moral discipline to its culmination
  in liberating wisdom. The synthesis of the two, their balanced fusion,
  is expressed most perfectly in the figure of the Fully Enlightened
  One, who is at once the embodiment of complete renunciation and of
  all-embracing compassion.
Both renunciation and compassion share a common root in the encounter
  with suffering. The one represents our response to suffering
  confronted in our own individual experience, the other our response to
  suffering witnessed in the lives of others. Our spontaneous reactions,
  however, are only the seeds of these higher qualities, not their
  substance. To acquire the capacity to sustain our practice of Dhamma,
  renunciation and compassion must be methodically cultivated, and this
  requires an ongoing process of reflection which transmutes our initial
  stirrings into full-fledged spiritual virtues.

"Like a bird in flight borne by its two wings, the practice of Dhamma is sustained by two contrasting qualities...These two qualities are renunciation and compassion." How do you fly ? How do you apply Dispassion and then apply Compassion ? Suppose I hold the view that all feelings and mental fabrications are worthless to be attached to as me , mine or myself then why should I attach with Compassion when it arises ?(Compassion is a feeling and/or an idea which is developed) Should I suspend dispassion when I see others?

Passion here means craving, lust etc. It has nothing to do with compassion or kindness.

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

Both dispassion and compassion, from a Theravadin Buddhist point of view, must be understood in terms of kusala (wholesome) sankhara, akusala (unwholesome) sankhara, and kriya (functional) sankhara.
According to the Vissuddhimagga (Path of purification), we overcome akusala sankhara(s) only through Vipassana (insight meditation, mindfulness meditation) which is practiced in a state of upacara-samadhi (neighborhood-samadhi). Upacara-samadhi is required because it engages the kriya sankhara(s) that make us intelligent and thereby capable of psychological insight into akusala sankhara(s).
The nature of akusala sankhara is mostly complex and subtle. This is especially true of the relationship between upekkha (equanimity) and karuna (compassion) or metta (lovingkindness). A superficial view of the Buddhist path is to view it as a way to reduce personal suffering (or psychotherapy). But traditional Buddhism was never meant to be a form of therapy. Traditional Buddhism is a path to Nibbana (Enlightenment), which is a lot of hard work. Emotional distress or the lack thereof is a poor indication of either kusala sankhara or akusala sankhara. For example, indifference to the suffering of others is a form of akusala sankhara, even though it is not painful, while finding the suffering of others to be emotionally distressing is a form of kusala sankhara, even though it is painful. There is nothing wrong with using meditation as a form of therapy, but Buddhist psychology is not about feeling better (which is the purpose of psychotherapy). Dispassion (upekkha) is best viewed as a necessary condition for upacara-samadhi rather than as a way of life. (Hence, if you happen to be upset about the suffering of a friend, you let it pass before sitting down to meditate.) Upekkha as a way of life does not deal with akusala-sankhara and results in no progress on the path to Nibbana. Upekkha as a way of life is a fool’s paradise.

Question #1: So, am I not killing my own profit of dispassion by compassion? Answer #1: Being dispassionate about compassion is akusala sankhara and therefore a loss rather than profit.
Question #2: How can I remain compassionate if Dhamma makes me dispassionate? Answer #2: Real Dhamma does not make you dispassionate about metta or karuna. Indeed, the practice of the Brahma-Vihara makes a monk or nun more passionate. Your understanding of the Buddha-Dhamma is false.
Question #3: Or how can I remain dispassionate if Buddha asks me to remain compassionate? Answer #3: You cannot. There is no progress on the path to Nibbana by practicing dispassion. Being dispassionate is not a substitute for psychological insight into one’s own akusala sankhara(s).


text:
Killing neighbours dog
Hi may I know what is the karma of killing a dog please?
My neighbours dog starts barking from 5am daily and I don't get enough sleep. I am so tired at work and cannot focus. I've tried soundproofing my walls and using ear plugs  but they don't work I can still hear the barking.
I've spoken to the neighbour but he tells me that he is a human and he can't ask ask his dog to keep quiet (whatever that means).
I am at my wits end, I am so tired, I never get enough rest. Can I kill the dog? May I know what is the karma for killing a dog?

