text:
As a Buddhist, is it right to say that anything about Buddhism is right?
As a Buddhist, is it right to say that anything about Buddhism is right?
If it is not right to say so, how right or wrong is it to assume that?
Myself as a "traditional Buddhist" from Myanmar, I find it pretty disturbing to see Buddhists here having blindfolded faith in Buddhism and every act of monks and religious leaders.
Above question might also relate to this question: as a self-aware Buddhist, how can you analyse if your thoughts or actions are right, without having much knowledge about Dhamma (Dharma)?

OP: As a Buddhist, is it right to say that anything about Buddhism is right? If it is not right to say so, how right or wrong is it to
  assume that?

The famous statement by the Buddha in the Kalama Sutta applies here:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
  then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to
  this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
  scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
  agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
  'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
  that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
  these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
  & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
  & remain in them.

So, every person should not simply accept whatever they hear. They should analyze it carefully before accepting it.

OP: As a self-aware Buddhist, how can you analyze if your thoughts or actions are right without having much knowledge about
  Dhamma(Dharma)?

The same sutta explains that thoughts and actions must not be motivated by greed, aversion and delusion. The so-called "three poisons" are the criteria to determine whether they are right or not.

"What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it
  arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by
  greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after
  another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise,
  all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When aversion arises in a person,
  does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this aversive person, overcome by aversion, his mind possessed by
  aversion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after
  another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise,
  all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When delusion arises in a person,
  does it arise for welfare or for harm?"
"For harm, lord."
"And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by
  delusion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after
  another person's wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise,
  all of which is for long-term harm & suffering."
"Yes, lord."
"So what do you think, Kalamas: Are these qualities skillful or
  unskillful?"
"Unskillful, lord."

As a Buddhist, is it right to say that anything about Buddhism is right?
I assume that "right" might have any of several different meanings:

A correct or truthful, beneficial, description of the world and its processes
Noble, or ariya
Better than other people or beliefs

The first ("truthful, beneficial") is a broad subject:

See the Kalama Sutta for example -- if Buddhism consists of doctrine which you know yourself to be true (sandiṭṭhiko, akāliko, ehipassiko, opanayiko), praised by the wise, it's hard to see how that could be wrong
It's a broad doctrine -- being prosperous, prudent, and kind if you're a layperson, perhaps other ambitions (including nibbida) if you're ordained -- it's so broad and detailed that it's difficult to understand, or it may even sometimes seem self-contradictory in places, or consisting of truisms (e.g. "do what is skillful and don't do what leads to suffering")
Whether you believe it's right, emotionally feel it's right, may depend on finding and seizing a specific aspect of it -- for example, "yes, Buddhism really speaks to me about dukkha, it's got that right"; or, "yes, Buddhism is really kind and harmless, isn't it, that's something I can really admire"; or, "yes, the Buddha is definitely the best person I've ever heard of" -- but some people don't see everything as dukkha, some people might see pacifism as some un-energetic failure, etc., so (for whatever reason, maybe many reasons) it doesn't seem right to them
It's arguably unreal unless it's actually practised -- it exists in the mind of the beholder, and (perhaps like Mathematics) it's kind of meaningless (even if other people find it predictive) when you're not mindful of it.

The second ("noble or ariya") I've not much to say about -- bits of Buddhism or doctrine are ariya by its own definition.
The third ("better than others") is difficult to generalise about. I expect stream-winners have a clear view of what Buddhism is (before that it's difficult to be sure of what you're talking about). According to this answer, making comparisons is a form of "conceit", and only a stream-winner will only give rise to true conceit i.e. true comparisons.
If it is not right to say so, how right or wrong is it to assume that?
I think you're asking, "If it's wrong to say so is it alright to assume it?"
Firstly I think that whether it's right or wrong doesn't depend on whether you say so.
Still there may be circumstances (perhaps when you're working with someone, and therefore busy with something else, or not wanting to proselytise  when that's not welcome) when it's inappropriate to say so.
If it is wrong to say so, it may be wrong to assume it.
And according to some doctrine -- e.g. Paramatthaka Sutta (SN 4.5) -- I think that views themselves, attachment to views, seeing a view as supreme, is itself a kind of fetter.
Myself as a "traditional Buddhist" from Myanmar, I find it pretty disturbing to see Buddhists here having blindfolded faith in Buddhism and every act of monks and religious leaders.
I guess that's so, yes. Living in the West, here, I haven't seen many monks in person, nor acting as leaders -- and I haven't seen any who seem to be misbehaving -- but I do see news, sometimes, interviews, where a monk seems to be quite hostile for example, which I find strange -- like a lot of news though that might be exceptional, news tends to report on what's scandalous rather than on what's normal, which can lead to a false (or extremist) impression.
I did read a booklet called The Broken Buddha once, so I hope I don't have a false (over-idealised and blindfold) view of modern society.

This book, Broken Buddha, although critical of much of what goes on in some Sanghas, could help provide some valuable information for some aspiring monks so that there are no unreasonable expectations.

I suppose some people might say that Buddhism is in decline, or perhaps was even lost after the first few hundred years -- I don't think so, I suppose that even at the time (which the suttas talk about) there was a variety of people.
Still, I like reading, too, to understand what the ideals are.
as a self-aware Buddhist, how can you analyse if your thoughts or actions are right, without having much knowledge about Dhamma (Dharma)?
I think that maybe, without a knowledge of the Dhamma, you can't (determine whether your thoughts are right and wrong) -- that's a reason why you might (or should) want to know more about Dhamma.

People have recommended several books (e.g. here and here and here).
There are suttas (each is shorter than a book)
There's the Dhammapada (each verse is shorter than a sutta).

There are some rules of thumb, for example ...

All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind, 'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.

... so you might try to avoid doing anything with "a mind of hate", for example, e.g. motivated by revenge.
Apart from literature, people recommend you practice (actions, e.g. generosity and ethical behaviour; and meditation); and that you should have "good friends".
There's two little bits I find helpful, to "know what's right without having much knowledge about Dhamma".

One is that some of the suttas conclude with the Buddha's saying, "Both formerly and now, what I teach is dukkha and its cessation."
There's a children's game where you have to guess where some object is, that someone else is thinking of -- so you walk around, and as you do they say "you're getting colder" if you're moving away from the object, and "you're getting warmer (or hotter)" when you move towards it ... until eventually you put your hand on it.
Similarly if what you're doing is increasing dukkha then maybe that's not right, conversely if it tends toward cessation (of dukkha, of craving, and attachments) that may be closer to what the Buddhism of the Pali canon has in mind.
The second bit of doctrine that I think it's helpful to know about or keep in mind are the Brahmaviharas:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind...

The short answer is "yes". Following the Eightfold Path implies striving to understand and distinguish right from wrong and true from false. So of course Buddhist traditions have a lot to say about epistomology ("What is true knowledge?") and about ethics ("What is good behavior?").

It really depends upon what you mean by 'Being a Buddhist'. In the book 'Buddhism plain and Simple', Steve Hagen says that the more and more I am a Buddhist (i.e. practise the Dhamma) I know that I am not a Buddhist( meaning the sense of self disappears). So by being Buddhist if you mean one who practises the Dhama as taught by Lord Buddha then 'yes', its safe to assume 'any thing about Buddhism is right'.
But if by being a Buddhist you mean just a connotation, i.e. for political or socio economic reasons for e.g. you call yourself buddhist because your parents were buddhist and their parents were buddhist and entire Myanmar is buddhist and none of you are practising anything said by the Buddha...then your actions are upto your own scrutiny.
The sense of religious identity is a very twisted matter.
Insted of calling your self a 'Buddhist' as in this context in which you are asking the question, ask the question that,
As somebody who follows the dhamma taught by the Buddha...
Then the answer is yes, yes, yes...
The dhamma is like a dew drop or honey sweet in the begining, sweet in the middle and sweet at the end.


text:
Does Buddhism uphold/advocate the theory of Evolution [Nichirenism]?
Does Buddhism uphold and/or advocate the theory of Evolution, the theory of Charles Darwin?
Does Buddhism believes that our ancestors were monkeys and apes?
I as a Christian don't believe in Evolution, I can't believe this that my ancestors were apes and I am a MUTANT APE! If you tell a child that he or she is an animal, gradually they behave like animals! But,
What Mahatma Gautama Buddha and his Dhamma say on this issue?
Please help with a Nichiren Buddhist point of view.

it's just a theory, it's not a fact!!!!!

Related: Is it possible to reconcile the evolution theory with Buddhism?

According to one Buddhist sutta, life came to earth from ahassara brahma, a world of another galaxy -- you can read the details of this from the Aggañña Sutta.
According to Agganna sutta, life coming from ahassara brahma world didn't have a physical body, they just had a spiritual body; with time they used to eat the soil of earth, on that time earth soil was like honey, after they began to eat earth soil their bodies became hard and their body light disappeared. The time mentioning here is million years ago from now, so we have to know these first life beings were ones much before apes, dinosaurs, etc.
So like that Buddhism suggests life came to earth from an another world, and then there is a space also for the Evolution. Life came like that then granted on the earth and with time it faced to evolution and came to present situation

An interesting thing about Aggañña Sutta is that it's told to contradict Brahmins, who say that, "The Brahmin caste is the highest caste", that, "other castes are base", and so on.
It mentions that Buddhist monks (who have "gone forth") disregard their birth caste:

Vasettha, all of you, though of different birth, name, clan and family, who have gone forth from the household life into homelessness, if you are asked who you are, should reply: “We are ascetics, followers of the Sakyan.” He whose faith in the Tathagata is settled, rooted, established, solid, unshakeable by any ascetic or Brahmin, any deva or mara or Brahma or anyone in the world, can truly say: “I am a true son of Blessed Lord, born of his mouth, born of Dhamma, created by Dhamma, an heir of Dhamma.”

