text:
Where is the line drawn with stealing?
It's obvious what stealing is when engaged-in often. You take the stuff of others while under a certain mental state, that mental state being marked and noticeable by an understanding that something isn't under your possession (but under another's), and physical effort to appropriate it regardless of the other person's wishes.
So if someone is happy with you 'stealing' something, is that stealing? In general, no, as this would be a gift.
On the other hand, we have situations such as copyright law, or other ideas where the line of 'possession' is inappropriately drawn.
So here is the problem. What is the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not? It can't be the sweeping idea, 'this is my property', as that idea can be faked, as in the case of intellectual property. It can be a case where there is appropriate and inappropriate mental possession of items, and stealing only being the violation of the appropriate lines.
Is it fully intent? Kamma = Intent, so if you do not engage in the intent of stealing, you will not experience the results. However, what if you are someone who considers smelling the flowers of another individual stealing? Surely that would not be considered stealing, yet to that person smelling the flowers would trigger the intent. Even though that coarse mental intent would arise, as far as I know that is not actual stealing, so the 'non-intent stealing' would not have an object. At which point can you say you are actually stealing, and at which you are not?
It is really simple with coarse events but hard with complex contexts. Taking an apple from someone without asking is stealing, but what about abusing sales at a market? - what about when those sales are glitches, unintended, in the system? - what about liberally charging a corporate card?
For our modern, daily situations a really subtle understanding of the precepts is required. So where is the subtle line of stealing?

There are many long answers, and quite a bit of discussion, in Does illegal downloading or viewing of copyright material violate the second precept? I'm not sure that this will be a new topic.

That's a great topic, but it doesn't really talk about the mental factors that make stealing, stealing, aside from intention.

See my answer to that question about copyright, it does talk about mental factors.

Hi Andrei. Really love your perspective on the issue as it's Dharmicaly progressive. Your question does address my issues in that if one were to avoid your 3 points they would probably not be stealing in any way. That being said, it does not show the line that you follow to totally avoid theft. Knowing where this line is allows you to be dependent with regards to knowing what is virtuous and not. It's still a wonderful answer. I disagree that getting something for nothing is parasitic and that upsetting the minds of others is inherently bad. Your first point is correct, however.

‘If a monk, intending to steal, takes from a village or from the
  wilderness what has not been given to him— the sort of theft for which
  kings, having caught a thief, would beat, imprison, or banish him,
  saying, “You’re a bandit, you’re a fool, you’ve gone astray, you’re a
  thief”— he too is expelled and not in communion.’ Second Parajika rule

This is for monks, but it's pretty clear - or at least it leaves the subjectivity to individual jurisdictions! (so in Italy, if you are starving and steal food, it's ok. If it's less than the value of a good shield (1/4 dinar), then in Sharia countries you are not in trouble)
With regards to possession, who possesses and to what extent, are probably useful measures. Who possesses is usually well defined (if not, then theft becomes a gray area). To what extent - how long should patents and copyright last, whether you can even effectively charge for something like streetlighting - are all likely subject to a social consensus.
Overall, if you perceive the object of your desire to be in the possession of someone else, or that someone else directly tells you so (asking is always a nice way to establish possession), then any intentional act to take such a thing, against the wishes of the owner would be theft, regardless of social consensus.
Piracy and claims as to the injustice of any and all economic systems are ancient claims, modernity only offers a novel spin on them.
If you think/believe/know that within a jurisdiction, a thing is claimed by someone and they don't have any desire to relinquish it, intentional taking of it is theft. Whether that possession is rightfully in their hands or not, is for their kamma, not yours.

That's a good guideline. I've also read about the 5 aspects which make stealing an item actually stealing, but they don't address modern-day situations like the examples I wrote in the OP.

Sorry but I think the last sentence has two mistakes: i.e. it's not "cool", and I think it's "dinar" not "diram".

"you are not in trouble"  There's still trouble: "If any of these preconditions are not met the hand should not be cut but still the thief has other punishments" (reference)

If someone knows that a thing does not belong to them and that it belongs to someone else, and if that individual takes it without the owner’s permission, then that precept is broken.
“You wouldn’t like it if someone stole something that you owned. You have to think about others’ feelings in the same way.”
Stealing something from someone generates negative karma. The severity of this karma changes according to whose property is stolen. If the owner leads a more Dharmic life, then the karma for stealing their property is heavier. The value the owner places on it and your intention also affect the karma.

Taking any thing not lawfully given is stealing.
An Aboriginal leader was sued in Australia for picking up a ten cents coin from a public building for stealing.

Did this happen recently? Do you have more details on this story?

No about ten years back.

Personal morality is personal morality. In the world, lawmakers make laws for jurisdictions. Ideally laws should be made thoughtfully and skilfully. Of course, this is proving challenging in the rapidly changing world we live in but is the issue specifically Buddhist?
As far as Buddhism is concerned, the dharma is clear: if it's not yours, don't take it.
If something is legal to take, it's not theft. If a system fault robs a customer, he/she should be reimbursed/compensated. If you think something should be legally theft, you can change the law or influence lawmakers to change it.
To be fair, the liberality of the modern world encourages a lot of behaviours that are legally grey but not compatible with Buddhism. Listening to an artist's music on YouTube without paying for it is theft. I do this and it's incompatible with Buddhism. On the other hand, so is music itself (strictly speaking), certainly the music most of us listen to.
What to do?
My own non-Buddhist take is that if I take from the world, I should give back more to the world. The key principle is not to be a parasite on balance. I judge my own actions. The dharma judges me. And if I break the law of a king or queen, they send one of their goons to bash me.

Buddhism is about non-harming & respect. A rationale for non-stealing is as follows:

Again [Furthermore], householders, a noble disciple reflects thus: 'If
  someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to commit
  theft, that would not be pleasing and agreeable to me. Now if I were
  to take from another what he has not given, that is, to commit theft,
  that would not be pleasing and agreeable to the other either. What is
  displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to
  the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and
  disagreeable to me?' Having reflected thus, he himself abstains from
  taking what is not given, exhorts others to abstain from taking what
  is not given, and speaks in praise of abstinence from taking what is
  not given. Thus this bodily conduct of his is purified in three
  respects. SN 55.7

Stealing is just a concept ... an idea ... a mere illusion ... not truth ... a fabrication.
Thus, the feeling "something is stolen" arises when you fabricate it with a decision, a volitional activity.
Thus, stealing arises when the decision arises that "something was stolen".
Decision that "something was stolen" arises depending on ignorance. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: Decision that "something was stolen" arises depending on knowledge.)
Ignorance is kamma. Ignorance arises from kamma. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: Knowledge is kamma. Knowledge arises from kamma.)
Thus, the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not is kamma.
Thus, to answer your questions:

"What is the meter by which we can say something is stolen or not?"

Kamma/Ignorance is the meter. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: Knowledge is the meter.)

"At which point can you say you are actually stealing, and at which
  you are not?"

There is no universal answer to this question. Every being will have a definition for stealing depending on their kamma/ignorance. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: Every being will have a definition for stealing depending on their knowledge.)

"So where is the subtle line of stealing?"

The subtle line is defined by kamma/ignorance. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: The subtle line is defined by knowledge.)
Knowing that the subtle line of stealing (or any other action) is defined by kamma/ignorance/knowledge, how can you know when an action is virtuous and when it is not?
By knowing the kamma/ignorance of beings. (An equivalent to the previous statement for not yet liberated beings is: By knowing the knowledge of beings.)
Thus, The One, who knows the kamma/ignorance/knowledge of beings, proclaims thus the following:
Taking what is not yours is not virtuous. It does not lead to the end of suffering. It creates suffering. It is not the right path towards the end of suffering.
Thus, do not take what is not yours nor aspire others to take what is not theirs.
The aspirant who is following the dhamma, searching for an end to suffering, should refrain from such wrong doings.
EDIT:

"You give an example that stealing arises when the decision to steal
  occurs."