Where I live, I can report barking dogs to the local council, who have the power to remove the dog.

Please don't kill. Remember the first precept  I shouldn't kill even a mosquito it bite me   And you should know when Devdatta had injured a swan with bow  then in the council one said  "A life certainly must belong to him who tries to save it; a life cannot belong to one who is only trying to destroy it. The wounded bird by right belongs to the one who saved its life. Let the swan be given to Siddhattha."  So please.

The karmic result for killing a dog is:

Possible retaliation by your neighbor.
Possible legal action by neighbor and government.
Possible regret & guilty conscience in your heart.
Getting scored negative on Buddhism Stack Exchange.
Not woken up at 5 am; getting an improved night's sleep; more focus & energy at work.
Woken up at 4 am by a new different dog.

Why not use a dog silencer product? Killing the Dog or contemplating to kill is bad Karma for you.

If an individual hates and intentionally kills a life, that individual breaks the first precept.
Because no one likes death.
If you kill that dog, you commit a breach of the precept.
So, please consider a better solution


text:
What do ethical conduct (sila) and compassion have to do with the cessation of dukkha?
As I understand the Third Noble Truth, the cessation of dukkha is brought about by ending craving. I can see how, for example, practicing renunciation, or seeing no self, assist us in achieving this, but how do ethics and compassion practices like lovingkindness lead us to achieving the end of craving?

Dukkha comes not just from craving, but from unsatisfied craving, in other words from inner conflict between "is" and "should".
Sila, Prajna, and Samadhi are three methods to remove and prevent that conflict: coarse, middling, and subtle conflict.
Sila helps remove and prevent coarse behavioral conflict, like obvious conflicted states of Obsession, Negativity, Egoism, - and their real life results, which manifest as various kinds of conflict.
Prajna helps remove and prevent middling intellectual conflict, through analysis of dharmas, understanding how things work, understanding Three Marks of Existence, and Emptiness, understanding the limits of mind's models and perspectives.
Samadhi helps remove and prevent subtle emotional conflict, like states of negativity, unsatisfaction, craving for a different life etc.
So to answer your question, it helps by reducing, removing and preventing conflict between "is" and "should" which manifests as Dukkha.

Not sure if this should be a new question, but, is compassion necessary for Sila?

Yes, I think so. Sila is about your behavior with regard to the world and other people, and how can you optimize your behavior without understanding how it affects them? So in order to practice Sila you need a sense of empathy or compassion.

The reason I ask, is that it that an arahant is one fully liberated without the compassionate wish that a bodhisattva has to benefit all sentient beings. To me, that sounds like realizing nirvana without compassion, without sila. AFAIK, the Buddha did not teach a path without Sila. So I was thinking of opening a discussion on this, but not sure, since a very similar-looking question is asked here in the OP.

Well, it seems a stereotypical Arahant has enough compassion as to avoid harming people, but not enough compassion to actively help them. I think it's a difference in degree, not an absolute one.

Thank you for kindly answering my questions so far. If I need to extend the discussion, then I'll open a new post.

@avatarKorra I think that, according to some doctrine in the Pali tradition, compassion isn't the difference (or it isn't the only difference): an important difference is Buddha's being a more capable teacher -- not only from knowing Dhamma but also ten powers of a Realized One, e.g. knowing the results of karma, understanding the diverse beliefs and faculties of sentient beings, stages and factors of the way, etc. ... being able to adapt the teaching to the audience.

It is interesting to note that compassion is in fact part of Right Thought, and falls under Prajna (wisdom), too.

These classification schemes are artificial constructs, don't worry about them too much.

Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1) explains the relationship of skillful virtues (sila) to Nibbana:

Ven. Ananda asked: “What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?”
The Buddha's answer:
“Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
  and freedom from remorse as their reward.”
“And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?”
“Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?”
“Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of rapture? What is its reward?”
“Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of serenity? What is its reward?”
“Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of pleasure? What is its reward?”
“Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its
  reward.”
“And what is the purpose of concentration? What is its reward?”
“Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are
  as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as
  its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they
  actually are? What is its reward?”
“Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment
  as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?”
“Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its
  reward.”
“And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?”
“Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose,
  knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

yes, I'm starting to notice, with yours and this answer that the purpose of Sila, Samadhi, and Wisdom are to remove defilements, leading to the ending of craving, and then nibbana.