Instead of identifying themselves by their "caste", they should identify themselves as "followers of the Buddha" and "heirs to the Dhamma".
Instead of "caste" (or "outcaste") being determined by birth, another Buddhist sutta teaches that anyone doesn't become "brahmin" nor "villain" from birth. Instead, it's acts they do which decide that.

Na jaccā vasalo hoti,
  Na jaccā hoti brāhmaṇo;
  Kammunā vasalo hoti,
  Kammunā hoti brāhmaṇo.
One’s not an outcaste caused by “birth”,
  not by “birth” a brahmin is;
  caused by karma one’s outcaste,
  a brahmin is by karma caused.
-- Who is the outcaste? (Snp 1.7)

An interesting thing about this sutta is that it's told to contradict Brahmins, who say that, "The Brahmin caste is the highest caste" and that "other castes are base".

Anyone doesn't become brahmin nor  villain from birth..The act they do decides that..Najachcha Wasalo Hothi, Najachcha Hothi Brahmano Kammana Wasalo Hothi, Kammana Hothi Brahmano

Yes there's similar "not by birth" doctrine in the Dhammapada: Brahmanavagga: The Holy Man

I don't think Darwin's Theory of Evolution explains how certain humans become Brahmins, and how certain humans become kshatriyas or vaishyas or sudras (or any other equivalent of caste). Darwin's Evolution is about biological traits that differentiates various species.

@ruben2020 I think this answer was explaining what Buddhism says about evolution -- which (what Buddhism says) isn't what Darwin said, isn't the same as Darwin's theory. In a way it may contradict Darwinist theory (of people being born into a particular subspecies or caste), and contradicts the Brahmin's theory of caste (that whether you're holy or higher depends on what caste you're born into).

Wow thanks for the answer...I really never read this anywhere before. So does this mean that we dont have ti be bothered of global warming. That from earth life will find its new home by itself?

I think you should put your mind at ease and enjoy the uncertainty :) Also, it is probably best to stick with your Christian faith and don’t worry too much about Buddhism or what Buddhists think.
Whether the theory of evolution is true or not is completely independent of whether we believe it, right? So either you are descended from an ape or you are not; there is no other third option. Crucially, it makes not one lick of difference whether you believe it!
Consider how the fact or our own birth is similar. Either we were born on such and such a date at such and such a place or we were not. Perhaps we were not “born” at all and have always existed and the universe is one big cosmic masquerade? Maybe you are the only actual person alive and all the rest of us are just dreams? Either this is true or it is not and similarly it does not make one lick of difference in its factual status whether you believe it :)

Yeshe Tenley I have to "worry too much" about Buddhism and what Buddhists believe because I am a Scheduled Caste from India, also called Dalit, who is considering to convert to Buddhism. Currently I am a Christian but wanted to embrace Buddhism and hence wanted to clear all of my doubts before embracing Buddhism.

@Matthew Just out of curiosity...doesn't conversion into Christianity free you from the Hindu fold of being a Dalit...how can you be a Dalit and be a Christian?

Yes and no, I guess.
Darwin's theory was about the origin of species, a topic which is of very little concern to Buddhism. I think that On the Origin of Species talks about what Buddhists would call form (e.g. the body), and about adaptive behaviour (e.g. the English proverb, "birds of a feather flock together"), conversely a lot of Buddhism is more about mind and mental phenomena (feeling, intention, concentration, etc.).
I think that Buddhism does teach that almost everything changes (and that there's no eternal God, nor a soul, such as a Christian might have been taught), including individual "people" -- I think it's fair to say that most forms of Buddhism teach that it's possible for people to change, and that you may become better or worse, e.g. depending on what your intentions and views and actions are.
Buddhism might even teach that people who live like animals, who lust and fight like animals, ignorant like animals, might become "reborn" as animals.
It certainly doesn't tell people that they are animals, though -- being born human is viewed as a special, rare, precious opportunity -- to become more enlightened (like the Buddha) and less like an animal.
It also tells people to be compassionate towards animals -- they're considered "sentient beings" too, even if unlike people they're much less capable of ethical behaviour and higher knowledge etc.

I must say there are different forms (schools) of Buddhism too (as there are of Christianity):

When you talk about Nichiren Buddhism outside Japan, I wonder if you're referring to SGI.
Another modern form of Buddhism, specifically in India, is the Navayana of Dr. Ambedkar

I think that different schools tend to emphasise or de-emphasise different aspects of Buddhist doctrine (I think that Navayana for example maybe discounts the doctrines about rebirth).
I think that the regular practice of SGI centres on chanting a mantra, which (I don't know) might be a practice that's in some ways analogous to some forms of Christian prayer.

I think that a standard Buddhist view is that the "origin" is unknowable or not evident -- one of the famously unanswered questions, which the Buddha wouldn't answer, because the answer wouldn't be helpful.
I think that Buddhism is more concerned about this life.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are monks allowed to have prescriptions? What did the Buddha say of medicine?
Are Buddhist monks allowed to have prescriptions, or would that be considered an attachment? Did the Buddha say anything of medicine?

It's permitted. Monks are allowed "requisites" i.e. the things they need, the little they need: the "four requisites" include food, robes, shelter and medicine (and other small necessities -- needle, razor, water filter, sandals, sometimes a pen, a wristwatch).
The types of medicine available (i.e. medical science) has evolved, I don't think that monks are restricted to only using what was considered medicinal 2500 years ago (e.g. "butter" etc.).
In some countries, medical needs are e.g. paid for automatically by the state for everyone, in others there might be volunteer medicine for the poor and penniless (which includes monks).
There are extensive rules about monks asking -- who they ask, what they ask for, how they ask, whether they wait for it to be offered or wait to be invited, etc.
Here is a comment on how this might be managed for Theravada monks in the West -- Discipline and Conventions of Theravada Buddhist Renunciate Communities:

In the Vinaya, medicines can be considered as those things consumed by eating or drinking which are not normally considered as food and:

which are specifically for illness, e.g. pharmaceuticals, homeopathic remedies, vitamin supplements etc.;

... and ...

Generally, individual Sangha members have to consult with a senior member of the community before they may take up the stewards’ offer, for example, to pay for dental treatment, or to obtain footwear or necessary medicines. This is to ensure that the donations that are given to support the Sangha are used responsibly and according to the intention of the donors.

Probably the Buddha's views on medicine for consumption by the Sangha or laypeople were as for food ...simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions...

Providing the services of a medical practitioner or pharmacist to lay people  is not allowed for monks according to DN2:

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
  as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
  promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
  skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
  construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
  mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
  administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
  head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
  ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
  extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
  root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
  livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
  his virtue."

Monks can use medicine for their own use, according to "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

MEDICINES OR TONICS
We have dealt above with food and fruit juice. There is now the
  category of 'tonic-medicines' (sattaahakaalika). These can be consumed
  at any time but cannot be stored longer than seven days (after they
  are offered).
These tonic-medicines were originally regulated when Venerable
  Pilindavaccha's great feats of psychic power made him so famous that
  he received many offerings of the five 'tonics.' Even though he
  distributed these among other monks there was so much that the excess
  had to be stored away and their dwellings were overrun by rats.
  Visiting lay people criticized the monks for "storing up goods in
  abundance like a king." The Buddha therefore set down this rule:
"Keeping any of the five tonics — ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, or
  sugar/molasses — for more than seven days is [an offence of Confession
  with Forfeiture.] (Summarized Nis. Paac. 23; BMC p.242) ◊ There are
  various translations and interpretations about these 'tonic-
  medicines' — according to different Communities and different
  countries. Some places consider only liquids allowable while a few
  communities will drink only plain water in the afternoon. Some
  communities will not accept re-offered tonic-medicines (after the
  seven days period is over), some will under certain circumstances.
  Therefore lay devotees need to enquire about the practice of their
  local Community and follow that way.[94]
Some contemporary observations:
"The five medicines — ghee, navaniita.m, oil, honey, and suga — were
  allowed by the Buddha to be consumed by 'sick' monks at any time of
  the day or night. According to the Mahaavagga, these five were 'agreed
  upon as medicines and, although they served as nutriment for people,
  were not considered as substantial food.' The degree of infirmity
  required before a monk is allowed to consume these [tonic-]medicines
  is a controversial point... It seems that feeling rundown or feeling
  tired after physical exertion would be sufficient cause to be able to
  make use of the Five Medicines."(AB)
"The main effectiveness of these medicines seems to be in their
  nutritional value. They do not have medicinal value as commonly
  understood today, for example, relieving pain or as an antiseptic.
  However, as nutriment they would help to maintain bodily strength and
  assist in recuperation while, since they are so rich, would not be a
  substitute for normal food." (HS ch.10)
Also, if the tonic-medicine is mixed with a tiny amount of food then
  it would be acceptable according to this allowance:
"...if sugar has a little flour mixed with it simply to make it firmer
  — as sometimes happens in sugar cubes and blocks of palm sugar — it is
  still classed as a tonic as it is still regarded simply as 'sugar.'"
  (BMC p.238-9) If the flour is for more food-like reasons then it would
  be counted as food. See also Mixing Edibles above.
LIFETIME MEDICINES
The fourth category of edibles (see The Four Sorts of Edibles) is that
  of Lifetime Medicines (yaavajiivika). which includes what we generally
  think of as medicines.
The basic principle set down by the Buddha about all medicines is in
  this reflection:
"Properly considering medicinal requisites for curing the sick, I use
  them: simply to ward off any pains of illness that have arisen, and
  for the maximum freedom from disease." [OP p. 47; (Paali: M. I, 10; A.
  III, 387)] In the beginning, the basic (herbal) medicines allowed by
  the Buddha were those pickled in urine. Later, nearly all other types
  came to be considered allowable.[95] (See the separate allowance above
  for 'tonic-medicines.')
Medicines that may be consumed without time limitation are called
  yaavajiivika. The Texts mention different sorts of herbal medicines
  such as: plant roots, e.g., ginger, turmeric, sweet flag, etc.;
  decoctions, such as of the neem or nux-vomica; tree-leaves, such as
  neem-leaves, tulsi or holy basil; fruits, such as long peppers,
  myrobalan, wormwood; resins, such as asafoetida; salts, such as
  sea-salt, rock salt, etc. Any other medicine or herbs similar to these
  that is not reckoned to be food is included under this 'lifetime'
  category.[96]
◊ Modern western medicines are usually included — using the Great
  Standards — under this category and therefore can be taken at any time
  of the day and kept as long as necessary.