I didn't say: stealing arises when the decision to steal occurs.
I said: stealing arises when the decision arises that "something was stolen".
Suppose there is a business-man and a business-woman. Suppose the woman lands to the man a large sum of money. Suppose the man keeps track of the money he owns to the woman on a piece of paper in his office. Suppose the woman, having a good memory, decides to keep track of the money the man owns in her mind. Suppose a few years later, the man successfully returns to the woman all the borrowed sum of money. He makes a note on his paper that he returned the sum to the woman. After a week he sees that his notes about the loan are not needed any more, thus he trows the paper in the trash. Now suppose after a month the woman, having an imperfect memory, mistakenly thinks that the man still owes her money. She comes in his office requesting money to be paid. The man refuses and claims that he has repaid the loan in its entirety. The woman, not knowing the man repaid the loan in its entirety, truly thinks that he has not. She starts storming in and out of his office exclaiming: "You are scamming me! You are a thief!". then the woman sues him in court, 100 % sure that she was scammed/robbed by the man, claiming he is a thief and he should perish in prison for his deeds. Here, even though stealing has not occurred, it has occurred and unwholesome kamma is being generated for the woman due to her bad temper because she was scammed/robbed. Even though no stealing has occurred, in her reality she is truly and genuinely being the victim of stealing.
Now suppose the man is a meek person, very naive, weak in character and without firm grounds on where he stands. This naive man, listening to the blaming of the woman, would start to believe the woman that he has not repaid the entire loan. He would be so weak in character, that he would really start to believe that he has stolen her money. Thus, he would feel that he has stolen the money and he would feel guilt, even though he hasn't stole any money. Again, even though stealing has not occurred, it has occurred and unwholesome kamma is being generated for the man due to him scamming/robbing the woman. Even though no stealing has occurred, in his reality he believes he has truly scammed/robbed the woman.
Thus, no stealing occurs, until a decision is made that "something was stolen".
Same story, same man, same woman. But none of them keep track of the loan. Suppose the man returns to the woman half the loan, genuinely thinking that he has returned the entire loan. Suppose the woman, not keeping track of the loan, genuinely thinks the loan was repaid in its entirety. Here, even though stealing has occurred, stealing has not occurred and neutral or wholesome kamma is being generated for both the man and the woman (a potential exists for unwholesome kamma in the future due to the fact the woman can find out and make her mind that she was scammed/robbed).
Thus, stealing occurs, when a decision is made that "something was stolen".
Let me put it this way:
Suppose there was a very modest and compassionate person. Suppose this modest and compassionate person was hungry. He goes to the store and buys himself a sandwich. Suppose a beggar comes by who is very hungry and steals the sandwich of this very modest and compassionate person. That modest and compassionate person then exclaims: "That beggar did not steal my sandwich. He is not a thief. He should not be punished for his deed.".
Now, suppose the same story, but instead of the beggar stealing, a rich thief comes, full of greed and selfishness ... with golden necklaces around his neck ... with diamond rings on his fingers ... with abundant richness ... extremely infatuated with sensual desires ... this thief being hungry steals the sandwich of that very modest and compassionate person. That modest and compassionate person then exclaims: "That thief stole my sandwich! He is a thief! He should be punished for his deed!".
Now suppose there was a hungry person, very outgoing and rational, who has a hungry family and is in need to feed his family. Suppose this hungry, outgoing and rational person goes by a large container containing food that will be thrown away. He thinks to himself: this food is not mine, but it will be thrown away, thus it has no owner, thus if I take it I am not stealing it. Why don't I take some and feed my family with it? Thus he takes some.
Now suppose there was a hungry person, very modest and compassionate ... very sensitive to blame ... who has a hungry family and is in need to feed his family. This hungry, modest, compassionate and sensitive person goes by that same large container containing food that will be thrown away. He thinks to himself: this food is not mine, but it will be thrown away, but it is not mine. I will not steal it. I will not take some. Thus he does no take some.
Thus, stealing occurs, when a decision is made that "something was stolen".

"But we have the precepts for ignorant people and discerning people."

Yes. Whoever is born comes with such and such past kamma of unwholesome actions which determine where is the line drawn with stealing.
The One, who knows the kamma of human beings, knows when a decision that something was stolen arises in a human being. He knows that humans steal because of ignorance and where does the motivation for stealing come from. Because he knows that, he knows the right path for the liberation of human beings: not stealing.
The precepts are written in such a way to resolve any past unwholesome kamma beings have. That's why the precepts say that stealing is an unwholesome action.

"Some people know they are stealing and some don't."

People who know they are stealing are accumulating unwholesome kamma which bears bad fruits in the present and a high potential to bear bad fruits in the future.
People who don't know they are stealing and truly think that they are not stealing, are accumulating neutral or wholesome kamma, but have potential to accumulate unwholesome kamma in the future. The more in the future, the less potential it has for unwholesome kamma.
That's why an unwholesome act, truly thinking that is wholesome, creates no unwholesome kamma in the present, but a potential for the creation of unwholesome kamma in the future.
The laws of kamma are very subtle and hard to explain.
Even if somebody is truly not stealing, it doesn't mean he is accumulating wholesome or neutral kamma by abstaining from stealing.
For example, somebody would decide not to steal out of fear for repercussion. Here the intention to steal exists, but does not come to realization out of fear for one's self. This is unwholesome kamma, even though no stealing has occurred.
On the other hand, somebody would decide to steal out of compassion for hungry beings. Here the intention to steal exists, but it is not done for one's self. This is unwholesome kamma, but even though stealing is occuring, it creates less unwholesome kamma than in the example above, where no stealing is taking place.
Again, the laws of kamma are very subtle and hard to explain.
Suppose somebody would decide to steal out of compassion for hungry beings, but instead of stealing from beings who have accumulated large quantities of food, he steals from beings who have accumulated very low quantities of food. This creates more unwholesome kamma than in the first example above.
Suppose somebody would decide not to steal out of belief in the Buddha's words that stealing is an unwholesome action. This would create neutral kamma or very little unwholesome kamma, depending on the subtle intentions of the being.
Suppose somebody would decide not to steal because he doesn't want the beings to suffer because of him stealing from them. This would create wholesome kamma.
Suppose somebody would decide not to steal because he wants to show beings the right path towards the end of suffering. This would create large quantities of wholesome kamma.
Suppose somebody lives in a cave and hadn't even thought about stealing. This would create neutral kamma.
As you can see, whenever stealing is occurring there is unwholesome kamma being generated. Thus, beings must not steal.

"Are you saying that I can steal as long as I personally change my
  understanding, or coarse intention, of stealing into not stealing?"

No, not in this realm.
You have such and such kamma which does not allow you to change your understanding, or coarse intention, of stealing into not stealing.
Knowing you're a human, and based on the questions you're asking and the discussion I'm having with you, I know that you, including all other humans, due to their kamma, cannot change their understanding, or coarse intention, of stealing into not stealing.
Any human being who claims "I changed my understanding, or coarse intention, of stealing into not stealing" is lying. If this same human being then really starts to steal from others, it just enforces his lie.
Thus I understand, thus I know ...
Such a human being, who is lying in the way described, is deluded and ignorant. His ignorance is stemming out of greed and/or selfishness.
And where does this selfishness and greed come from in such a person?
They come from the idea "I am" or the idea "I exist".
Both are not truths, illusions, not the real nature of things, coming from ignorance.
Knowing this and knowing that this human being is lying, I know that this being clings on the idea "I am" or the idea "I exist". Knowing then, that this human being is stealing, I know that this being clings on the idea "I am" or "I exist" very much.
The clinging on this very same idea and the actions of stealing, feeding the clinging on that very same idea, is what will propel this human into the lower realms of existence.
Thus, out of compassion for all beings, I tell them not to steal as it does not lead to the cessation of suffering. There is a way to the cessation of suffering and that is not to steal.
To summarize:
Every being draws his own line with stealing. Where will a being draw his line will be defined by his kamma at the time he draws the line. This is the truth.
2nd EDIT:

"when a person steals they are not under the power of illusion but,
  instead, really believe the object they are stealing is solid &
  something they need"

When a person steals he is under the power of illusion. The illusion I'm talking about comes from ignorance.
Really believing the object is solid is ignorance. Really believing the object is something they need is ignorance. It's because of this ignorance that the fabrication/decision of "stealing" arises. This ignorance comes from absolutist thinking: "I am", "I exist", "This universe exists" and thus creates kamma with more potential for stealing.
On the other hand, really believing the object is not solid is ignorance. Really believing the object is something they don't need is ignorance. It's because of this ignorance that the fabrication/decision of "avoiding stealing" arises. This ignorance comes from nihilistic thinking: "I am not", "I do not exist", "This universe does not exist" and thus creates kamma with less potential for stealing.
On the other hand, seeing the solidity of the object as it really is and seeing the need for the object as it really is, comes from knowing what ignorance is. It's because of knowing what ignorance is that the fabrication/decision of "stealing" does not arise. This knowledge of what ignorance is comes from seeing reality as it really is. Only then, one can really speak from compassion: "Beings are ignorant about the solidity of the object and beings are ignorant about the need for the object. Beings suffer because of this ignorance. How can I show them the truth?" and thus creates kamma with no potential for stealing.

"If stealing was illusion, stealing would not occur because it would
  be viewed as an illusion."