Sila(morality), Samadhi(concentration), Panna(wisdom) is the way to cessation of Dukkha. Sila disciplines bodily and verbal actions. Without that discipline you cannot discipline the mind, without disciplining the mind, you cannot cultivate wisdom.

There is a strong aspect in the training by the Buddha to achieve some self-analysis, some self-liberation.
But there is also another one, not often discussed but it occurs in some suttas (don't have the actual reference at the moment). This might be called a social one which introduces something like "reciprocity" or "echo":
If you've taken the vow that you won't kill - and the people around you can trust you, then the people around you need not fear getting killed, they can themselves feel more free and secure, and this is not only a good athmosphere for them but shall echo back to yourself and your freedom to move between them - and in general for the common social environment.
If you've taken the vow that you won't take what is not given - then the people around you need not fear that their things shall be taken away. When they know you are of that type you might walk through the fields (if it is a rural area) with much less things to be taken care of - so this again shall echo back to you - and in general for the common social environment (I really loved such a free- and trusting feeling when I wandered through the south of France, it was really new to me grown up in urban Germany...)
Think about the other vows - it should not be too difficult to image analoguous examples.
So, your keeping-the-silas and generating-trust-in-this improves an environment of freedom and - one shall even find out- of generosity and other good mental states and routines, thus reducing dukkha on both sides in such reciprocal process.

(If I can remember the sutta I've read on this I'll add the reference later)

Namo Buddhaya. One very important aspect which has not been said in the answers so far is that cessation of Dukkha can not be achieved if the Kamma has not been exhausted.Suffering can not affect those who have done no bad deed. By developing loving kindness,compassion,altruistic joy and equanimity one can liberate the mind from past kamma. It leads to non-returning or Nirvana.
I quote the following sutta to support the answer:

“This noble disciple, bhikkhus, who is thus devoid of longing, devoid
  of ill will, unconfused, clearly comprehending, ever mindful, dwells
  pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with loving-kindness,
  likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth
  quarter. Thus above, below, across, and everywhere, and to all as to
  himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with
  loving-kindness, vast, exalted, measureless, without enmity, without
  ill will. He understands thus: ‘Previously, my mind was limited and
  undeveloped, but now it is measureless and well developed. No
  measurable kamma remains or persists there.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the
liberation of mind by loving-kindness from his childhood on, would he
do a bad deed?”
“No, Bhante.”
“Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For
on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?”
“A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by
  loving-kindness. A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when
  they go. Mortals have mind as their core.
“The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the
  past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will
  not follow along.’ When the liberation of mind by loving-kindness has
been developed in this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise
bhikkhu here who does not penetrate to a further liberation.
“This noble disciple, bhikkhus, who is thus devoid of longing, devoid
  of ill will, unconfused, clearly comprehending, ever mindful, dwells
  pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with compassion … with a mind
  imbued with altruistic joy … with a mind imbued with equanimity,
  likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth
  quarter. Thus above, below, across, and everywhere, and to all as to
  himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with
  equanimity, vast, exalted, measureless, without enmity, without ill
  will. He understands thus: ‘Previously, my mind was limited and
  undeveloped, but now it is measureless and well developed. No
  measurable kamma remains or persists there.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth would develop the liberation
  of mind by equanimity, from his childhood on, would he do a bad deed?”
“No, Bhante.”
“Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?”
“No, Bhante. For on what account could suffering affect one who does
  no bad deed?”
“A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by
  equanimity. A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they
  go. Mortals have mind as their core.
“The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the
past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will
not follow along.’ When the liberation of mind by equanimity has been
developed in this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise bhikkhu
here who does not penetrate to a further liberation.”


text:
Is it good to tell awakening stories?
My question to all my dear friend is why people use to share there stories of awakening ?
will it affect the mind of others those who are meditating to find the inner peace.

Yes!...........