In "Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill", Lily de Silva quotes the Buddha as exhorting monks to care for and look after other monks:

"He who attends on the sick attends on me," declared the Buddha,
  exhorting his disciples on the importance of ministering to the sick.
  This famous statement was made by the Blessed One when he discovered a
  monk lying in his soiled robes, desperately ill with an acute attack
  of dysentery. With the help of Ananda, the Buddha washed and cleaned
  the sick monk in warm water. On this occasion he reminded the monks
  that they have neither parents nor relatives to look after them, so
  they must look after one another. If the teacher is ill, it is the
  bounden duty of the pupil to look after him, and if the pupil is ill
  it is the teacher's duty to look after the sick pupil. If a teacher or
  a pupil is not available it is the responsibility of the community to
  look after the sick (Vin.i,301ff.).
On another occasion the Buddha discovered a monk whose body was
  covered with sores, his robe sticking to the body with pus oozing from
  the sores. Unable to look after him, his fellow monks had abandoned
  him. On discovering this monk, the Buddha boiled water and washed the
  monk with his own hands, then cleaned and dried his robes. When the
  monk felt comforted the Buddha preached to him and he became an
  arahant, soon after which he passed away (DhpA.i,319). Thus the Buddha
  not only advocated the importance of looking after the sick, he also
  set a noble example by himself ministering to those who were so ill
  that they were even considered repulsive by others.

To clarify the question a little, it's trying to ask if the Buddha allowed medicine for use by the Sangha. Thanks for the info still +1.

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


text:
Mild and severe forms of the three poisons
The three poisons are greed or sensual attachment (lobha or raga), aversion or ill-will (dosa or dvesha) and delusion or confusion (moha). These are said to the unwholesome roots, or the roots to all other unwholesome mental states.
I'm trying to analyze the mild, severe and opposite examples of the three poisons, in order to get a deeper understanding what the three poisons are.
Greed (lobha)
The opposite of greed (lobha or raga) is apparently generosity (dana). Is this right?
The severe examples of greed include the desire to take what does not belong to you (to steal), covet another's spouse.
Can I say that the mild version of greed include the desire to buy certain types of clothes and dress better to make a good impression on others? How about the enjoyment of nice pleasant weather or tasty food, and the desire that it should continue further? What about looking at a good-looking person and desiring to go and talk to them? What about feeling happy when being praised by others?
Aversion (dosa or dvesha)
The opposite of aversion (dosa or dvesha) is apparently loving-kindness (metta or maitri). Is this right?
The severe example of aversion include anger that results in the act of killing or injuring others.
Can I say that the mild version of aversion include the dislike of unpleasant weather (too hot and humid, or too cold), or the dislike of minor physical pain (like a mosquito bite) and wishing that it goes away? What about judging others in your mind for their perceived flaws? What about being impatient because your friend is late to meet you for dinner? What about feeling displeased because you were criticized by others?
Delusion (moha)
The opposite of delusion (moha) is apparently wisdom (panna or prajna). Is this right?
What are severe forms of delusion? Could depression, anxiety, rage, terror, remorse be considered severe forms of delusion?
What would be mild forms of delusion? What if I fear catching a disease from mosquito bites? What if I feel unhappy due to others' criticism because I care too much about what they think? Or having regret that I did not purchase something when there was a discount which has now expired?
Or is this often linked to the greed (lobha) and hatred (dosa), and seldom exists standalone?
For example, I judge someone negatively in my mind, but it's actually because I did not understand the reason why they are in that situation?
Or I do things like dressing up better for getting recognition from others, but it's actually because I have the wrong notion of putting too much importance into that recognition?
Other types of negative mental states
How do other types of negative mental states like envy, sloth, conceit, miserliness, restlessness, lack of shame etc. (list of other unwholesome mental states here) connect to the three unwholesome roots?

(A Mahayana explanation:)
Lobha
-- The opposite of lobha is apparently generosity. Is this right?
In my opinion, this is not accurate. The opposite of lobha is dispassion, equanimity - the feeling that you can be happy with whatever you have. In my understanding, lobha is not as much miserliness or tendency to keep things to oneself -- as it is a feeling of lacking something, having some sort of emotional hole -- that one then tries to fill with all sorts of objects, projects, and experiences. This emotional hole then manifests as all kinds of impulsive desires and obsessions.
Generosity is an antidote to lobha, not it's "opposite". The way it works IMO, is when you give something to others, your emotional mind starts feeling that since you're giving - you therefore must be having an abundance of something that others don't have - and that feeling of abundance leads to (partial) healing of the emotional hole of neediness. This is an example of idappaccayata at work.
--...to make a good impression on others? -- correct, craving for praise is a manifestation of lobha.
-- enjoyment of nice pleasant weather or tasty food, and the desire that it should continue further? -- I don't think this is an example of lobha. At the moment of enjoyment you don't normally have what we call "desire". You may have lingering fear of it eventually running out - that's a manifestation of dosa. Once it stops, you may have nostalgia and craving for it to come back - that's a manifestation of lobha.
--looking at a good-looking person and desiring to go and talk to them? -- correct, this is a manifestation of lobha, you feeling a need for a positive experience.
--What about feeling happy when being praised by others? -- feeling happy in and of itself is not lobha. It's when we crave for an external source of satisfaction, since we lost touch with our own. Seeking praise yes, that's from lobha.
Dosa
--The opposite of dosa is apparently loving-kindness (metta or maitri). Is this right?
Again, metta is an antidote to dosa, not it's opposite. The opposite of dosa is equanimity or wise acceptance.
--anger that results in the act of killing or injuring others - IMO anger is a manifestation of dosa, not an example of it. Dosa is an emotional negativity, or emotional irritability, a deep lying attitude that "this is all wrong". (I suppose it comes from some sort of unconscious attachment to an impossible ideal of external perfection. If lobha is about being deeply unhappy with oneself because of not having been loved enough, dosa is about being deeply unhappy with the world, because of having lost the object of one's love.)
-- the dislike of unpleasant weather (too hot and humid, or too cold) -- if you feel that bad weather is "wrong", like it's a corruption of good weather - that's from dosa; if you feel that you're missing the positive emotions that come from good weather - that's from lobha.
-- the dislike of minor physical pain and wishing that it goes away? -- correct, any feeling that something "should not be" because it's "not right" or "not supposed to be this way" - is from dosa.
-- judging others in your mind for their perceived flaws? -- definitely comes from dosa.
-- being impatient because your friend is late to meet you for dinner? -- if in your mind you are mostly craving to have that dinner faster - that comes from lobha, if you are angry at your friend for being late - that comes from dosa.
-- feeling displeased because you were criticized by others? -- in my opinion this is from lobha. Being criticized is a type of rejection, and being vulnerable to rejection comes from lobha. Now, if you are also angry at them, because you think they are wrong - that part is from 'dosa'.
Moha
-- The opposite of delusion (moha) is apparently wisdom (panna or prajna). Is this right? -- I think this is right. The opposite of delusion is "correct understanding".
--Could depression, anxiety, rage, terror, remorse be considered severe forms of delusion? - no, here you are confusing the root of the emotion and the manifestation of the emotion.
...Or is this often linked to the [other two], and seldom exists standalone?
The traditional explanation is that emotions are like colors, Three Poisons being the three basic colors that can be mixed to create the rest. I don't like this explanation, because it creates impression that Three Poisons are some sort of main prototypical emotions. They are not, they  are roots that emotions come from.
Moha is a collection of formulas in your mind that incorrectly describes how things work. It came from observation of real experiences but incorrect understanding of the mechanisms behind these experiences.
-- For example, I judge someone negatively in my mind, but it's actually because I did not understand the reason why they are in that situation? --correct, now you got it. This example is a combination of moha leading to incorrect understanding and dosa leading to qualitative judgement.
-- Or I do things like dressing up better for getting recognition from others... -- I think this one is mostly lobha or deep-lying craving for positive experiences. It would be moha if you dressed-up going to a zoo.
-- ...but it's actually because I have the wrong notion of putting too much importance into that recognition? - the fundamental delusion that considers worldly sources of happiness, worldly injustices, and the world itself as something that exists objectively, independently of one's interpretation - and therefore takes them as all-important, is usually called avidya, not moha. Avidya is the deepest and subtlest factor that always underlies all three of lobha, dosa, and moha.
Other types of negative mental states
-- How do other types of negative mental states like envy, sloth, conceit, miserliness, restlessness, lack of shame etc. (list of other unwholesome mental states here) connect to the three unwholesome roots?
It is said that they all come from a combination of the three roots and the underlying avidya.
Avidya confuses reality with interpretation. It therefore incorrectly attributes pleasant&unpleasant/right&wrong characteristics to external objects, while in reality they come from ourselves. Then Lobha comes from assumption that one's feeling of lacking something can be cured by pursuing external goals. And Dosa comes from assumption that some things are truly "good" and "right" and some things are "bad" and "wrong" forgetting that this is only our interpretation. Moha comes from assuming our superficial observations as real and coming to incorrect conclusions based on them.
From combination of pursuing external sources of happiness (lobha), judging things as inherently [good or] bad (dosa), and being certain that our partial observations are reality (moha) - comes mismatch between "is" and "should". This mismatch feels as suffering. Then from the three roots plus suffering comes confused action. This confused action creates causes for future confusion.
When we correctly understand that reality is our interpretation... That the source of happiness and unhappiness is our own mind... Then we no longer pursue external sources of happiness... We don't judge things as inherrently [good or] bad, we do not confuse our experiences with reality... Then we can stop maintaining the vicious circle of confused action... We can start reducing the conflict between "is" and "should"... The complete removal of this conflict, from coarse to very subtle, feels as complete harmony, also known as Nirvana.