I'm not saying that stealing is not real. I'm saying that stealing is not reality. I'm saying that stealing is not what the majority of beings think it is. I'm challenging your reality.
The act of seeing stealing as reality is ignorance.
It's because of ignorance that beings don't see stealing as illusion, but think it is real. It's because of ignorance that beings don't see stealing as real, but think it is illusion.
That's why I claim: stealing is just a concept ... an idea ... a mere illusion ... not truth ... a fabrication ...
But beings, because of their ignorance, see stealing as a fact ... a substance ... a reality ... a truth. Because of their ignorance, they see just one side of the coin, not even bothering to examine the other side.
Because of their ignorance, they are drawing a line with stealing. Their actions in the present define where they will draw a line with stealing in the future. This "drawing of a line with stealing" is ignorance. This "taking of a view" is ignorance. This taking of views "this is real" or "this is not real" is ignorance. This ignorance is the cause of their suffering. Seeing how this ignorance arises, how it works, what it really is, what it really does, leads to the end of this ignorance and consequently to the extinction of suffering.

"If stealing was illusion, stealing would not occur because it would
  be viewed as an illusion."

Even if a being would view stealing as an illusion, stealing could still occur because of left ignorance in that being.
What left ignorance?
Ignorance of the fact that his self exists. Ignorant of the fact his self exist, he has the view that his self does not exist, so he thinks his self could not be hurt, so he decides to steal and steps on a path with a greater potential for future suffering.
Ignorance of the fact that self of other beings does not exist. Ignorant of the fact that the self of other beings does not exist, he has the view that self of other beings exists, he sees that these beings see stealing as reality, not an illusion, thus he changes his view according to their view (self exists, thus stealing is real) thinking it is right view, and decides to steal and steps on a path with a greater potential for future suffering.
It's this ignorance of not knowing reality as it really is that is creating potential for stealing to occur and all kinds of suffering:

If a being decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", he is ignorant of the facts that "his self exist" and "self of others does not exist", thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur in the future.

Explanation:
Can a being, who decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", not be ignorant of the fact that "his self exists"?
No, that being in that very moment of taking his decision is ignorant of the fact that "his self exists". Why is that so? If he knew that "his self exists", then he would also knew that "stealing is real". Why is that so? Because he would know that a self "owns things". Whenever something is "owned", it can be stolen. Thus, if he knew that "his self exists", then he would also know that "stealing is real". Thus, knowing that "stealing is real", he would never take decisions upon the view "stealing is an illusion".
Can a being, who decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", not be ignorant of the fact that "self of others does not exist"?
No, that being in that very moment of taking his decision is ignorant of the fact that "self of others does not exist". Why is that so? If he knew that "self of others does not exist", then he would also know that nothing can be stolen from others. Why is that so? Because he would know that with the non existence of the self of others, things owned by others don't exist. Why is that so? Because for a "thing" to be "owned", self must exist who owns that thing. Whenever "things owned by others" loose their owner, they can't be stolen. Thus, if he knew that "self of others does not exist", then he would also know that "things" are not owned by others due to them not having an owner, thus, he would know that "stealing is an illusion for others". Thus, if he knew that "stealing is an illusion for others", he would knew that nothing can be stolen from others. Thus, he would never take a decision "not to steal" knowing that "stealing is an illusion for others", because knowing that "stealing is an illusion for others" and knowing that "things don't have an owner", how possibly he could claim "I decided not to steal" if no stealing could ever take place as there is nothing that can be taken from others? Him taking the decision not to steal, even though he has the view "stealing is an illusion", means that he also has the view "stealing is real for others". For stealing to be real for others, they must have an existent self, that's why he is taking the view "self of others exists" but is ignorant of the fact "self of others does not exist".
Can a being, who decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", not be ignorant of the fact that "self of others exists"?
Yes, that being in that very moment of taking his decision is not ignorant of the fact that "self of others exists". Why is that so? Because he decided not to steal from others, he knows that self of others exists, thus he knows that others own things and he doesn't want to take these things from others. Thus, he is not ignorant of the fact "self of others exists".
Can a being, who decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", not be ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist"?
Yes, that being in that very moment of taking his decision is not ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist". Why is that so? He has the view "stealing is an illusion", but he is deciding not to steal, even though he knows that "stealing is an illusion". Why is this so? Because he is not ignorant of the fact that "self of others exists" (read above), he knows that stealing is not an illusion for others, thus he has a view "stealing is real for others". Nonetheless having the view "stealing is real for others", he has the view "stealing is an illusion", thus the only conclusion is that his view "stealing is an illusion" comes from the view "his self does not exist", because with the absence of his self, nothing can be stolen from his self, and thus he forms the view "stealing is an illusion".

If a being decides to steal because of the view "stealing is an illusion", he is ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist" and "self of others exist", thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur again in the future.
If a being decides not to steal because of the view "stealing is real", he is ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist" and "self of others does not exist", thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur in the future.
If a being decides to steal because of the view "stealing is real", he is ignorant of the fact that "his self does not exist" and "self of others exists", thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur again in the future.
If a being decides not to steal because of the view "beings are ignorant", he is speaking the truth, thus he is not creating any kamma with potential for stealing to occur in the future.
If a being decides to steal because of the view "beings are ignorant", he is either ignorant of the fact that "self of others exists" or "self of others does not exist" or "his self exists" or "his self does not exist" or any combination of the previous, thus creating kamma with potential for stealing to occur again in the future.

Whenever a being defines a line with stealing, claiming "this is stealing", believing it is fact, reality, truth, substance, not letting go of it, clinging onto it, not seeing it as it really is, that being is acting out of ignorance. The core of it coming from views: "I exist" or "I don't exist" or "Others exist" or "Others don't exist" or "The universe exist" or "The universe does not exist" or any combination of these.
I'm challenging you to see reality as it really is.

Can you give sutta sources for any of these ideas?

I teach what I was thought directly by my teachers whose teachings are in the suttas. To get to the ideas in my answer you have to see how everything is ... the truth. You have to see with your own experience. To see it, meditation must happen. This can guide you in the right direction http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html#constructing_aggregates

Ok. You give an example that stealing arises when the decision to steal occurs. But we have the precepts for ignorant people and discerning people. Some people know they are stealing and some don't. Are you saying that I can steal as long as I personally change my understanding, or coarse intention, of stealing into not stealing?

I didn't read your entire long answer but i market it down because when a person steals they are not under the power of illusion but, instead, really believe the object they are stealing is solid & something they need. If stealing was illusion, stealing would not occur because it would be viewed as an illusion.

Thank you for commenting. I answered in my 2nd edit. Thanks


text:
What does "safeguard cognitive process" mean?
In this answer by Ronald Cowen, what does "safeguard cognitive process" mean? What is the Pali, or Sanskrit Buddhist term for the term, "safeguard cognitive process"? Could it be panna, or Sampajnana (by which I mean, right discrimination or proper discernment)?

Is this really a Buddhist concept?

The term seems to be defined in the referenced answer itself:

It helps for you to know that your mind cannot understand something unless it makes sense to you and your mind cannot do something unless it makes sense to you. You have a very sophisticated intelligent function or mental process that constantly makes sure that what you think, do, or decide actually makes sense. This process can be viewed as a safeguard against errors in learning or against errors in the application of what you have learned.

It's also mentioned in one of the OP's books (How Mindfulness Meditation Works: A Modern Buddhist View):

Bodhicitta is, I think, mostly a Mahayana term.
Amazon's About the Author says,

Ronald Cowen has practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years under the direction of the late Venerable Namgyal Rinpoche.

Namgyal Rinpoche is mentioned on Wikipedia (which may concur with Dhammadhatu's assessment: that the teaching may be expressed in terms related to Western psychology).

What was written in the answer was not Buddhist mindfulness but sounded like Western self-administered psychotherapy.
What the answer appeared to say is when you sit in meditation regularly, whatever emotional intelligence & wisdom your mind has developed will be safeguarded.
For example, you have an argument with a friend. Then you sit in meditation and, because of the stress & regret arising in your mind when meditating, the emotional intelligence arises: "It is bad that I argued with my friend. I should apologise to them". This is an example of safeguarding whatever emotional intelligence & wisdom the mind has developed.

As for Buddhist mindfulness, it means to remember mental states of greed, hatred & delusion are unprofitable & cause suffering. Therefore, when practising Buddhist mindfulness, whenever thoughts of greed, hatred & delusion arise in the mind, mindfulness remembers these thoughts are unprofitable and acts to end those thoughts.
Similarly, if the mind views any conditioned thing as permanent, satisfactory & self, mindfulness remembers these are wrong views and applies right view to end those wrong views.
Buddhist right mindfulness is described in the Pali suttas & is different to the answer in that book.