I think at times it can be helpful, and at times, harmful.
The teachings of the Buddha are his experiences. By sharing his atainments, he helps us all walk the path.
Unfortunately, if you are too descriptive, people will seek your experience in their practice. They may come to false conclusions that make guiding themselves toards the next attainment much more difficult.
I think it may be more helpful to others if someone with attainments focuses on another's practice, and asks them to answer questions that spark introspection that leads them toward their next fruition.

The hand in the rock is not for the master.It is for the student.

When Milarepa’s disciple saw his master do something that tradition and other teachers said could not happen, it helped him break through his beliefs about what is possible. He saw his teacher’s mastery with his own eyes. And because he witnessed the miracle personally, his experience told his mind that he wasn’t limited or bound by the “laws” of reality as they were known at the time.
Marpa occultly manifested himself in the forms of Gaypa Dorje and other of the tutelary divinities of the Kargyutpa sect and also other divine shapes and forms along with the various symbols associated with each deity such as bells, gems, lotuses, swords, etc. He then explained that these were various psycho-physical powers obtained after enlightenment and that they should never be manifested for an unworthy cause. This was his parting gift to Milarepa, and this, his spiritual son, greatly exalted in his heart to see that his Guru Marpa was veritably a Buddha himself.
He vowed that he himself would gain such powers and show them in his turn to his own disciples. Marpa then told him that he could now depart since he had demonstrated the mirage like nature of all existing things. He instructed Milarepa to meditate in various caves made holy by previous saints in the locale of Mount Kailas, Lapchi Kang (Mt. Everest), and other sanctified places. He then gave to Milarepa a sealed scroll that was to be opened only on dire threat of imminent death. With great sadness, knowing they would not meet again in the present life, Milarepa took leave of his beloved Spiritual Father and Mother with the thought that they would all meet again in the celestial realms.                         Source:Milarepa of Tibet


text:
Do you know of a Buddhist text explaining why living in a community?
There are a number of texts explaining how to live in a community, what rules to follow, what activities, etc. For instance, the classical Vinaya texts, or the "Standards and Rules of Purity" genre in China and Japan (ex.: Chanyuan qinggui, Dogen's Ehei Shingi, etc).
However, I am looking for traditional texts that explain why to live in a community. It could be aimed at monks, lay people, or both. The denomination does not matter much.
I'm looking for commentaries or treatises rather than sutras. It is to use the material as a basis for giving lectures.

“Well then, monks, I will lay down a training rule for the following ten reasons: 5.11.32

for the well-being of the Sangha,
for the comfort of the Sangha,
for the restraint of bad people,
for the ease of good monks,
for the restraint of corruptions relating to the present life,
for the restraint of corruptions relating to future lives,
to give rise to confidence in those without it,
to increase the confidence of those who have it,
for the longevity of the true Teaching,
and for supporting the training.

See reference in this link.
According to the first chapter of Vinaya and it's commentary, Vinaya is for 5000 years of the Buddhist teaching.
People who keep Vinaya is Sangha in the 1st and the 2nd who included people in the 3rd and 4th, they are living like the 5th and the 6th and teach or listen Dhamma with the 7th and 8th minds.
So, the 9th and the 10th of the Buddhism is depending on the strength of communities' supports. If they still keep their unity in training follow the Buddha, they and the previous communities still be able to get the advantage from the Buddha's teaching.
And you shoud see Bhikkhu-aparihaniya Sutta as well...