Mild versions of Lobha would be the weak sensual desire of a Sakadagami or the Lobha of an Anagami

lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth (rūparāgo)
lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm (arūparāgo)

Mild version of Dosa would be the mild aversion that may arise in a Sakadagami.
Mild version of Moha would be the conceit, restlessness and ignorance of an Anagami.


text:
Impermanence: How do we know when a thing ends or if it's just changing?
It seems to be a big deal that we see things as they are. If we are merely assuming when things begin and end or change then how do we ever really see things as they are?

Do you have an example?

An example of what?

@Lowbrow an example thing. I mean what exactly do u mean by thing?

Body-mind experiential phenomena or conceptual phenomena, moment by moment coming through the senses. I guess any experience an individual can have.

Great question.
From Mahayana perspective "things" do not "end", nor do they "change" - because separate self-identical things are imputations of the mind. In reality things do not have firm spatial and temporal boundaries. Things do not by themselves have identities that stay unchanged throughout their lifecycle, allowing us to designate it as "still the same thing, just changed a little". These identities are chosen by us. So to speak of any "thing", "ending", "changing but still staying itself" - is a simplification. Ontological reality has nothing like that, it is totally up to observers to define "things" in space and time.
How do we "see things as they are" then? We see them with our "wisdom eye" (wink wink).
We remind to ourselves that what we see is not all there's to it, until we are used to seeing it all. For a trivial example, when someone dies, we say: it only looks like this person ended, but that is not true - there are children, books, students, flowers, social influence - whatever imprints they left on the world - it lives on.
When we practice this enough we get in the habit of seeing "energies", "influences", "connections", "processes" behind things. We no longer see separate things, we see the matrix - and that's called "seeing things as they are".
From Mahayana perspective, this is the real nature of Impermanence: everything is continuously in flux, but the mind grasps after "entities" that it itself designates, and then gets upset when these imputed entities morph beyond recognition, like the cloud figures.

It seems to be a big deal that we see things as they are.
When we say, 'to see things as they are' in Buddhist context, we mean to see things not clouded by ignorance, for e.g, when you see a beautiful women, you really only see a beautiful women...because at that moment your perception is clouded by desire and lust...you dont really see her as she is, for e.g. the father or brother of same women will see her differently. That is why the Buddha gave us the meditation on bodily parts...so yes its a really big deal to see things as they are...
If we are merely assuming when things begin and end or change
No, we are not merely assuming the begining or end or change...according to the second law if thermodynamics there is a perpetual change of entropy of the universe. Everything is in a constant state of flux, the sub-atomic particles inside the atoms are moving, the atoms inside things are moving and all things are slowly or otherwise undergoing molecular disintegration. Annicha is a universal law.
The begining of things is not disernable and nor is the end. Change is discernable if you are sensitive enough, aware enough, meditative enough.
then how do we ever really see things as they are?
We ever really see things as they are when we get rid of the three poisions of ignorance, greed and lust. In other words by being more aware to the present moment. By following the eight fold path you gain the wisdom, then you see things as they are.

I guess the concept of emptiness makes that a meaningless question.
If a thing isn't even itself (its own thing) to begin with, how could it stop being that or change?
Maybe you can't identify what you're talking about: a thing, an element of a thing, a contact with an element, an experience of a contact, a description of an experience, etc.: "turtles all the way down".

It might be worth remembering "the purpose" of the doctrine about "really seeing things as they are" -- Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose? (AN 11.1) -- here's an extract:

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."

If a doctrine is something like, "Gold is forever", that might have a result -- like lust and craving (for gold), attachment.
If a doctrine is something like, "You can't take it with you", that might have a different result -- detachment, dispassion, etc.
Other suttas use the term to describe the knowledge and vision of someone who is without fetters.

Also people sometimes express an opposite take on it -- i.e. that there's No coming and no going.

Lord buddha taught us to see everything in the world as

anithya (changes in every moment)
dukka (sad)
anathama(nothing to get as me or mine)

so that's the real state of every worldly thing,try to see them as their real state

The question is born from my confusion about when exactly we should be seeing things empty of concepts as opposed to seeing things full of concepts. I always wondered how do we know if  the in breath ends or if it is just changing to the out breath? We know only conceptually how to divide the breath up so how do we know when the in breath ends or if it's just changing if we are experiencing things without concepts?  How do we even know the breath is the breath?


text:
Seeing there is no subject experiencing subject and object?
I'm energetically trying to uproot the view of self, meaning, the sense that there is a subject of experience.
I have read/heard authors such as Sam Harris and Joseph Goldstein say that the self as a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."

Sam Harris, Page 92
The self that does not survive scrutiny is the subject of
experience in each present moment— the feeling of being a thinker of
thoughts inside one’s head, the sense of being an owner or inhabitant
of a physical body, which this false self seems to appropriate as a
kind of vehicle.
And yet, however one looks for it, this self is nowhere to be found. It cannot be seen amid the particulars of experience, and it cannot be seen when experience itself is viewed as a totality. However, its absence can be found— and when it is, the feeling of being a self disappears.
Josteph Goldstein, No-Self (17:00)
Losing the self is not necessary, you don’t have to get rid of the
self because it is not there in the first place.

Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a feeling that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?
Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?

-- Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a feeling that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?
No, the feeling that there is a subject of experience is real. The illusion is real. This is like rainbow - the appearance is real, it's just not indicative of its real nature. When you get closer and start looking carefully it disappears and you only see the individual components.
-- "Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?"
The actual subject is unreal, it is inferred. When you stop inferring it, you will clearly see that the experience occurs without a subject. Experience is all there is. Then, from memory, comes an attitude to the experience, which then becomes a thought about the experience. Neither the memory nor the attitude nor the thought are the subject of experience. We infer that "the direction" the thought/attitude comes from -- must be the subject. But if we examine what lies in that direction - all we find is our memory of past experiences.
The feeling of "subject being aware of itself" only occurs when we turn attention to reflect upon our mind - in which case "the experience" comes from manas as opposed to an external organ, but the memory/attitude/thought sequence remains the same. See my answer to How to experience Anatta for a detailed analysis of this state. The bottom line is, it is only a thought following (experience of a) thought. If you look carefully, there is no subject.

So the subject of experience - not the feeling - is itself inferred, an illusion. Meditation sometimes lets me see it's possible to be aware of the object without the subject. But how do I see this is not just a temporary distraction from the subject, and see that the subject is and always was an illusion? Sam Harris seems to say Dzogchen has methods to cut through the illusion of self quickly, are you familiar with these?

Page 135
"I came to Tulku Urgyen yearning for the experience of self- transcendence, and in a few minutes he showed me that I had no self to transcend."

Experience is all there is.  I'm trying to see past my doubt in this statement, or perhaps my lack of understanding. If a burglar is seen, or a tree's fall is heard, I still do not see how we can deny there being some subject who has witnessed these events.

What do you mean? I'm talking about first hand experience... And you're taking about third party's?

If the statement is true, i.e. that experience occurs without a subject, shouldn't this hold in both cases? Why should the truth of that statement depend on whether you look at the experience from a (no pun intended) subjective vs. third party/objective vantage point?

When you look from aside, you can't see experience, you can only see the brain etc. When you look at a live brain, would you say that it is the brain that is the subject of experience?

Also, I don't mean to be rude, but if you haven't checked out Cartesian Theater yet, you should.

Not rude at all. So is the point you're making that we cannot find a subject just by looking at the brain? This I can see. But how does show that there is no subject of experience, for example, in the case where an author writes about his experiences? Is there not a subject who has done the experiencing here (i.e. the author)?

Subject is an abstraction. Abstractions cannot be found in ontological reality, they exist in the sphere of intellect. When the author writes about his experiences - there were eyes, ears, brain, personal background, education, preconceptions, interpretations, events, circumstances - and on the basis of all that happened something we call "experience". And then, in the virtual reality of that experience, we postulate an abstraction for the experiencer of the experience, and call that "subject".