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve/thought & to enter & remain in right resolve/thought: This is one's right mindfulness.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can I say that this question exists but no questioner is found?
Anatta is beautifully described here. The following quote sums up the idea of no self:

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no
  doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters
  it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

Extending the above analogy, can I say that,this question exists but no questioner is found?
Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found?
If you answer the above questions then haven't you yourself made the choice ?
EDIT: Some people have raised doubt over the validity of the quote above saying that this is not the mainstream Buddhist thought.
To further support the argument that there is no sufferer I quote from the book
 Buddha: His Life ,His Doctrine ,His Order BY Dr. Hermann Oldenberg(page 253):

A seeing,a hearing, a conceiving, above all a suffering, takes place :
  but an existence, which may be regarded as the seer, the hearer,the sufferer, is not recognized in Buddhist teaching.

I see one answerer put the blame on Buddhaghosa, why not investigate the Eng. translator if he did understand Buddhaghosa and he was well-learnt in the Buddhist Dhamma and have at least certain achievement in the Jhana training before he laid hand to dab a great Buddhist Monk's work? I see too many translators in suspicious of fame seeking translating something we laymen can't read, well, no one knows it's correct or not... Pali is in more danger since Pali only used for Pali Canon, only a handful scholars. As far as I read I found Ven. Thanissaro most faithful, havn't encountered others yet.

@Mishu米殊 I haven't found which translator gave the translation quoted in the OP above. A (different) widely-used English translation is The Path of Purification by Nanamoli Bhikkhu, which (on page 529) translates this as, "For there is suffering, but none who suffers; Doing exists although there is no door [sic]. Extinction is but no extinguished person; Although there is a path, there is no goer." So far as I can see, Ven. Thanissaro hasn't published a translation (of the Visuddhimagga).

@ChrisW Thx. I would trust more of Ven. Nanamoli, I did save a copy of his Vis. But hvn't time to read yet. From your quote I can discern certain meanings from his trans. So... mahhh... so unfair for Ven. Buddhaghosa to take all the blames. No wonder the ancients are so wise less keen to leave a name for fame, since name is just composed letters when they truely realized Anatta. ;)

What's the final verdict ? Whatever I have quoted in the question above is right or not ?

Buddhaghosa spoke non-sense such as 12-fold-voidness. The suttas define dependent origination as "the wrong pathj" (SN 12.3) and define voidness as empty of self & empty of ignorance & becoming (MN 121)., Since dependent origination is the arising of becoming & self-identity views, it is not a 12-fold-voidness. Instead, it is a 12-fold-ignorance. This shows how confused Buddhaghosa was about Buddha-Dhamma.

I think by saying that " I suffered" one is clinging to the self. Clinging to the self leads to even more suffering. Probably Buddhaghosa is right : although suffering exists yet no one suffered.

"Doctor! It hurts when I do this!"  "Well don't do that!"

can I say that, this question exists but no questioner is found?
I think that people can say anything they like: but that merely "saying" it isn't enough to make it arya or wise, useful in practice.
Saying "no questioner is found" reminds me of this Zen story, Nothing Exists -- which I recommend, because I think it's a good illustration of this topic:

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

Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no choice maker will be found?
Maybe not. The Buddha famously found a house-builder (Dhammapada Verses 153 and 154):

I, who have been seeking the builder of this house (body), failing to attain Enlightenment (Bodhi nana or Sabbannuta nana) which would enable me to find him, have wandered through innumerable births in samsara. To be born again and again is, indeed, dukkha!

Oh house-builder! You are seen, you shall build no house (for me) again. All your rafters are broken, your roof-tree is destroyed. My mind has reached the unconditioned (i.e., Nibbana); the end of craving (Arahatta Phala) has been attained.

Yeah, I was tempted to reply to the question by saying, "Who wants to know?"

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters
it; The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

This quote is 3/4 false. This is not a quote from the Buddha but by a 5th century scholar named Buddhaghosa. It is not beautiful. It is nihilism.
Suffering can only exist due to the idea of a sufferer. Suffering ends when the idea of self ends. Therefore suffering is the same as the delusion of a sufferer. To quote from SN 12.15:

This world, Kaccana, is for the most part shackled by engagement, clinging, and adherence. But this one with right view does not become
engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental
standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand
about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is
only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing

If there was no 'sufferer', why did the Buddha teach to abandon the idea of 'self' in order to end suffering? While the sufferer is an illusion, it is this illusion that creates suffering. Suffering can never be separated from the idea of a sufferer (upadana; jati; sakkaya ditthi; asmi mana).
Deeds only exist due to the idea of a doer. This is why the teachings about good & bad kamma teach it is "a being" ("satta") that reaps kamma. (Note: "a being" is also merely an illusion. Refer to SN 23.2 & SN 5.10). For example, if there was no idea of self, deeds would not be done (unless they were the selfless compassionate deeds of a Buddha to help other realise not-self). This is why it is said kamma ends when not-self is realised by the eightfold path (AN 6.63). Therefore, kamma depends on the idea of the doer (self); just as suffering depends on the idea of a self.

Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
the cessation of kamma. AN 6.63

The mind travels the path, therefore there is a traveller, which is the mind (but not a self). The Dhammapada states:

274. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.
275. Walking upon this path you will make an end of suffering. Having discovered how to pull out the thorn of lust, I make known the path.
276. You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way. Those meditative ones who tread the path are released from the bonds
of Mara.

The writer who wrote this quote did so so he could be reincarnated in a Brahmanistic (Hindu) heaven. He did not understand Buddha's teachings. The writer believed in self & wrote philosophy for the purpose of personal fame:

By the performance of such merit As has been gained by me through this  And any other still in hand So may I in my next becoming
Behold the joys of Távatimsá.
Page 747

If there was no 'sufferer', why did the Buddha teach to abandon the idea of 'self' in order to end suffering?

Why has what I have written been repeated here? Thanks

By mistake I pressed enter and message went away. Here is my actual comment:If there was no 'sufferer', why did the Buddha teach to abandon the idea of 'self' in order to end suffering? Because unless we abandon the idea of false self we won't see that there is no self and the suffering won't end. Therefore suffering exists due to false self. When the truth is realized that false self must be given away then the suffering ends. But all along while there was suffering the subject did not exist. The subject had the false idea of self. Self is an error, illusion or is like a dream.

The Buddha did not teach there was no sufferer. The quote you have posted is not by Buddha. it is by a man named Buddhaghosa.

In the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, the Buddha advised:

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

How can you be a refuge unto yourself if your "self" doesn't exist at all?
In this answer, Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote:

In Theravada Buddhism we recognize two levels of truth; conventional
  truth (sammuti-sacca) and ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca).
  Conventional truth relies on a spatio-temporal paradigm, in which
  there exist people, places, and things. It is the level on which "you"
  and "I" exist, and it is the level on which a "person" becomes
  "enlightened". None of this has anything to do with the characteristic
  of non-self, which works on the level of ultimate truth. Ultimate
  truth relies on an experiential paradigm, in which there exists only
  the momentary experience of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting,
  feeling, or thinking.

Ven. Thanissaro said in his series of talks:

"If there is no self, what does the action and what receives the
  results of the action?" ... this question is misconstrued in two ways.
The first is that the Buddha never said that there is no self, and he
  never said that there is a self. The question of whether a self does
  or doesn't exist is a question he put aside.
The second reason for why the question is misconstrued is because it
  has the framework backwards. It's taking the teaching of not-self as
  the framework and kamma as something that's supposed to fit inside the
  framework. Actually, the relationship is the other way around. Kamma
  is the framework, and the teaching of not-self is meant to fit in the
  framework. In other words, the Buddha takes the teachings on skillful
  and unskillful kamma as his basic categorical teaching. Within that
  context, the question on self and not-self becomes: When is a
  perception of self skillful kamma, and when is a perception of
  not-self skillful kamma? And when are they not skillful?
So to get the most use out of the teachings on self and not-self, we
  have to approach them with these questions in mind. The Buddha is not
  trying to define what you are. He's not trying to fit you into a box.
  He's more concerned with helping you. He tries to show you how you
  define yourself so that you can learn how to use that process of
  self-definition in a way that leads to the ultimate goal of his
  teaching: the end of suffering and the attainment of ultimate freedom,
  ultimate happiness. In this way the teachings on self and not-self are
  part of the answer to the question, "What when I do it will lead to my
  long-term welfare and happiness?"