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in
Rajagaha, on Vulture Peak Mountain. There he addressed the monks:
"Monks, I will teach you the seven conditions that lead to no decline.
Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."
"Yes, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said: "And which seven are the conditions that lead to
no decline?
1 "As long as the monks meet often, meet a great deal, their growth
can be expected, not their decline.
2 "As long as the monks meet in harmony, adjourn from their meetings
in harmony, and conduct Sangha business in harmony, their growth can
be expected, not their decline.
3 "As long as the monks neither decree what has been undecreed nor
repeal what has been decreed, but practice undertaking the training
rules as they have been decreed, their growth can be expected, not
their decline.
[4] "As long as the monks honor, respect, venerate, and do homage to
the elder monks — those with seniority who have long been ordained,
the fathers of the Sangha, leaders of the Sangha — regarding them as
worth listening to, their growth can be expected, not their decline.
[5] "As long as the monks do not submit to the power of any arisen
craving that leads to further becoming, their growth can be expected,
not their decline.
[6] "As long as the monks see their own benefit in wilderness
dwellings, their growth can be expected, not their decline.
[7] "As long as the monks each keep firmly in mind: 'If there are any
well-behaved fellow followers of the chaste life who have yet to come,
may they come; and may the well-behaved fellow-followers of the chaste
life who have come live in comfort,' their growth can be expected, not
their decline.
"As long as the monks remain steadfast in these seven conditions, and
as long as these seven conditions endure among the monks, the monks'
growth can be expected, not their decline."

Namo Buddhaya.I assume you mean Sangha by community. One should live in a Sangha for the welfare and good will of the humans and devas. Sangha i.e. community ,exists out of compassion for the people.
I am quoting a sutta which tells why there should be unity in Sangha? This can be very well answer your question why to live in the Sangha?

This was said by the Lord…
“There is one thing, bhikkhus, which, when it appears in the world,
  appears for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many
  people, for the good, welfare, and happiness of devas and humans. What
  is that one thing? It is unity in the Sangha. When the Sangha is
  united there are no mutual quarrels, mutual recriminations, mutual
  denigrations, and mutual expulsions. In this situation those who are
  unsympathetic are converted and those who are sympathetic increase in
  faith.”
Pleasant is unity in the Sangha. One who helps those in unity, Who
  delights in unity and is righteous, Is not deprived of security from
  bondage. By making the Sangha united He rejoices in heaven for an
  aeon.

There is some overlap here with ChrisW's answer. The point I would like to emphasize is that for both monks and lay persons, there are benefits of admirable friendship.
Admirable friendship is important for both monks and lay persons, so that they may be positively influenced by the wholesome and skillful qualities of their admirable companions.
With admirable friendship, a lay person could progress on the right path according to AN 8.54:

[The Blessed One said:] "There are these four qualities, TigerPaw,
  that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life.
  Which four? Being consummate in initiative, being consummate in
  vigilance, admirable friendship, and maintaining one's livelihood in
  tune.
"And what is meant by admirable friendship? There is the case where a
  lay person, in whatever town or village he may dwell, spends time with
  householders or householders' sons, young or old, who are advanced in
  virtue. He talks with them, engages them in discussions. He emulates
  consummate conviction in those who are consummate in conviction,
  consummate virtue in those who are consummate in virtue, consummate
  generosity in those who are consummate in generosity, and consummate
  discernment in those who are consummate in discernment. This is called
  admirable friendship.

Meanwhile, SN 45.2 speaks of the importance of admirable friendship for a monk:

"And how does a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions,
  & comrades, develop & pursue the noble eightfold path? There is the
  case where a monk develops right view dependent on seclusion,
  dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in
  relinquishment. He develops right resolve... right speech... right
  action... right livelihood... right effort... right mindfulness...
  right concentration dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion,
  dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. This is how a
  monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & colleagues,
  develops & pursues the noble eightfold path.

Sutta Nipata 1.3 below states that it's better to wander alone as a monk, if one does not have admirable companions. Of course, having admirable companions is the best option.

If you gain a mature companion,
  a fellow traveler,
  right-living & wise,
  overcoming all dangers go with him,
  gratified, mindful.
If you don't gain a mature companion,
  a fellow traveler,
  right-living & wise,
  wander alone
  like a king renouncing his kingdom,
  like the elephant in the Matanga wilds,
  his herd.
We praise companionship — yes!
  Those on a par, or better,
  should be chosen as friends.
  If they're not to be found,
  living faultlessly,
  wander alone like a rhinoceros.

the question is why to live in community. a little effort to answer has arisen out by a slight thought giving and personal experience. we are very unfortunate not having buddha among us . if he would have been then without asking whether it is need to live in community or not , we would have gone with him .thanks to his magnetism and charisma. then how we would go to live in community?. buddha has said that his teachings will be the guide/lighthouse in place of him after his mahaparinirvana. so we have now option of understanding/studying/practicing his teachings. even though we are kicked by life so many times we dont understand its futility. we think everything as  permanent . . with this understanding if we go to any commune, we will play there also with all our weapons i.e greed,anger,hatred etc. so as per my experience it is worthy to be in community membered by like minded members only after having experiential understanding of anitya  /impermanence by practising the teaching of buddha . otherwise the community becomes a sort of resort with some sort of resort having some sorts of disciplines of getting up from bed, eating timings etc etc.