Thank you. So we construct an abstraction, or make a label, for all those empty phenomena you listed, and designate it "the author".

To correct an earlier comment from me, just because a third party imagines a subject, does not make it an objective viewpoint. Many people could, hypothetically, see the same illusion of a subject aside from the empty phenomena of an experience.

Similar to how the subject is postulated, it seems like one could draw analogy that the - nearly as ancient as the "Self" - illusion of a "God" is postulated from empty phenomena.

In principle, yes. Well, pagan gods as the "selves" of various phenomena, sure. But the monotheistic God is a harder abstraction to postulate... So maybe not as ancient...

Knowing is a part of the experience. An experience is merely the arising and vanishing of the five aggregates: Rupa(form), Vedana(feeling), Sanna(perception), Sankhara(mental formations), Vinnana(knowing/awareness).
If the meditation is done correctly, the awareness can be seen as merely an aspect of the experience along with the other 4 that comes and goes. Not as a person.

Namo Buddhaya.
If I ask you , who says that there is no self ? You will say Joseph Goldstein says so. If I ask you , who is Joseph Godlstein ? You will say the one who wrote the book. But if I ask you, is the Joseph Goldstein who wrote the book was same as the Joseph Goldstein who is present now ? You will say no. If I ask you , is the Joseph Goldstein who wrote the book was different from the Joseph Goldstein who is present now ? You will say no. Joseph Goldstein is similar and different to the Joseph Goldstein of the past. Thus ,you will find that there is no permanent,unchanging identity called Joseph Goldstein. That is why Buddha declares Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. All phenomenon are without Self.
Now the question is where is the idea of self arising ? The conceiving of the Self arises due to clinging , due to attachement. When the mind identifies itself with form , feelings , perceptions, consciousness and /or volition formations as me or mine then self is said to conceived. It is like a disease because form is not self, feelings are not self , perceptions are not self, consciousness is not self and volitional formations are not self yet we conceive self as one or some of the five aggregates.
Is it be more accurate to say that the self as a feeling that there is a subject of experience "cannot be found" or "is not there in the first place."?
Subject of experience is existing like a disease if there is a clinging. If you do not cling to the experience as me or mine then there is no self to be found.
Since, when an object is known, how do you deny there being someone who has done the knowing of the object?
I am the knower of your question but am I the same person who read the question and who answered the question ? Or am I the different person ? Answer is I am neither the same nor the different person. I am similar and different. It means that there is no permanent , unchanging self called Me. I do not deny someone has done the knowing of question but that someone can not be called to have self.


text:
How to experience Anatta
Is it during deep meditation when the mind is completely stilled that one experiences anatta? Is the conviction in anatta gradual or abrupt? This question would be connected to the 4 stages of enlightenment, too.
Regards

One of the best Q's... Val. What if we know what 'Anatta' is, before we sit for meditation? I cannot emphasize enough the importance of Vidarshana/Vipassana. Could this be about removing defilement thru insight? It is good if you expand a bit on what you have said, as one has to understand the true nature of this world (anicca, dukkha, anatta)- is it before or after?...  to understand this “anicca nature of this world”?  Without the “correct” vision, one could strive for the whole lifetime and not get anywhere if we do not get it right. If right we will attain Nibbāna in seven “bhava”.

Update 2022. You don't experience Anatta. You just don't experience the illusion of self anymore.
Original answer:
I remember back in ~2001 I was very serious about this topic -- trying to experience anatta first-hand.
Back then I already did ~3 years of the non-attachment practice, as a result I no longer identified myself with my thoughts, but I still could not see how the watcher and the thinker of thoughts was not real.
The way I got first-hand experience of "no-subject" was through meditation on "chitta-vritti" or the train-of-thoughts process. I was watching my thoughts very closely, trying to see where they come from... and how they dissolve...
As I kept watching, I saw that thoughts do not really dissolve, instead they are slowly replaced by the next thought. When I focused on this process of replacement of one thought by the next, I realized that the very "I who is watching this process" was in fact nothing else but the next thought itself(!)
What I clearly saw from this process is that what we normally assume to be the fixed subject of experience is actually transient! Every next thought serves as subject of the previous thought, until it becomes object of the next thought which at that moment is the subject etc.
This is when it became very clear to me that thoughts work by the principle of association. There is nothing like "subject" that "thinks the thoughts" and decides what to do. The mind works by associating the current experience with the memories we had from the previous experiences and coming up with the most appropriate response(s). As I watched myself during day-to-day action, in light of this realization, it became more and more clear to me, that the idea of "I" is something we are trained to overlay on top of the otherwise automatic process. It's a useful trick that helps us explain our choices to other people: "I did X because I wanted Y" or "I said A because I remembered B" - but in reality all this wanting, decision making, doing and thinking - happens automatically through association. The more I watched myself acting, day by day, the more clearly I saw that there was no "I" that acted, the action happened by itself. The more I watched other people, the more I saw that they too respond automatically. (This last realization actually helped me be more effective with people. I stopped expecting them to be objective or reasonable, and accepted that their actions came from their biases and preconceptions.)
An obvious question one can ask at this point: but what about the freedom of will then, is that an illusion? And how do we reconcile this with Buddha's insisting that we must act skillfully and take responsibility? It's alright and still true. Both are valid perspectives on the same reality. Whether automatically or not, acting skillfully still matters. Even if I am an automatic biological robot responding automatically based on my past experience - still, if I make bad decisions, cultivate laziness, sloppiness, bad mental and physical hygiene, let negative mindstates grow - I will suffer the consequences of my actions. Even if they are not truly "my" actions, the experience of results will be "mine". And if I make good decisions, cultivate will power, excellence, good mental and physical hygiene, positive mindstates - there will be experience of those results in due time. Even though the subject of that experience is just the next transient thought and not any fixed "I" - the experience will be real at that point.
So my answer is: anatta can be directly experienced in meditation on chitta-vritti, by closely watching the train-of-thoughts process. It can then be further clarified by watching one's thoughts and actions objectively in post-meditation, to disidentify from one's opinions, biases, and attachments. Care should be taken to not allow the experience of anatta degenerate into an attitude of fatalism, meekness, and laziness.

it became more and more clear to me, that the idea of "I" is something we are trained to overlay on top of the otherwise automatic process. It's a useful trick that helps us explain our choices to other people: "I did X because I wanted Y"... reading this brings to mind quotes I read from Free Will by Sam Harris...

Page 24 People who are susceptible to hypnosis can be given elaborate suggestions to perform odd tasks, and when asked why they have done these things, many will confabulate—giving reasons for their behavior that have nothing to do with its actual cause.

Yup. It also matches what I later read in Consciousness Explained by Dennett: re-representation (and rationalization) only happens when we are asked to talk about it, or at least think about it

Love the 2022 update!

Anatta can be seen even by the average Joe. Ex: when there's headache or any kind of bodily pain, why it is not going away at will?  When you taste something, why the taste disappear after eating? Why can't you make the taste persist. Why your body stink when you don't take bath? Why can't you stop that from happening? When happiness arises in the mind, why does it fade away without your consent?

I do get what you mean... Sankha. It is about being helpless at times in the face of such examples that you've shown, just like helpless in this rebirth process. Therefore, this whole world is of anatta nature, in the face of such... am I right?. Therefore, if one tries to do that impossible task, one will only get exhausted, i.e., subjected to suffering. Is it correct if I am to put it this way?

It's not about being helpless. It's about not having control.

Thank you for clarifying Sankha. Yes, that is how I’m seeing the world around and within, and I am seeing results for the first time. Also that had made me realize that Vipassana Meditation is something that you do / can do at all times, in all postures, other than the time you go to sleep.

Even when going to sleep you can be mindful of the lying position until you fall asleep

Thought I'dd add on to your question. There is no "how" in terms of a process that can be solely led by consciousness, meaning you have to cultivate your mind through the eightfold practice, as to allow this insight to bloom on its own. Insight is bhavana maya panna (wisdom obtained by meditation practice). It happens on its own, when conditions are ripe. But for bhavana maya panna to arise, you need first two others kinds of wisdom. First - suta mayapanna, external wisdom you get from listing to others or reading buddhist texts, quick note - it is enough to read or get instructed about anicca, anatta and dukkha. Second - comes cinta mayapanna knowledge derived from one's own thinking about these themes, trying to structure them for oneself or better, trying to develop intellectual grasp on them ( intellectual may be too narrow term, as you develop both intellectual and emotional grasp on thought about things, as mind sense base deals with both thoughts, emotions, sense impressions and volitions ie invisible stuff). So with enough of both of these types of panna the panna conditions are ripe , and when other conditions are met bhavana mayapanna arises. One of the type of this wisdom that can arise is direct insight (equaling at the moment direct experience) of anatta.
What are the other conditions? general answer might be being on par with the whole eightfold path. But since I can speak only of my own experience, the main practice that I do are the sattipattanas, with main focus on vedananupassana, cittanupassana and parts of dhammanupassana. As such the other conditions would be balancing five mental faculties to be present (panna in first two types described before, and sati,  samadhi, viriya, saddha - awareness, stability of the mind, perseverance, and faith).
However I have experienced anatta both in sati based practises (sattipatanas in my own case) and samadhi states that followed these practises, so again I'd say the type practice doesnt really matter, what matters is is getting the conditions right.
Also had the opportunity to experience it in daily life, when the momentum of practice was strong. Have not experienced anatta in metta practice, but Im looking forward to it.
As to the experience itself I'd describe it as removing the axis of the turning wheel, but the wheel of phenomena is still turning, where axis is "you" and "yours" or I making and mine making. So these drop, but physical sensations, thoughts emotional states and volitions continue on their own.
hope this personal take from a fellow yogi helps a bit. also: your experience of anatta might be worded differently, but there will be no doubt about the taste of experience itself . language is an obstacle when trying to communicate these things :D

If by "experiencing anatta", you mean overcoming self-view or identity-view (sakkaya ditthi), then you do not need a very deep meditation experience, from my understanding.
On the other hand, if by "experiencing anatta", you mean overcoming the "I am" conceit, the "I am" obsession and the "I am" desire, then yes, you need a deeper cleansing to get the odor out.