How can you be a refuge unto yourself if your "self" doesn't exist at all?
Here 'yourself' is identified with your true nature which leads to the state of Nirvana.

In this context, taking refuge in yourself means rely on your own effort and determination. There's nothing metaphysical that is implied.

Upvote for the Ven. Thanissaro quote, thx

@DheerajVerma the idea of a "true self" just kicks the can down the road. Saying "true nature" could be an appeal to the same thing (there is another interpretation also).

"Extending the above analogy, can I say that,this question exists but
  no questioner is found?"

Yes.

"Can I also say that, choice to answer this question exists but no
  choice maker will be found?"

Yes.

"If you answer the above questions then haven't you yourself made the
  choice ?"

Yes.
Now I ask:
Is there an I (a choice maker) that made the choice?
No.
Is there a choice?
No.
Is there a question?
No.
How could that be?!
Firstly there is an I, there is a choice and there is a question. Secondly, there is no I, no choice and no question.
How could that be?!
With decision (volition) there arises the I. With decision (volition) there arises the choice. With decision (volition) there arises the question.
That which arises with decision (volition) is not truth ... is like a dream ... like a lie.
It is like taking clay and forming a vase claiming "This is a vase", and not seeing that it is not a vase but just clay.
How can I prove that?
I cannot.
How can I explain it to you so that you will see this?
I cannot.
It is like you asking me "What is below the basement of my house?" and me replying "There is immense gold. Hundreds and thousands of gold, emeralds, coins. Tons and tons and tons! So immense in value that the whole universe could be made wealthy with it!" and you not even digging under your house to check my claims.
How can I explain what the "clay" is?
I cannot.
It is like you asking me "What is the taste of this fruit?" and me replying "Delicious! Soo good!" and you not even taking a bite to taste the fruit yourself to see the taste yourself.
EDIT:
Prajñāpāramitā sutra:

"You should  look  upon
  everything  as  an illusion,  a  transformation,  a  dream,  a
  bubble,  or  a  shadow — as unreal."
"Subhåti, all dharmas are spoken of as no dharmas. Therefore they are
  called dharmas."

Source: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/prajparagen2.pdf
Diamond sutra:

"A shooting star, a clouding of the sight, a lamp, An illusion, a drop
  of dew, a bubble, A dream, a lightning’s flash, a thunder cloud—This
  is the way one should see the conditioned."

https://hyanniszendo.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/diamondsutra_lettersize1.pdf
When I read the above, "everything" and/or "conditioned" I understand as everything that is experienced with the senses.
If you look at dependent origination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da#/media/File:Paticca-Samuppada.JPG, "everything" and/or "conditioned" arises from volitional activities (activities).
Thus, you get this statement:
"That which arises with decision (volition) is not truth ... is like a dream ... like a lie."
Be careful. I with the above statement do not imply that everything is not real. Nor do I imply that everything is real. Nor do I imply that something is real and something is not real, nor any combination of real/unreal. I know it doesn't make sense, but I think it is understandable enough for you to move you in the right direction. You must see it yourself.

Interesting. But can you please provide some link to your claim that "That which arises with decision (volition) is not truth ... is like a dream ... like a lie."

Take a look at my edited answer.

I looked up the meaning of Samskara.Samskara is translated as Activities in the picture. But Samskara has different meanings at different places. In Nepaul it is called illusion. In Tibet it is called notion. In Ceylon it is called discrimination. In China it is called action.  If we accept Chinese interpretation then probably you are right.

You should look at the meaning of the word by putting it into the right context. In the wheel of dependent origination samskara is basically a description of kamma - read here: http://www.buddha-vacana.org/gloss.html#sankhara Kamma is created by volitional/decision making activities. Also, in the sutta it states that "samskara fabricates fabricated things", thus samskara fabricates fabrications, hence not truths.

Sorry, I gave wrong link. Here is the correct one http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/khandha/sn22-079.html .

Follow to your quote, main idea is:

5 khandha exist, no attā is found.

Question and answer are not 5 khandha. They are just paññatti, that are imagined by consciousnesses. So no question and no answer are found, too.
See: Paññatti in Abhidhammatthasaṇgaha chapter 8

That is interesting. If no question and no answer are found then what is found? Are the 5 khandas found?

If question base on khandha, khandha is found. If question base on micchādiṭṭhi, such as attā, there is nothing is found.

Consciousness does not imagine. It requires sankhara aggregate to imagine. https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.62 Please improve your answers by quoting relevant passages from the links you provide.

I often give you abhidhamma evidence, include this answer. Sāriputta often describe in many scripts: [6] katamaṃ tasmiṃ samaye cittaṃ hoti? yaṃ tasmiṃ samaye cittaṃ mano mānasaṃ hadayaṃ paṇḍaraṃ mano manāyatanaṃ manindriyaṃ viññāṇaṃ viññāṇakkhandho tajjāmanoviññāṇadhātu – idaṃ tasmiṃ samaye cittaṃ hotiฯ (Abhi.saṅ.)

Another buddha used many synonym words of "know" in each sutta like that to avoid the confusion of the listener. In some sutta, Consciousness defined as viññāṇa (81 lokiya-consciousnesses) to show ārammaṇa of vipassanā. Then in the same sutta, consciousness defined as citta (10 lokuttara-consciousnesses) to show vipassanā's success. So buddha can not use the same definition in this sutta because of confusion of the listener.

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


text:
Where does Gautam Buddha say so?
I want details of following quote by Gautam Buddha. Can anyone tell where (reference) & what completely he said?

It's introduced, briefly, on this page of the "Fake Buddha Quotes" web site.


text:
Concept of Karma in Bhagwad Gita and Buddhism
In Hinduism, there are many philosophies developed regarding the concept of God and afterlife, and they all give their own interpretations. Regarding the Karmic approach, the main book that gives insight about that is the Bhagwad Gita.

The main concept that arises from it is that no man can exist without doing any karma (Knowingly or Unknowingly) and hence krishna says that "any Karma without attachment is the right way to not get bounded by your karmic effects".
Whereas Buddhism says, any act of Karma whether good or bad is bound to create attachment so the best way is to not indulge in any karma altogether.

As a man can`t live without doing karma, and this will result in karmic debt, isn't the salvation of a person (Nirvana) infeasible by this approach? Are Buddhism and Bhagwad Gita on different pages, regarding the concept of karma?

You say that "man can`t live without doing karma" -- perhaps it's possible to answer this question by explaining how it can be that, according to Buddhism, a liberated person creates no new karma.

In Buddhism, it is taught Kiriya Citta. That is action not create kamma.
========
"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html

Bhagavad Gita is different to Buddhism because Bhagavad Gita teaches a person can kill in war without attachment. Buddhism does not teach this because any view that believes war is duty is attachment.
In Buddhism, there are four types of attachment: (i) sensuality; (ii) views; (iii) precepts & rituals; & (iv) self-views. The view that 'war is duty' is attachment.
In Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna had the view or idea of "my family" or "jati". 'Jati' (self-identity; social-identity; caste) is attachment in Buddhism. Buddha taught attachment (upadana) is the condition (paccaya) for becoming (bhava), which is the condition for birth (jati).
The Buddha ended 'jati' ('birth') therefore had no caste & no caste duty. The Buddha renounced his warrior caste, unlike Arjuna, who did his warrior duty of war & killing commanded by Krishna.
In Buddhism, the noble eightfold path is the ending of kamma. By following the noble eightfold path, an arahant (Buddha) cannot kill a human being.
The killing Krisha recommended & Arjuna performed is a crime in Buddhism. If a Buddhist monk recommends to a person to kill another person, this monk is defeated & immediately not a monk.
This is the difference between Buddhism & Bhagavad Gita. In Buddhism, a Buddha/arahant cannot kill or teach another to kill.

Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right
  speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma.
Nibbedhika Sutta

As in case of Arjuna, Krishna advised him to pick up weapons against the wrongdoings done to his family. Krishna said, even if he chooses  not to fight his brothers, Duryodhana was adamant to annihilate pandavas in any case. What does Buddha says in this scenario? Does fighting in an act of self defense considered as hurting/accumulation of karma?

Hi. The question of good & bad kamma is not really relevant because in Buddhism good kamma includes attachment thus the doer of self-defense kamma is bound. For example, the Buddha taught his monks to not do violence if violence is done to them. Regards

in this case, buddha would just remove the ignorance of duryodhana as a result he will realicze what he was doing. only ignorance is the reason why people do bad karma, cas they think thats right for them. thats why buddhism is little different thant hindhism even though both has similar basic principles. ex: when angulimala a monster tryed to kill buddha, he stoped him by removing his ignorance not by killing him unlike krisna who have killed all his enemyes like kansa and other demons. iand yes i liten to both krisnas and buddhas teachings.