Monks, these six are conditions that are conducive to amiability, that
engender feelings of endearment, engender feelings of respect, leading
to a sense of fellowship, a lack of disputes, harmony, & a state of
unity. Which six?
"There is the case where a monk is set on bodily acts of good will
with regard to his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind
their backs. This is a condition that is conducive to amiability, that
engenders feelings of endearment, engenders feelings of respect,
leading to a sense of fellowship, a lack of disputes, harmony, & a
state of unity.
"Furthermore, the monk is set on verbal acts of good will with regard
to his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind their backs.
This is a condition that is conducive to amiability, that engenders
feelings of endearment, engenders feelings of respect, leading to a
sense of fellowship, a lack of disputes, harmony, & a state of unity.
"Furthermore, the monk is set on mental acts of good will with regard
to his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind their backs.
This is a condition that is conducive to amiability, that engenders
feelings of endearment, engenders feelings of respect, leading to a
sense of fellowship, a lack of disputes, harmony, & a state of unity.
"Furthermore, whatever righteous gains the monk may obtain in a
righteous way — even if only the alms in his bowl — he does not
consume them alone. He consumes them after sharing them in common with
his virtuous fellows in the holy life. This is a condition that is
conducive to amiability, that engenders feelings of endearment,
engenders feelings of respect, leading to a sense of fellowship, a
lack of disputes, harmony, & a state of unity.
"Furthermore — with reference to the virtues that are untorn,
unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise,
untarnished, leading to concentration — the monk dwells with his
virtue in tune with that of his fellows in the holy life, to their
faces & behind their backs. This is a condition that is conducive to
amiability, that engenders feelings of endearment, engenders feelings
of respect, leading to a sense of fellowship, a lack of disputes,
harmony, & a state of unity.
"Furthermore — with reference to views that are noble, leading
outward, that lead those who act in accordance with them to the right
ending of suffering & stress — the monk dwells with his views in tune
with those of his fellows in the holy life, to their faces & behind
their backs. This is a condition that is conducive to amiability, that
engenders feelings of endearment, engenders feelings of respect,
leading to a sense of fellowship, a lack of disputes, harmony, & a
state of unity.
"These are the six conditions that are conducive to amiability, that
engender feelings of endearment, engender feelings of respect, leading
to a sense of fellowship, a lack of disputes, harmony, & a state of
unity."
AN 6.12

The phrase "the whole of the spiritual life" characterizes the importance of the Sangha.

SN3.18:4.3: Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

So a contemporary search for non-sutta references might prove fruitful. See the whole of the spiritual life

Living according to the Dhamma, abiding by the appropriate conduct
and having learned the Master's word, are able to expound it, preach
it, proclaim it, establish it, reveal it, explain it in detail and
make it clear; until, when adverse opinions arise, they shall be able
to refute them thoroughly and well, and to preach this convincing and
liberating Dhamma.'
DN 16


text:
How can consciousness arise without the fuel?
Namo Buddhaya.
Craving is said to be the root of the fuel. Without fuel consciousness can not arise.
However in the dependent origination craving manifests very late in the sequence of dependent originations. Consciousness arises at the 3rd step immediately after ignorance and volitional formations. But the fuel or craving arises after consciousness and feelings have arisen.
Ideally first the craving should have arisen and then the consciousness should arise.
This sutta explains how craving is the fuel for consciousness.
As the sutta is very long I will quote some parts of it for better understanding.
Consciousness is described as "like a fire".

It’s like fire, which is reckoned according to the specific conditions
  dependent upon which it burns.