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I
say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling...
perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am
something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five
clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't
assume that 'I am this.' ....
"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a
washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then
rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean &
spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye
or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it
away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual
scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.
"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five
clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of
these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."
SN 22.89

Assuming "experience of anatta" means abandoning the fetter of self-view (or sakkāya-diṭṭhi), that and "conviction" (i.e. lack of doubt) sound like "stream-entry".
There's been lots written about stream-entry (or sotāpanna).
Stream-entry is often (usually? always?) portrayed in suttas as being the result of a waking realization, a result of an experience or hearing a dhamma-talk -- one memorable though non-canonical example is Gotami & the Mustard Seed.
I think that (etymologically at least), sakkāya-diṭṭhi is a wrong view about the true or real body -- i.e. it's a view that the aggregates are self.
Note that a "view" is something established, reinforced, believed -- see also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? because the answers there explain the difference between (fixed) "identity view" and a more transient "conceit" -- the eradication of "conceits" should happen at the final stage of enlightenment.
More generally, though, I think the doctrine is that any or every view of self -- including for example "I exist" and "I don't exist" -- is confusing and the result of unwise attention. Maybe that is easy to verify (by inspection).

Everyone are experiencing anattā (5 aggregates), but only the insight-practitioners are understanding anattā as anattā. So, the practitioner is trying to understand "how it is not attā", then he practice to understand like that in everything.  But, he doesn't practice to experience anattā. Actually, he practice to experience anatta-lakkhaṇa of anattā (5 aggregates), which he understanding it as attā, by ñātapariññā. Then he practice, tīraṇa-pariññā, that experience in everything to abandon, pahāna-pariññā, atta-vipallāsa in everything.
The deep concentration-meditation can help the insight-practitioners to understand anattā as anattā easier. But the concentration-meditation can not understand anattā by itself, so we need Buddhā to teach us the insight-meditation; we can't practice the insight-meditation before Buddhā enlightened and teach us insight-meditation.
The understanding in anattā as anattā is gradually practice in neyya-practitioner, such as many bhikkhus who gradually memorize a new "little"-sutta  in Saṃyuta-nikāya each time after they finished to practice the previous sutta and still not enlighten; but abruptly practice in ugghaṭitaññū-person and vipacitaññū-person, such as Sāriputta and Moggallāna. So, the gradual or abrupt practice are depend on 5 indriya/bala of each practitiner.
Another, this question is not connect to 4 stage of enlightenment, because the sotāpanna already perfectly abandoned atta-saññā/citta/diṭṭhi-vipallāsa, so every ariya have fully anatta-saññā/citta/diṭṭhi without vipallāsa.
So, the question's explanation should be "How to meditate insight meditation", which is explained in most sutta, especially abhidhamma. For the summary:

The practitioner has to pause bodily/verbal/mental unwholesome-mind/mind's factors by concentration-meditation.
Then the practitioner has to practice the relativity-understanding of causes-aggregates and their effects-aggregates in paṭiccasamuppāda-cycle into everything, included hell and heaven, past and future, every change. Then after the practitioner understand 3 characteristics, anicca-lakkhaṇa/dukkha-lakkhaṇa/anatta-lakkhaṇa, by that practice, he has to practice to see that 3 characteristics into everything, included hell and heaven, past and future, every change.
The tips to accelerate meditation speed is "finding the tipitaka-memorizer who carry on tipitaka-tradition from the the previous tipitaka-memorizer" to be your teacher, because he know many tactic from tipitaka to teach you meditation.

For the meditation in brief or advance, all already taught in tipitaka and atthakathā. Actually, it is better than my summary above, but you have to successfully meditate the insight-meditation at pa-auk with the tipitaka-memorizer. Then, after you enlightened, you will understand tipitaka&atthakathā easily.

Understanding Anatta is easy but living it is difficult. I can tell you in which ways you are not experiencing Anatta. If you are identifying body as yourself or as your's then you are not experiencing Anatta. If you are identifying feelings as yourself or as your's then you are not experiencing Anatta. If you are identifying perceptions as yourself or as your's then you are not experiencing Anatta. If you are identifying consciousness as yourself or as your's then you are not experiencing Anatta. If you are identifying volitional formations as yourself or as your's then you are not experiencing Anatta.
In order to experience Anatta you must NOT identify with Body, Feelings , Perceptions,Consciousness and Volitional formations as yourself or as your's.
We do that by applying mindfulness. Here I quote from DN 22:

Furthermore, a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of
  principles with respect to the five grasping aggregates. And how does
  a mendicant meditate observing an aspect of principles with respect to
  the five grasping aggregates? It’s when a mendicant contemplates:
  ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.
  Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of
  feeling. Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is
  the ending of perception. Such are choices, such is the origin of
  choices, such is the ending of choices. Such is consciousness, such is
  the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’ And
  so they meditate observing an aspect of principles internally … That’s
  how a mendicant meditates by observing an aspect of principles with
  respect to the five grasping aggregates.

Experience of Anatta is not complete unless you have felt revulsion towards body, revulsion towards feelings, revulsion towards perceptions, revulsion consciousness and revulsion towards volitional formations.
It is easy to feel revulsion towards body because it decays and dies but it is difficult to feel revulsion towards mind,mentality and consciousness. In order to feel revulsion towards that you must learn dependent origination i.e one thing gives rise to another and cessation of one ceases another.
This is beautifully explained in the this sutta.I quote the experience part for your benefit :

“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences
  revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards
  perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards
  consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate.
  Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there
  comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is
  birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been
  done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

When you comprehend anatta you have to know that all 5 aggregates are within the truth of anatta..And that have to do step by step gradually..The system of meditation Buddha said for that is ''Vipassana'',From that you use to see world as anatta,dukkha and anathma.
when someone use to see things like that trough vipassana meditation,his ten fetters reduce gradually,that means he goes through the 4 stages of enlightenment..

Val… what you have asked is a loaded question, and you cannot expect an answer from another on this.  But if you practice ‘dhatu mansikara’ meditation as given below, without any prior expectations of any results from it you will get to the answer to your question. I say this because the conviction on ANATTA comes gradually, and not abrupt. The first stage of Enlightenment and one’s experience of ‘Anatta’ comes before a formal meditation. (See Sankha Kulathantille’s answer.)  In formal meditation, you will realize the next three stages. This is how you should go about the ‘dhatu mansikara’ meditation:
A meditator who practices dhatu mansikara focuses his attention on his mind and he begins to perceive his state of mind and thoughts. If the mediator’s attention shifts from the Samadhi state ( state which the meditator perceive his meditation object of respiration) to another sense object, then, he deviates from the state of “being aware” to a state of “expecting something more” from an object. Lets take an example…
Let’s take an individual who practices meditation. Supposing, someone visits him at the time of meditating, he would get irritated and consider this incident to be an hindrance to his meditation practice. He would resist, thinking,  “ outsiders always get in my way. It is very difficult to practice meditation with the undue presence of outsiders…”. Why does he get infuriated at this obstruction? His mind has overly embraced his meditation practice; he has excessively attached to the practice; he has locked himself in the practice. In other words, the operation of pathavi element in his mind is so intense. The mind has provided free access (operation of apo) for thoughts to be locked with the obstruction to meditation practice. Due to this freedom present in the mind (operation of apo), thoughts could easily get locked, compressed (operation of pathavi) with the obstruction. As a result of the operation of pathavi element followed by the free access accommodated by the apo element, heat (tejo) begins to rise to a higher degree in the mind. The resultant intense degree of heat generates a similar degree of magnetic energy (kama) in the mind. The higher the degree of heat, the higher the degree of magnetic energy in the mind. The magnetic energy generated in this manner has the potential of making vibrations, movements (in other atoms). As magnetic energy, with the potential of making vibrations, is incorporated and carried in these elements, they are identified as “elements of vayo” (vayo dhatu).  I believe that you realize the functioning of the four primary elements, beginning with pathavi dhatu, in the mind.
Even though, we analyze the process of the primary elements with gross examples, when dhatu manasikara (reflection of elements) is practiced in a practical way, a meditator ought to have developed a stable mental state where he could perceive his respiration very clearly. In other words, the meditator needs a strong Samadhi (concentration) to accomplish the practice of dhatu manasikara. The meditator who contemplates the mental phenomena with a strong mindfulness based on the Samadhi, would perceive the changes in the mind on the basis of dhatu manasikara.
The meditator who experinces a blissful mental state, now, begins to catch the first glimpse of the transient nature, and thus the supramundane meaning of anicca of the mind. He begins to observe the changes that take place even in the blissful mental states. He perceives slight differences of bliss he experiences during Samadhi states which give rise to the understanding of the characteristic of dhukka ( altering the current state and transforming to a different state) inherent even in blissful mental states. Thus, a meditator becomes fully convinced of the characteristics of anicca,  dukkha  and anatta through the reflection of one’s mind. This is the positive outcome, gain that a meditator achieves through the practice of dhatu manasikara.