From Bhagavad Gita 3.7-9:

But those karma yogis who control their knowledge senses with the mind,
  O Arjuna, and engage the working senses in working without
  attachment, are certainly superior. You should thus perform your
  prescribed Vedic duties, since action is superior to inaction. By
  ceasing activity, even your bodily maintenance will not be possible.
  Work must be done as a yajña (sacrifice) to the Supreme Lord; otherwise, work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O
  son of Kunti, perform your prescribed duties, without being attached
  to the results, for the satisfaction of God.

The OP's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita teachings is correct.
However, the following sounds more like the teachings of Jainism rather than Buddhism:

OP: Whereas Buddhism says, any act of Karma whether good or bad is bound to create attachment so the best way is to not indulge in any
  karma altogether.

On the Devadaha Sutta (where the Buddha speaks to some followers of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism), the translator Ven. Thanissaro comments:

If the cause of present suffering were located exclusively in the
  past, no one could do anything in the present moment to stop that
  suffering; the most that could be done would be to endure the
  suffering while not creating any new kamma leading to future
  suffering. Although this was the Jain approach to practice, many
  people at present believe that it is the Buddhist approach as well.
  Meditation, according to this understanding, is the process of
  purifying the mind of old kamma by training it to look on with
  non-reactive equanimity as pain arises. The pain is the result of old
  kamma, the equanimity adds no new kamma, and thus over time all old
  kamma can be burned away.
In this sutta, however, the Buddha heaps ridicule on this idea.
  First he notes that none of the Niganthas (Jains) have ever come to
  the end of pain by trying to burn it away in this way ...
Thus the practice must focus on ways to understand and bring about
  dispassion for the causes of stress and pain here and now. As the
  Buddha points out in MN 106, equanimity plays an important role in
  this practice, but it can also become an object for passion and
  delight, which would then stand in the way of true release. Thus he
  notes here that, in some cases, dispassion can arise simply from
  on-looking equanimity directed at the causes of stress. In other
  cases, it can come only through exertion: the mental effort — through
  the fabrications of directed thought, evaluation, and perception — to
  develop the discernment needed to see through and abandon any and all
  passion.

The way to end suffering according to the Buddha is to end cravings through the Noble Eightfold Path. The way to end suffering is not through the avoiding of creating new karma.
The method stated in BG 3.7-9 is one of equanimity (performing duty without attachment to the results of actions), but it may not work according to the Aneñja-sappaya Sutta (MN 106):

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One: "There is the
  case, lord, where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should
  not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not
  occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' —
  obtains equanimity. Now, would this monk be totally unbound, or not?"
"A certain such monk might, Ananda, and another might not.'
"What is the cause, what is the reason, whereby one might and another
  might not?"
"There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way
  — (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not
  be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I
  abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes
  it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes
  it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is
  sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a
  monk is not totally unbound."
"Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?"
"The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."
"Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme
  sustenance."
"Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance;
  for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is
  the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk,
  having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur
  to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come
  to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that
  equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he
  does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain
  fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not
  sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance,
  Ananda, a monk is totally unbound."

Also, self-defense is not wrong according to the Buddha in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."

However, despite self-defense, one should not carry unskillful thoughts like hatred and anger (from the Kakacupama Sutta):

"Phagguna, if anyone were to give you a blow with the hand, or hit you
  with a clod of earth, or with a stick, or with a sword, even then you
  should abandon those urges and thoughts which are worldly. There,
  Phagguna, you should train yourself thus: 'Neither shall my mind be
  affected by this, nor shall I give vent to evil words; but I shall
  remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and I shall not
  give in to hatred.' This is how, Phagguna, you should train yourself.

Also, in Buddhism, there is no Supreme Creator God and there is no eternal absolute soul.

I want to give a general answer. Hopefully you like it. I would say by deviating from the natural order or godly order, you create karma. That is, you went further away from god or bhagwan or whomsoever and your personality gets based on it. This is why you have to set your intent on "Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration" like @SarathW wrote. Because otherwise, when a similar situation arises you are unlikely to reverse it and learn from it and also, so to say, undoing your past mistake.


text:
What does one need to give, for liberation?
A twofold question for the sake to become even one.
General theoretical, general practical and personal answers of reflection (and generously let others have part of it) are suitable. Or even incl. all the views on it, to give a broad spectrum to grasp.
(Liberation here means the highest goal a living being can archive: end of suffering and stress)

All you have to give up are your preconceptions.  All you need to give is your trust in the process.

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

Do you mean what you need to give up in order to become free from suffering?
Dhammapada 221 says:

Give up anger, abandon conceit, overcome all fetters. Ills of life
  (dukkha) do not befall one who does not cling to mind and body and is
  free from moral defilements.

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

You don't give in any thing to Nibbana but you realise Nibbana.
Once you realise Nibbana you release from gross factors to subtle factors gradually and develop Bodhiakkhiyadharma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhipakkhiy%C4%81dhamm%C4%81
========
Then Ven. Sariputta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down to him and sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the Blessed One said to him, "Sariputta, how many are the strengths of a monk whose effluents are ended, endowed with which he affirms the ending of the effluents (thus): 'The effluents are ended in me'?"
"Eight, lord, are the strengths of a monk whose effluents are ended, endowed with which he affirms the ending of the effluents (thus): 'The effluents are ended in me.' Which eight?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.028.than.html

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

"What does one need to give, for liberation?"

His self.
Once the self is given, it is realised that nothing is ever given nor taken.
Giving or taking are just mere concepts ... illusions ... not truth.
It is within this realisation of the truth that liberation is achieved.
But again ...
Achieving or not achieving are just mere concepts ... illusions ... not truth.
It is within this realisation of the truth that liberation is achieved.

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

Friendliness. Compassion. Joy for others. Equanimity
Cultivate these states within yourself and send the feeling out to all beings. Anything experienced from developing these skilful states, give.


text:
what is personality view?
inner conversation of mind has reduced now.after a period of had stopped during meditation.is it due to Samadhi which achieved?And what is personality view?

Maybe related: What are examples of identity-view?

Inner conversation will greatly decrease in the second jhana, I'm happy you have experienced this. Yes, this is a development of Samadhi and you are on the right track. A lack of personality view basically speaking, means that you know deeply within yourself that you are simply body, feeling, mental formation, consciousness and perception. That's all, no matter how hard you look that's all you can find. and that's fine. The more developed Samadhi becomes the more the concept of personality fades. It must fade for Samadhi to arise. Keep in mind that until fully awakened you will still have a concept of personality, you need one to survive, however and any time you can turn inwards and try to look for the self or personality and find nothing, it is a very pleasant and peaceful feeling. In that moment you understand that you are everything and nothing simulatiously and nothing can touch you. The fully awakened arahant would reside continuously in this nothingness of self which would, unless he/she retreated to a forest for the lifetime, would find existing in society quite difficult. This is the final fetter of conceit the Buddha talks about. Furthermore, when one understands how personality and personality traits occur one understands them as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. Additionally, this is underscored and affirmed by recollecting past lives and seeing how much of a different person you were depending on different circumstances, this helps you to let go of attachment to the personality traits you have. Everything changes.

During practice even pain arises, it will goes off by noting .is it due to let go of attachment to the body?Is it non self?

I can see from another comment that you do vipassana practice. You should be aware that the Buddha did not teach this, it's simply not in the suttas. What is likely happening is that you are remaining mindful of your object and the body is relaxing enough for you to move through the jhanas. The mind settles in second jhana which feels empty and almost non-self, in the third there is very little sense of self. In the fourth personality is essential gone. 'purity of mindfulness due to equanimity'

If you are experiencing pain in your sitting, try incorporating a hatha yoga routine before sitting. The body must be strong. Letting go of attachment of the body does not cause pain, it causes pleasant feeling and satisfaction.

Personality view is seen things as internal (five aggregate) and external (five aggregate).
You perceive internal as I,me and myself and external as not me, not mine and not myself.

During vipassana practice what happened to the mind when personality goes off?

The way I understand it also gradual. At Sotapanna stage the personality view is eradicated. At Anagami stage personal identification  (attachment and aversion to Rupa) with Rupa is  eliminated. At Arhant stage personal identification (to five aggregate) is eradicated.


text:
When Buddhism started?
After Gautama Buddha's born or Buddhism were already there in the world when Gautama Buddha was born? who was the first Buddhism follower?