What is the fuel ?
In my opinion it is logically implied here that consciousness is fuelled by craving: because fire can not exist without fuel. And what is the fuel ? Craving. Simple.

“Mendicants, there are these four fuels. They maintain sentient beings
  that have been born and help those that are about to be born. What
  four? Solid food, whether coarse or fine; contact is the second,
  mental intention the third, and consciousness the fourth.
What is the source, origin, birthplace, and root of these four fuels?
  Craving.

When does Craving occur?

ignorance is a condition for choices. Choices are a condition for
  consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. Name
  and form is a condition for the six sense fields. The six sense fields
  are conditions for contact. Contact is a condition for feeling.
  Feeling is a condition for craving.

My question is : How can consciousness arise without the arousal of craving in the first place in the dependent origination ?

This question that I had asked is relevant to this question.
According to MN9:

From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
  ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
  ignorance. .....
From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
  fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fermentation.

To answer your question, ignorance is the cause. But to break the cycle, craving must be uprooted through the Noble Eightfold Path.
Also see Andrei's answer on the vicious cycle.

Once craving is uprooted feelings gets uprooted once feelings get uprooted. Can I say that it is the craving which is fueling the feelings as well ?

The sutta describes several things and uses more than one simile. The sentences you quote come from different parts of the sutta, and aren't directly related.

The first quote i.e.

It’s like fire, which is reckoned according to the specific conditions dependent upon which it burns. A fire that burns dependent on logs is reckoned as a log fire.

... is describing what consciousness is.
I think this simile is saying that ...

"A fire that burns dependent on logs is reckoned as a log fire"

... similarly consciousness depends on the six senses (e.g. "eyes", "touch", etc.) and so is called "Eye consciousness" and "touch consciousness" etc.).
The bits of Pali which say that, for example ...

Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati viññāṇaṃ, cakkhuviññāṇantveva saṅkhyaṃ gacchati

... is immediately after the bit you quoted, and isn't translated.
See also Ayatana on Wikipedia, and/or another translation of MN 38 like this one:

Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

The Dharmafarer site has more-detailed translations of many suttas -- which include an introduction and footnotes.
The URLs are a bit fragile but currently MN 38 is here.
The author has also tried to format his translations for easier reading -- for example using section titles for different parts of the suttas.

The point I wanted to emphasize by quoting fire analogy was "It’s like fire" i.e consciousness is like a fire ...i.e not without the fuel . And what is the fuel ? Craving is the fuel. How does craving arise ? Craving arises due feelings. How does feelings arise ? Due to contact.... and so on..including due to consciousness. BUT Consciousness is like fire, dependent upon craving therefore craving must have existed before consciousness. I do not see why they are not related. They are part of the same dialogue in same sutta.

The sutta doesn't say that consciousness is fuelled by craving. It says that there are (six) different kinds of consciousness, e.g. "eye consciousness" etc. -- types of consciousness are called e.g. "eye consciousness" etc. for the same reason you might call different kinds of fire e.g. a "log fire": i.e. each type of consciousness is named after what it's dependent on. The six consciousnesses depend on the six senses-bases.

It is logically implied.Fire can not exist without fuel. And what is the fuel ? Craving. Simple.  I will edit the question to your satisfaction.

I do not see why they are not related. They are part of the same dialogue in same sutta. They're not directly related: because "fire" as a simile is used in several places in several ways, to describe different things -- see e.g. Fire Sermon. In this part of the sutta, the way in which consciousness is "like fire" is that it's named after what it depends on (i.e. i.e. the types of consciousness are named after the the various sense-bases).

You are confusing fire with fuel. Every fire needs a fuel. The 3 fires are lust , hate ,delusion. They are fueled by Craving which is the root fuel and not immediately apparent to one. I do not see any contradiction so far but only a little suspicion based on some confusion between fire and fuel. When craving meets the feelings fire is produced. When craving meets the eye-consciousness fire is produced. When craving meets the nose-consciousness fire is produced. We can ignore craving and say nose-consciousness is burning or eye consciousness is burning.

Remove the fuel and the fire will cease. Remove craving lust , hate , delusion will cease. Remove craving consciousness will cease. Remove craving feelings will cease... and so on.