If i said all things are not white describing a system with a true statement, then you wouldn't be asking whether white is a truth & reality to be discerned in that system nor asserting that it is white which discerns the not-white elements.
All Dhamma are not self and the referent to the word 'self' can not be pinned down as a truth & reality describing the world.
It's akin to me saying that you won't tangibly find your name in your pocket because all things in one's pocket are not one's name and it is not one's name that is perceiving & experiencing the tacticle sensations of looking through one's pockets.


text:
Conscience in Buddhism
Conscience is described as being the moral sense in which an individual makes decisions. Do Buddhists believe there is a conscience? If so how is it defined

In Mahayana abhidharma, we speak of the two mental factors that I would think are quiet similar to the "moral conscience" that you allude to. These two might be the same as 'shame' and 'conscience' in MA45. The two are:

Shame (Tib. ngo tsha shes pa)
Embarassement (Tib. khrel yod pa)

Regarding shame, the Compendium of Knowledge says:

Question: What is shame?
Answer: It is an avoidance of misdeeds on
  account of oneself. It has the function of acting as a support for
  effective restraint from misconduct.

An example of shame is to restrain from stealing even when nobody would have known. It is akin to self-respect.
Regarding embarrassment, the Compendium of Knowledge says:

Question: What is embarrassment?
Answer: It is an avoidance of
  misdeeds on account of others. It has the function of just that [i.e.,
  acting as a support for effective restraint from misconduct].

An example of embarrassment is to restrain from stealing by thinking "there is a camera", paying heed to what others would think of our negativity, or thinking "what would my teacher think if he knew?".

Offcourse conscience plays a vital role in the enlightenment. Following quote from this sutta explains how :

At that time, the World Honored One addressed the bhikṣus: “If a
  bhikṣu has no shame, has no conscience, that will be detrimental to
  his love and reverence. If he has no love or reverence, that will be
  detrimental to his faith. If he has no faith, that will be detrimental
  to right thinking. If he does not have right thinking, that will be
  detrimental to his right mindfulness and right knowledge. If he does
  not have right mindfulness and right knowledge, that will be
  detrimental to guarding his faculties and guarding the precepts, to
  non-regret, to encouragement, to ease, to calm, to happiness, to
  concentration, to seeing according to reality and knowing according to
  reality, to disenchantment, to desirelessness, and to liberation. If
  he does not have liberation, that will be detrimental to having
  Nirvāṇa.

I think it's understood as:

Compassion -- e.g. "all fear death: so, putting yourself in the place of another, do not kill"
Duty -- giving their due to parents and teachers, family, employers and employees, friends
Karmic results -- knowing that doing bad things, doing things with bad intentions, has bad results (not exactly as a punishment but just as a natural consequence, a law of nature)
Spiritual (or, in Buddhism, mental) development -- becoming less selfish, maybe less greedy
Presence or absence of "regret" or remorse (kukkucca or vippaṭisāra) -- an absence of remorse is not just an end in itself (because it's unpleasant to experience), but a necessary prerequisite to joy, tranquillity, concentration (AN 11.1).
Mindfulness -- i.e. remembering what you're supposed to remember

The concerns or topic of conscience might therefore span all three parts of the threefold training -- i.e. "virtue", but also "concentration" and "wisdom".

Conscience or decision making falls under Sankhara(mental formation) aspect of an experience(an instance of the five aggregates). It is accompanied by Vinnana(consciousness). Conscience is caused, impermanent and non-self; same as the rest of the five aggregates.

Yes, conscience is known in Buddhism as "hiri-ottappa" (literally "shame-disgrace", used as one word) and plays a fairly important role, especially in the early stages of the Path as well as for lay people.
Bhikkhu Bodhi explains:

Hiri is an innate sense of shame over moral transgression; ottappa is moral dread, fear of the results of wrongdoing
Hiri, the sense of shame, has an internal reference; it is rooted in self-respect and induces us to shrink from wrongdoing out of a feeling of personal honor. Ottappa, fear of wrongdoing, has an external orientation. It is the voice of conscience that warns us of the dire consequences of moral transgression: blame and punishment by others, the painful kammic results of evil deeds, the impediment to our desire for liberation from suffering. Acariya Buddhaghosa illustrates the difference between the two with the simile of an iron rod smeared with excrement at one end and heated to a glow at the other end: hiri is like one's disgust at grabbing the rod in the place where it is smeared with excrement, ottappa is like one's fear of grabbing it in the place where it is red hot.

You can read more about this in The Guardians of the World article by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

According to the conscience once karma decides, as Lord Buddha sermon..When someone does a good or bad deed,it'll keep in his/her mind,Here  Conscience gives the decision whether it's good or bad before keep it in once mind..anyone can lie or show this's correct/wrong..But conscience know the reality,anyone can't cheat his own conscience..
The karma gathered like this gives result when suitable time comes,So we can tell that so called conscience is also a part of our mind which decides whether our acts are good deeds or sins


text:
How to meditate before going to bed and after waking up?
I read on some online page that the time before going to bed and immediately after waking up is benificial to meditation. I searched over internet but there aren't any specific instructions about any such Buddhist practise.
Is this true? Is there any special meditation we can do in this time?

Actually there is a reference to this and it is this video where the Dalai Lama advises a group of people to meditate before going to bed and immediately after waking up.
Before after waking up: our mind is filled freshness,you are relaxed and generally this continues to the rest of the day! You can face your obstacles easier!
Before going to bed: The stress built up during the day has to be gradually released before you can fall asleep.You too help your body relax better!

In Anapasati suttaLord budda tells,

There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore.1 Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.

Here we can take our room or meditating place while it's empty of sounds as the empty building,So in night and morning time is the best time for that because there is less noise in that time..Someone feels better in night before go to sleep and someone may feels better in morning if feels tired in night before sleep..So this can be applied for other meditations too,You can choose better time between before sleep and just after wake up

Answering my own question after some research.
Immediately after we get up from sleep and just before we fall asleep the mind is in a different state of being than the usual day state.
So we can utilize this state of mind to do deeper into meditation and make huge progress.
The answer is do Samatha meditation with or without sitting. Try consciously and with lot of efforts not to have any thoughts at all. Try to be as aware as possible.
Stay aware and mindful.


text:
How to know the progressive state of mind in insight meditation
While  doing  meditation thoughts  developing on cittarupa and the what is appearing  on the field too disappears together feel like anattma(non self).At that moment citta goes out into the field and light appears from  the point it has gone.no attachment it is freed and moved towards. No sensations of body has appeared. (Eg sound ....,...,)what is this experience?

I believe the speed of letting go of things is one of the indicators from Indriya-bhavana Sutta

There is the case where, when seeing a form with the eye, there arises
  in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable &
  disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me,
  this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has
  arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen.
  But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that,
  the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable &
  disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. Just as a
  man with good eyes, having closed them, might open them; or having
  opened them, might close them, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how
  easily, no matter what it refers to, the arisen agreeable thing...
  disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and
  equanimity takes its stance.

Sounds to me like the fourth one, the udayabbaya nana. Seeing light is very common at that stage. There are other phenomena that can occur. It differs with each person. Just keep noting, it will go away sooner or later.
You could check the list on the
website of Vipassana Dhura.


text:
What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?
What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?
Why Buddha did not say Tanha Paccaya Bhava (instead of Upadana Paccaya Bhava)?
And there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana?

I read the topic Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'? but that does not answer my question -- I want answers which specifically discuss this in line with three categories of Tanha with Upadana in Dependent Origination.
Please give me a practical answer than a technical answer which are found in many places.

This question is similar: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9378/what-is-the-difference-between-craving-and-clinging/9380#9380

Here is an answer that is based on my study and meditation. It is not citing any official sources and trying to stay away from technical explanation in favor of real-life examples.
-- What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?
To use a traditional example. Say you met a very nice person. Let's say that person had a beautiful smile and sweet soft voice. Next day, you suddenly get a flash of that person's smile in your mind, and you "hear" the sound of voice playing in your head, all this accompanied with a desire to see that person again. That's tanha. You also feel a somewhat painful sensation in your chest because you're missing that person. That's dukkha.
Then, on the basis of that flash, you start obsessively thinking about the smile, the voice, the hair, the body, the manner of walking - you begin inwardly attending to as many features of the person as you can remember. You also start thinking about the place you met the person yesterday, hoping that if you go there again, there is a chance you will see him or her again. That's upadana.
-- Upadana Paccaya Bhava
The way it works, in my understanding, is like this: the moment you start thinking about going to that location to meet that person, you start thinking about future. In that imaginary future, there is you ("I") that you imagine will experience the pleasant moment of seeing the pretty person again. When you do that you create a sense of identity that spans a period of time from a point in the past to a point in the future. It's like you subconsciously say to yourself: "First I was here, without that person", "Then I will do A,B,C according to my plan", "Then I will be there - with that person", "Then I will enjoy". This personal ego-centric goal-making, projecting, and planning (in my opinion) is what causes Bhava - "becoming" or "individuating" or "identifying".
-- there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana?
Same way as in the above. In case of kama-upadana you keep thinking about pleasant sensations, your thinking and action is permeated by craving to a pleasant sensation - that's kama-upadana. For example you keep getting a flash of kissing the person (tanha) and you start fantasizing about the circumstances under which you two would be kissing (upadana).
In case of bhava-upadana you keep obsessing about being in a certain position, living in a certain way, having something in your possession. Your thinking and action is permeated by craving to attain something. For example, you keep fantasizing about having married the person and how you two would be living together, what that would look like.
In case of vibhava-upadana you keep obsessing about something in your life now that you want to get rid of. Your thinking and action is permeated by craving to get rid of something. For example, you keep thinking about your extra weight, how bad it makes you look, and how much nicer it would be to get rid of it.

