text:
Lovingkindness and Compassion of the Buddha?
In an effort to understand the concept of lovingkindness it would help me to see how the Buddha explicitly described lovingkindness and specific acts of his unconditional compassion. I've heard from secondary sources that he'd throw out his "net" of compassion to walk 200 miles to teach someone, but I'm looking for references to primary or well known secondary (e.g. Bhikku Bodhi, Analayo) sources, please.

Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha spent his whole life expressing loving-kindness and compassion to all living beings. You can understand this by reading about Shakyamuni Tathagata Lord Buddha's daily routine during his remaining 45 years of life after the enlightenment. There are many stories and incidents which highlight these spiritual qualities of Lord Buddha. Here I've mentioned few of them with references;

Story of Patacara

Born the daughter of a wealthy banker, Patacara fell in love with one of her father's servants and ran off to live happily with him in a forest hamlet. Then, through a series of tragic accidents, she lost first her husband, then two sons, and finally her parents and brother.
Wandering destitute, naked and mad with grief, she in time met the Buddha face to face, who showed her kindness when others would scorn her. She heard his teaching, joined the order of nuns, and went on to become one of the arahants, or worthy ones. Patacara helped many other women who were overcome by grief regain their sanity and quench the pain of their loss.
This tender poem of loss and recovery was (probably) composed by Patacara;
"My son!" you weep, for one whose path
  You do not really comprehend
  —Whether he's coming or going.
  From where has that son of yours come?
And yet for one whose path you know...
  For him you do not grieve at all
  — Whether he's coming or going.
  Such is the nature of creatures.
Uninvited, he came from there;
  Unpermitted, he's gone from here.
  And having come from who knows where,
  He lived for but a few short days.
But though gone from here by one (path),
  He goes from there by another.
  Departed, with a human form,
  He will go flowing on and on.
  As he has come, so has he gone.
  What is there here to grieve about?
My thorn, indeed, has been removed!
  Buried in the heart, so hard to see.
  That grief which had overcome me
  — Grief for my son — has been dispelled.
Today the thorn has been removed.
  Without hunger, I've become quenched.
  To Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha,
  I go to the sage for refuge.

Reference: Pañcasata Patacara (translated by Andrew Olendzki), Pañcasata Patacara (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
For more detailed story of Patacara, please read: The Story of Lady Patacara
Story of Sunita

In Savatthi there was a scavenger named Sunita. He was a road-sweeper and barely earned enough to feed himself. Sunita slept on the roadside, for he did not have a house to go to. He saw other people enjoying themselves but he could not mix with them because these people called him an outcast. Whenever a higher caste person went on the road Sunita had to run and hide so his shadow did not fall on them. If he was not quick enough he would be scolded and beaten. Poor Sunita lived a miserable life.
One day, as he was sweeping a dirty, dusty road, Sunita saw the Buddha with thousands of followers coming towards him. His heart was filled with joy and fear and finding no place to hide he just stood, joining his palms in respect. The Buddha stopped and spoke to poor Sunita in a sweet, gentle voice saying, "My dear friend, would you like to leave this work and follow me?"
Nobody had ever spoken to Sunita like this before. His heart was filled with joy and his eyes with tears. "O, most venerable Sir, I have always received orders but never a kind word. If you accept a dirty and miserable scavenger like me I will follow you."
So the Buddha ordained Sunita and took him along with the other monks. From that day forth no one knew what Sunita's caste was, and nobody treated him with disgust and cruelty. Everybody, even kings, ministers and commanders, respected him.

Reference: Sunita, the scavenger
Here's a poem composed by Sunita after he became one of the Arahants; [from the book Theragatha, Khuddaka Nikaya, Tipitaka]

In a lowly family I was born,
  poor, with next to no food.
  My work was degrading:
  I gathered the spoiled,
  the withered flowers from shrines
  and threw them away.
People found me disgusting,
  despised me, disparaged me.
  Lowering my heart,
  I showed reverence to many.
Then I saw the One Self-awakened,
  arrayed with a squadron of monks,
  the Great Hero, entering the city,
  supreme, of the Magadhans.
Throwing down my carrying pole,
  I approached him to do reverence.
  He — the supreme man — stood still
  out of sympathy just for me.
After paying homage
  to the feet of the teacher,
  I stood to one side
  & requested the Going Forth from him,
  supreme among all living beings.
The compassionate Teacher,
  sympathetic to all the world, said:
  "Come, monk."
That was my formal Acceptance.
  Alone, I stayed in the wilds,
  untiring,
  I followed the Teacher's words,
  just as he, the Conqueror, had taught me.
In the first watch of the night,
  I recollected previous lives;
  in the middle watch,
  purified the divine eye;
  in the last,
  burst the mass of darkness.
Then, as night was ending
  & the sun returning,
  Indra & Brahma came to pay homage to me,
  hands palm-to-palm at their hearts:
  "Homage to you, O thoroughbred of men,
  Homage to you, O man supreme,
  whose fermentations are ended.
  You, dear sir, are worthy of offerings."
Seeing me, arrayed with a squadron of devas,
  the Teacher smiled & said:
  "Through austerity, celibacy,
  restraint, & self-control:
  That's how one is a brahman.
  He is a brahman supreme."