Exact Origin year of Buddhism is debated. Some says it began after the death of the buddha while some others believe it started from the BODHI DAY. There are also views stating that it started with the his first teaching to his 5 followers.
When king Suddhodhana came to know about his son`s mortification desires, he sent around 300 men to go with Gautama(Later Buddha) and attend to his needs. But Gautama declined and took only five of them. https://archive.org/details/lifeofbuddhaearl00rock
Also, the argument that his Father is sent men to accompany Gautama is debated but the claim of 5 men accompanying Gautama is verified from almost every source.
These 5 men were the first men to which Buddha gave his teachings after the Enlightenment.
The names of these are claimed to be as follows:-
1) Kaundinya
2) Assaji
3) Bhaddiya
4) Vappa
5) Mahanama
Together they were known as Pancavaggiya ( The Group of Five ) or Pancaka Bhadravargiya ( The Group of Five Fortunate Ones ).
Kaundinya is said to be the first disciple of Lord Buddha. Kaundinya is the one who predicted that Siddhartha would become Lord Buddha and Kaundinya was the first disciple of Buddha to become arahant.
https://www.burmese-art.com/blog/kaundinya-first-disciple-buddha

Exactly, actually I heard the same thing more often. So from my researches I think Bodhi Day will be the correct answer, but still debatable. So however, Buddhism started after Buddha's birth only, I hope at least we can come to that conclusion. am I right?

Rather than the founder of a new religion, Siddhartha Gautama was the founder and leader of a sect of wanderer ascetics (Sramanas), one of many sects that existed at that time all over India. This sect came to be known as Sangha to distinguish it from other similar communities.Gautama lived during a time of profound social changes in India. The authority of the Vedic religion was being challenged by new philosophical views.After Siddhartha Gautama passed away, the community he founded slowly evolved into a religion-like movement and the teachings of Siddhartha became the basis of Buddhism.

Hmm agreed. Your answer convinced me a bit. So from my point of view I'm gonna make your answer as the correct answer. Note: thoughts may differ readers, so please don't blame on me if you have agreed with some other things :)

According to tradition, Gautama Buddha was not the first Buddha. There were previous Samma Sambuddhas before him who taught the same teachings (called Dhamma). Also according to tradition, a new Samma Sambuddha does not appear until the teachings of the previous one has been completely lost and forgotten. According to The Buddhist Society page here:

Once upon a time, many thousands of years ago, there was a Brahmin
  ascetic named Sumedha living in the Himalayan foothills. He was well
  advanced in his ascetic and meditation practices. It was the time of
  the previous Buddha Dipankara. When he heard that the Buddha was to
  visit the lowlands, he made his way down from his hermitage in order
  to meet the Buddha.
He helped the people in making preparations for welcoming Buddha
  Dipankara. When he met the Buddha, the ascetic Sumedha was very
  impressed and thought, ’May I be able one day to attain Enlightenment
  like this Buddha, and help the people by teaching the Dhamma’. Buddha
  Dipankara read the mind of Ascetic Sumedha, and announced to those
  gathered there, ‘ This ascetic will one day become Enlightened as a
  Samma Sambuddha named Gotama Buddha’.

A brief history of Gautama Buddha's life can be found here.
The Buddha also described his noble search for enlightenment in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta, including the shramanic (ascetic) teachers he studied under, before his enlightenment, but wasn't satisfied by their teachings. The first disciples were a group of five monks (according to this sutta):

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma
  first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought
  occurred to me, 'They were very helpful to me, the group of five monks
  who attended to me when I was resolute in exertion. What if I were to
  teach them the Dhamma first?' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Where
  are the group of five monks staying now?' And with the divine eye,
  purified & surpassing the human, I saw that they were staying near
  Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana.

According to accesstoinsight.org's page on the Chronology of Theravada Buddhism:

Year 1 of the Buddhist Era calendar is the year of the Buddha's
  Parinibbana (death and final release), which occurred in the Buddha's
  eightieth year (480 BCE according to the "historical" timeline; 544
  BCE by tradition).

On this year, the following happened:

Parinibbana (Skt: Parinirvana; death and final release) of the Buddha,
  at Kusinara (now Kusinagar, India) (age 80).
During the rains retreat following the Buddha's Parinibbana, the First
  Council (sangayana) convenes at Rajagaha, India, during which 500
  arahant bhikkhus, led by Ven. Mahakassapa, gather to recite the entire
  body of the Buddha's teachings. The recitation of the Vinaya by Ven.
  Upali becomes accepted as the Vinaya Pitaka; the recitation of the
  Dhamma by Ven. Ananda becomes established as the Sutta Pitaka.

We can consider this the beginning of modern Buddhism as we know it. Of course, years later, it would split into various schools and traditions.
My personal opinion is that Buddhism started the day the Buddha accepted the invitation by Brahma Sahampati to teach the world (see Ariyapariyesana Sutta).

yeah acceptable, but my question was about Buddhism not about Buddha. Even though there were more Buddha's before Gautama Buddha the religion which is known as Buddhism wasn't in the world right?

Updated my answer with the traditional date for Year 1 of the Buddhist Era calendar.

Your supporting source from Theravada Buddhism right, but there is another Buddhism knows as Mahayana Buddhism. So will it effect the conclusion? I mean will Mahayana has any other different history?

All schools of modern Buddhism started from Gautama Buddha, so the history would be the same. Right after the Buddha's passing, the First Council of the Sangha was convened. The first schism happened at the Second Council at around 334 BCE, where Mahasamghika split apart from the Sthavira Nikaya. The former group became the predecessor of Mahayana Buddhism, while the latter became the predecessor of Theravada Buddhism. About 75 - 100 years later, Buddhism spread far and wide after Mauryan Emperor Asoka converted to Buddhism.

It's about 150-200 years, that Wester lay people and scholars invented and defined "Buddhism" and the word appears, if remembering right, first in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
If asking about Buddhas teaching, called Buddha- Sāsana, in the origin/traditional countries, it started with the setting in motion the Wheel of Dhamma, short after Buddhas awakining, at least on request of the King od Devas.
The first follower have been some lay people on his way to search for some who are capable to understand the Dhamma, it was before the setting in motion.
On the occation of setting in motion the Dhamma, he accepted (ordained) his first disciples and this was the beginning of his religion he called him self "This Dhamma, this Vinaya", usually called Dhamma-Vinaya (Teaching/Doctrine-Conduct/Discipline).
References to Suttas Names detail: A Sketch of the Buddha's Life gives a good and most relayable short overview of what is general known and approved since this time.
(Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other wordily gains.)

So you are saying Buddhism is only 150-200 years older? remember this is 2017 AD.

Yes, that what falls under this lable, broad known today, celebrated, uphold and struggled for, is not older as it's lable. Note: that is not meant in regard of Buddhas Religion, his heritage..., see and read answer in detail, Wickram Bagawathinathan. And "Buddhism" will also not last long, as every popular appearence. In reagard of Buddha Sakara (time counting in this Sasana, we writte the year 2561. Add 45 years and @WickramBagawathinathan will have the age of Buddhas teaching and religion according to the tradition of his disciples) Scholars and the world may waste time in arguing years.

@WickramBagawathinathan He's saying that the phrase "Buddhism", i.e. the English (and German) word, was coined 200 years ago by Western lay people and scholars.

A good book to read.
I highly recommend it for you.
This is the book help me to get into Buddhism.
========
He realized that his spiritual aspirations were far higher
than those under whom he chose to learn. He realized that
there was none capable enough to teach him what he yearned
for – the highest Truth. He also realized that the highest
Truth is to be found within oneself and ceased to seek external
aid.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddha-teachingsurw6.pdf

"the Buddha Era is reckoned from the death of the
Buddha, which occurred in 543 b.c. (in His 80th year), and not from His birth."
so here is the answer, and Buddha born as a hindu am I right?
"Gautama was born as a Kshatriya" -Wikipedia, and Kshatriya is the one of the four classes in Hinduism yeah?