Based on this answer can I ask a question about how we can go about a relationship with a person without falling pray to Upadana and Tanha? Or there will be none is these two things are considered?

True love is full acceptance and metta/mudita; it is equivalent to Bodhicitta - the mind of Enlightenment. True love gives to its object the freedom to be him/her-self. It does not have elements of obsession or craving, those are sicknesses of mind.

After understanding this answer, you will realize there are a lot of sutta, which explaining 3 Taṇhā with 4 Upādāna. You can use this explanation in everywhere of Tipiṭaka, i.e. brahmajālasutta because the sutta I linked below is just the example.

What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?

Taṇhā is beginning-lobha, Upādāna is often-arising-lobha after that Taṇhā. Taṇhā is like a slightly touching-hand; Upādāna is like that hand which becomes a tight grip hand.
Taṇhā condition Upādāna, Upādāna condition Bhava, so everything, between Taṇhā until Bhava, is Upādāna and Bhava, such as in Sutta. Dī. Ma. Mahānidānasutta, which I will quote below.

Why Buddha did not say Tanha Paccaya Bhava (instead of Upadana Paccaya Bhava)?

Because just a beginning attachment (Taṇhā) is not enough to build Bhava, actually, often and various attachments are required to build Bhava. Such as in Sutta. Dī. Ma. Mahānidānasutta, Dependent on Craving Section (which is explained as Sutta. Ma. Mul. Mahādukkhakkhandhasutta):

(There are many explanations in those 2 links which I made above, please see inside them for the information between Taṇhā until Bhava.)
"Now, craving [Taṇhā] is dependent on feeling, seeking [Upādāna] is dependent on craving, acquisition [Upādāna] is dependent on seeking, ascertainment [Upādāna] is dependent on acquisition, desire and passion [Upādāna] is dependent on ascertainment, attachment [Upādāna] is dependent on desire and passion, possessiveness [Upādāna] is dependent on attachment, stinginess [dosa-typed mind factor] is dependent on possessiveness, defensiveness [Sīlabbata-Upādāna & kamma-Bhava] is dependent on stinginess, (the example of defensiveness:) and because of defensiveness, dependent on defensiveness, various evil, unskillful phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies.

Note: This is the reason why sotāpanna cannot birth in apāya anymore because sotāpanna doesn't have Sīlabbata-Upādāna which causes of breaking precept like in the end effect of above quote.
If you can not understand Upādāna from above quote and it's the explanation in Mahānidānasutta, Dependent on Craving Section, please see Mahādukkhakkhandhasutta, which fully explaining about Upādāna until karma-Bhava.

And there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava): please explain how these three link to Upadana?

In Mahādukkhakkhandhasutta kāma-Taṇhā, which caving "five strands of sensuality", conditions Bhava/Vibhava-Taṇhā,  then these 3 Taṇhās condition Upādāna-until-Jāti:

Sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.
Cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā (samudaya-saccaniddesa in saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta) kāmūpasaṃhitā rajanīyā

After above quote, whole left Mahādukkhakkhandhasutta's content are Bhava/Vibhava-Taṇhā which condition Upādāna-until-Jāti.
Bhava-taṅhā&Vibhava-Taṇhā  are connect to Diṭṭhi/Sīlabbata/Attavāda-Upādāna directly in Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūlasīhanādasutta:

"Bhikkhus, there are these two views: the view of being (bhava-Diṭṭhi) and the view of non-being (Vibhava-Diṭṭhi). Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of being, adopt the view of being, accept the view of being, are opposed to the view of non-being. Any recluses or brahmans who rely on the view of non-being, adopt the view of non-being, accept the view of non-being, are opposed to the view of being.5
"Any recluses or brahmans who do not understand as they actually are the origin, the disappearance, the gratification, the danger (the same as in Mahādukkhakkhandhasutta because they are connect to each other) and the escape6 in the case of these two views are affected by lust, affected by hate, affected by delusion, affected by craving, affected by clinging, without vision, given to favoring and opposing, and they delight in and enjoy proliferation. They are not freed from birth, aging and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; they are not freed from suffering, I say.

...

"Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging (Upādāna). What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self.

Actually, 3 Taṇhā come together: you want to feel good (kāma), so you want to born as a feel-good-able person (bhava); And you don't want to born as a feel-bad-able person (Vibhava),  because you don't want to feel bad.
Then kāma-Taṇhā condition kāma-Upādāna; Bhava/Vibhava-Taṇhā condition uccheda/sassata-Diṭṭhi-Upādāna & Sīlabbata-Upādāna, which depending on Attavāda-Upādāna. Please see the whole Sutta. Ma. Mū. Cūlasīhanādasutta, it is very clear inside that sutta.
Atthakathā/abhidhamma-teacher just connected sutta together. The reader will misunderstand of Tipiṭaka and Atthakathā, when they still think "these sutta are conflicting those sutta". In fact, they are studying Tipiṭaka by the inefficient study system, reading, so they feel like Tipiṭaka is conflicting each other.
Example
After this I will let you see "you can use this explanation in everywhere of Tipiṭaka".
Sutta. Saṃ. Ma. Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:

Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṃ ariya·saccaṃ: Jāti·pi dukkhā, jarā·pi dukkhā (byādhi·pi dukkho) maraṇam·pi dukkhaṃ, a·p·piyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tam·pi dukkhaṃ; saṃkhittena pañc·Upādāna·k·khandhā dukkhā.
Furthermore, bhikkhus, this is the dukkha ariya·sacca(2): Jāti is dukkha(6), jarā is dukkha(6) (sickness is dukkha) maraṇa is dukkha(6), association with what is disliked is dukkha, dissociation from what is liked is dukkha, not to get what one wants is dukkha; in short, the five Upādāna(4)'k'khandhas are dukkha(3).
Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkha·samudayaṃ ariya·saccaṃ: Y·āyaṃ Taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandi·rāga·sahagatā tatra·tatr·ābhinandinī, seyyathidaṃ: kāma·Taṇhā, Bhava·Taṇhā, Vibhava·Taṇhā.
Furthermore, bhikkhus, this is the dukkha·samudaya ariya·sacca(1): this Taṇhā leading to rebirth(7), (because Taṇhā) connected with desire and enjoyment (8) (this is Upādāna; see Upādāna description in Mahānidānasutta, which I quoted above), (by Taṇhā) finding delight here or there(=idiom:indefinite=Upādāna)(5), that is to say: kāma-Taṇhā, Bhava-Taṇhā and Vibhava-Taṇhā.

Above, buddha taught dukkha·samudayaṃ ariya·saccaṃ Taṇhā condition dukkha·ariya·saccaṃ(2) pañc·Upādāna·k·khandhā dukkhā by Upādāna(4) [often attaching/Taṇhā finding delight here or there(5)] in khandhā dukkhā(3); therefore Jāti·pi dukkhā/jarā·pi dukkhā/maraṇam·pi dukkhaṃ(6) [new upatti-Bhava], which are the last effects in paṭiccasamuppāda, are included in dukkha·ariya·saccaṃ(2) and they are explained as new upatti-Bhava in this statement "Taṇhā leading to rebirth(new upatti-Bhava)"(7), which are the same Taṇhā's descriptions as it's follow statements "Taṇhā connected with desire and enjoyment(8)" and "Taṇhā finding delight here or there(5)".
Summary: (6)=(3) which depend on (4); and (4) is explained by (5), so when say (5) condition (7), it is the same as say (4) condition (7). Therefore buddha taught Upādāna-khandha, instead of Taṇhā-khandha.

@SarathW Please help me to know, which part of this answer that you can not understand.  I have to quote a very short text, because of the easier to read. But, actually, you need to understand the whole of each sutta I linked above, to understand my explanation.

Thanks.  Both of your answers are helpful except way Buddha said Tanha lead to Bhava.SN 56.11 the Buddha did say Tanha Pacaya Bhava.https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31948&p=473037#p472915

Tanha is liking sense-pleasures, liking for becoming and liking for non-becoming. Upadana is clinging for sense-pleasures, wrong views, rites-and-rituals and self-doctrine.
Upadana is at the level of clinging whereas Tanha is mere liking of the above mentioned.
Ex: you see an expensive watch in a shop and you start to like it. That is Tanha. That liking leads to wanting it for yourself. That is Upadana. That wanting leads to trying to buy it, buying it or trying to steal it, stealing it. That is Bhava(Karma).

What is the difference between Tanha and Upadana?

Tanha is the craving of once mind towards worldly things,due to that craving a bond's born towards those worldly things,that bond's called ''upadana''..

Why Buddha did not say Tanha Paccaya Bhava (instead of Upadana Paccaya
  Bhava)?

As i said above due to Tanha it makes upadana or bonds,When it has bonds being go life to life continuously that calls Bhava, being get birth life to life due to Bhava..

And there are three kinds of Tanha in Sutta (Kama, Bhava, Vibhava):
  please explain how these three link to Upadana?

Kama tanha - this makes due to craving on five senses
Bhawa tanha -this is the craving to go life by life through ''sansara'' and get confort
Vibhawa tanha - craving to get confort  thinking ''there is no life or birth after this life''

Bonds make in mind due to these thrice are the upadana make by them as described above