The Hinduism is a late invention by Westerners. What prevailed in Buddha's time is the Brahmanism.

okay, then how Buddha was born as a Kshatriya? BTW Brahmanism also Hinduism right? May I know who are the people in Hindu Temples?


text:
Why is Buddha needed?
In order to attain Nirvana one must be able to  understand that his or her self is an illusion , error or is like a dream. This understanding doesn't come naturally. Naturally one finds that there is a self. Naturally one finds that he or she is behind feelings ,thoughts ,perceptions. Most humans and animals (I guess ) would more likely observe and conclude that I am angry, I am coming , I am going , I am doing this or that , I am suffering etc.. He fails to see that he is made up of aggregates. He fails to see that all aggregates dissolve. He fails to see that his self will dissolve too because it is made up of aggregates.He clings to the thought that that was me. Clearly we see that in order to attain Nirvana a sophisticated Teacher is required because Nirvana requires a deep understanding of self. I wonder whether a teacher is always required for Nirvana or nature provides a clue to non-existence of self.
So my questions are :
Is it possible for humans or animals to attain automatic Nirvana? (Here automatic means without any help from external teacher)
If yes , then what is the need of Buddha ?
EDIT : For more clarification on the meaning and nature of the word Automatic in the above question I add the following:
I say automatic Nirvana in the above question because all aggregates must dissolve automatically and complete dissolution of Self is Nirvana.No amount of Karma or no kind of karma can keep the Self alive forever.Self by nature is liable to pass away as an error , illusion or dream.
Here I quote,from the book Buddha by Dr. Hermann Oldenberg ,page 216, about the things which no one can stop from happening:

There are five things which no Samana, and no Brahman, and no god,
  neither Mara, nor Brahma, nor any being in the universe, can bring
  about. What five things are these ? That what is subject to old age,
  should not grow old, that what is subject to sickness, should not be
  sick, that what is subject to death, should not die, that what is
  subject to decay, should not decay, that what is liable to pass away,
  should not pass away—this can no Samana bring about, nor any Brahman,
  nor any god, neither Mara, nor Brahma, nor any being in the Universe."

If no one can stop the dissolution of Self from happening then we see that eventually everyone will attain Nirvana with or without a great teacher like Buddha.

Whom does Dheeraj Verma expect to be able to explain the errors in the reasoning of the question, aside a Buddha, through his Dhamma? And yes, if automatical errors would decay, no need of Buddha at all. Maybe it's good to pack not to many in one question, just a thought.

Give me some clue as to where I am wrong? I am saying Nirvana is bound to happen with or without teacher because Self is bound to dissolve due to its own nature.

Dhamma, fist is not about self, but to go beyound suffering, and if suffering will be gone by death, then no comment and no need for Buddha at all, lost and out. But it was more about making, one by one question as to but in once whole theories. Dheeraja Verma.

We know that death of body is inevitable. But we also know that death of Self is inevitable. It may take few rebirths but death of self is inevitable. Death or Obliteration of Self is Nirvana. And this is bound to happen by nature. Therefore there is no need for Buddha.

Than you have you answer, may it be for you like that and the Buddha is not mad at, that Dheeraj does not need him. So might however choose a more relayable way, for them the Buddha has much value

There is a mistaken idea in the question. In Buddhism, rebirth will occur endlessly without the attainment of Nibbana (which does not happen naturally or by some sort of evolution). Natural spiritual evolution is a Hindu idea and not a Buddhist one.

Rebirth can not occur indefinitely because Self which is taking rebirth must dissolve because Self is made up of aggregates. All aggregates must dissolve.

The Self dissolves and reassembles again endlessly through rebirths. As stated in Milindapanha, rebirth is like light of a candle passed from one candle to another. It can be passed on forever, even after the previous candle has extinguished.

@ruben2020 Let me ask you the same question which King Malinda asked NagaSena. When you light a candle from another , is it the same flame which gets reborn or is it the another flame which gets reborn? The answer is it neither same or another. The two flames are linked karmically. Once chains of karma are cut off we realize that there is no rebirth because that new flame is not me... because the old flame was not me...and so on... eventually realizing that I do not exist.

In Buddhism, rebirth will occur endlessly without the attainment of Nibbana (which does not happen naturally or by some sort of evolution). There is no automatic nibbana. Natural spiritual evolution is a Hindu idea (see Chapter 26 of Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda) and not a Buddhist one.
In Buddhism, all beings are not naturally progressing towards Nibbana. It is possible to be reborn as a Brahma, then later as a pig as in Dhammapada 338-343:

On one occasion, while the Buddha was on an alms-round at Rajagaha, he
  saw a young dirty sow and smiled. When asked by the Venerable Ananda,
  the Buddha replied, "Ananda, this young sow was a hen during the time
  of Kakusandha Buddha. As she was then staying near a refectory in a
  monastery she used to hear the recitation of the sacred text and the
  discourses on the Dhamma. When she died she was reborn as a princess.
  On one occasion, while going to the latrine, the princess noticed the
  maggots and she became mindful of the loathsomeness of the body, etc.
  When she died she was reborn in the Brahma realm as a puthujjana
  brahma but later due to some evil kamma, she was reborn as a sow.
  Ananda! Look, on account of good and evil kamma there is no end of the
  round of existences."

The Self disappears and arises again endlessly through rebirths - which is explained through dependent origination. As stated in Milindapanha 3.5.5, rebirth is like light of a candle passed from one candle to another. It can be passed on forever. Also see this answer.
It is indeed possible to become enlightened (i.e. attain Nibbana) without ever encountering the teachings of a Sammasambuddha.
Such beings are called Pacceka Buddha or Pratyeka Buddha (see here and here), which literally means "private Buddha" or "lone Buddha". You can find some details in this question. A Pacceka Buddha would not have the ability to teach others and start a Buddha Śāsana.
While it is possible for someone to become free from suffering this way, it is immensely harder than if someone learns it from a Sammasambuddha (or Samyaksambuddha).
My analogy here is that Albert Einstein is a "Buddha" of physics who discovered the Theory of General Relativity and taught it to others through his groundbreaking published paper and his lectures to trained physicists. While it is possible for others to discover this on their own, it is immensely difficult. It is easier to learn it from Einstein and from those who have learned it from him.

Just a question to it came to mind: didn't ALL Buddhas encounter a Buddha in perevious life, maybe got even taught to some extend? So Einsteins knowledge does not come from nothing, does it? Good and reasonable sample btw.

A reborn person most likely will not carry memories of past births. The Bodhisatta who became Gautama brought his paramittas (perfections) with him but not his past knowledge of the Dhamma. Just like people of today who have forgotten the ancient languages whose symbols are carved on walls of caves and pyramids, at the time of Gautama, people had forgotten the teachings of previous Buddhas. Gautama learned some basic things from unenlightened teachers of his time like Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta. Similarly, Einstein learned foundations of physics and mathematics from Newton and others.

Good. Who taught it, or why did he train to accumulate perfection. Where to know from what are usefull perfections, skills? (Is it) Like someone collecting mouse-dung and luckily mouse-dung got a great value on marked?

Since a maybe conductive matter, my person made a question out of this topic, here, Nyom Ruben. Sure that he will be interested.

@ruben2020 The Einstein analogy has its limitation. The Truth which Buddha preached is like a sun shine or moon shine for all to see. It is natural. No one can hide the Truth which Buddha preached. Truth is not hidden from anyone just like the sunshine or the moonshine is not hidden from anyone. Therefore anyone can realize the Truth and attain Nirvana.

I would say that nibbana is more than just a dissolution of Self - that places too much emphasis on Atman: the cessation of objectification is the giving up of craving for sensual pleasure, craving for existence, craving for non-existence. SN 22.22
There are paccekabuddhas (in times when a Buddha has not expounded the Dhamma), so people can - with dedication and practice - abandon the above conceits without a guide. But never will a spontaneous, a-causal and 'automatic' nibbana arise - there will always be a process, even if it only means one intentional choice to relinquish all views (whoever may be that strong willed).

When nature has shown you beautiful as ugly then wouldn't you relinquish the view of beauty and ugly and call it illusion. There is no choice. Eventually one will realize that self is an illusion , error or is dream like. Obliteration of Self, I assume, is Nirvana because I read it somewhere.

https://suttacentral.net/en/mn2 states that improper attention leads to 6 wrong views of self, 'I have no self' is one of them (the Buddha was not a Nihilist). The point of the ceassation of objectification is to recognise that experience is a flux of conditional processes, not a combination of objective objects (to somewhat borrow MN18 'delineating a delineation')...

In a similar way, Newtonian mechanics (absolute space, absolute time, absolute object) is very much an Essentialist description of the world. It is not 'wrong' though - it describes a great fraction of the world of motion. It is superseeded by GR (no absolute time, no absolute space), and moreso relational QM (no absolute objects or properties), which describe a greater fraction of experience. In this way, to borrow Karl Popper's take on the scientific method, any notion of Self is simply a less explicative system than dependent origination.

Seeing any conception of Self as any thing more than an innaccuracy builds more of it than it deserves imo.

No, it's not possible to attain Nirvana without an external help, because attaining Nirvana without a help from an external teacher would be relying on self-existance exlusively -- not in the sense of 'ego' but rather in a sense of svabhava.
So it is not a conventional self (ego) is an error, but rather the idea of it as of something perpetual, undividable and non-dependent on other phenomena, such as non-dependent on causes and effects.