Refernce: Sunita, the outcaste (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)
Story of Putigatta-Tissa thera (Tissa, the thera with a stinking body)

On one occasion the Buddha was delivering a sermon to an assembly of bhikkhus/monks, bhikkhunis (nuns), upasakas and upasikas. That day a householder of Savatthi was listening to sermon. He realized that the household life was full of difficulties and that the life of a monk is peaceful. He subsequently entered the Sangha.
While training himself in the spheres of morality, concentration and wisdom, the bhikkhu became ill. There appeared on his body boils that became bigger and bigger until they burst and turned into ugly ulcers. When these sores burst, his upper and lower robes became sticky and stained with pus and blood, and his whole body was stinking. For this reason, he was known as Putigattatissa, Tissa the thera with stinking body.
His bones decayed and gave way. His body was rotting and even his relatives and disciples ceased to look after him.
As the Buddha surveyed the universe with the his Dibbacakkhu (divine eyes), the thera appeared in his vision. He saw the sorrowful state of the thera, who had been abandoned by his resident pupils on account of his stinking body. At the same time, he also knew that Tissa would soon attain arahantship.
So, the Buddha proceeded to the fire-shed, close to the place where the thera was staying. There, he boiled some water, and then going, to where the thera was lying down, took hold of the edge of the couch. It was then only that the resident pupils gathered round the thera, and as instructed by the Buddha, they carried the thera to the fire-shed, where he was washed and bathed. While he was being bathed, his upper and lower robes were washed and dried.
After the bath, the thera became fresh in body and mind and soon developed one-pointedness of concentration. Standing at the head of the couch, the Buddha said to him that this body when devoid of life would be as useless as a log and would be laid on the earth.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
“aciraṃ vat’ ayaṃ kāyo paṭhaviṃ adhisessati
  chuddho apetaviññāṇo niratthaṃ va kaliṅgaraṃ”
Before long, alas, this body,
  deprived of consciousness,
  will lie on the earth,
  discarded like a useless log.
At the end of the discourse Thera Tissa attained arahatship together with Analytical Insight, and soon passed away. The Buddha attended to the obsequies of the thera, and got a stupa erected to enshrine his ashes.
When the monks questioned the Buddha as to the next birth of the thera. He answered that he would no more be born, and that he passed away after becoming an arahat.

References: Story of Tissa (The thera with stinking body), Putigattatissatthera Vatthu
Story of Rajjumala

Rajjumala was a slave in the village of Gayá. Her mistress disliked her and ill treated her in every way. One day, in order to escape being pulled by her hair, she had her head shaved; but her mistress then had a rope tied round her head, with which she pulled her about; hence her name.
Unable to bear her life any longer, the slave went into the village near by, intending to commit suicide, but there she found the Buddha waiting for her, and he preached to her. Rajjumálá, became a sotápanna, and then returned to her mistress, who, having heard her story, visited the Buddha and became his follower.
The Buddha explained that the two women had had their positions reversed in a previous birth, and that the then slave, who was the mistress in the present birth, had vowed vengeance for the cruelty inflicted upon her.
Rajjumálá was freed and was born after death in Távatimsa.

Reference: Rajjumálá
For more details, please read: Rajjumala’s Mansion, Khuddaka Nikaya 4.12, Tipitaka
Story of Sopaka
Note: There are two versions of the story of sopaka mentioned in different sources. So please research further and find the one which is correct. Here, I've mentioned both.
Story 1:

Sopaka was the son of a very poor woman of Sāvatthi. While in labour his mother fell into a long and deep swoon, and her kinsfolk, thinking her dead, took her to the cemetery and prepared for cremation. But a spirit prevented the fire from burning with a storm of wind and rain, and they went away. The child was safely born and the mother died. The spirit, in human shape, took the child and put it in the watchman's hut, feeding it for a time. After that the watchman adopted it, and the child grew up with the watchman's son, Suppiya (q.v.). He was called Sopāka, (the "waif") because he was born in the cemetery. When he was seven years old he came under the notice of the Buddha, who visited him in the cemetery. Gladdened by the Buddha's teaching, he sought his father's consent and entered the Order. The Buddha gave him, as his subject of meditation, the thought of mettā, and Sopika, developing insight, soon attained arahantship.

Story 2:

Sopaka was born as the child of a cemetery keeper and was therefore called Sopāka. Others say that he was born in a trader's family and that Sopāka was merely a name. Four months after birth his father died suddenly and he was adopted by his uncle. When he was only seven years old, his uncle took him to a charnel field because he quarrelled with his cousin, bound his hands, and tied him fast to a corpse, hoping that the jackals would eat him. At midnight the jackals came and the child started crying. The Buddha, seeing Sopāka's destiny for arahantship, sent a ray of glory, and, by the Buddha's power, the boy broke his bonds and stood before the Buddha's Gandhakuti, a sotāpanna. His mother started seeking for him, and the uncle telling her nothing, she came to the Buddha, thinking "The Buddhas know all, past, present and future." When she came, the Buddha, by his iddhi-power, made the boy invisible and taught her the Dhamma, saying that sons are no shelter, blood bonds no refuge. As she listened she became a sotāpanna and the boy an arahant. Then the Buddha revealed the boy's presence to his mother, and she allowed him to enter the Order. Some time later the Buddha, wishing to confer on him the higher ordination, asked him the questions which came to be known as the "Kumārapañhā" Sopāka answered these, and the Buddha, satisfied, gave him the upasampadā.

Reference: Sopāka Thera
For further reading: The Story of Poor Sopaka
Story of Mattakundali

Maṭṭakuṇdali was a young Brāhmin, whose father, Adinnapubbaka, was very miserly and never gave anything in charity. Even the gold ornaments for his only son were made by himself to save payment for workmanship. When his son fell ill, no physician was consulted, until it was too late. When he realized that his son was dying, he had the youth carried outside on to the verandah, so that people coming to his house would not see his possessions.
On that morning, the Buddha arising early from his deep meditation of compassion saw, in his Net of Knowledge, Maṭṭakuṇdali lying on the verandah. So when entering Sāvatthi for alms-food with his disciples, the Buddha stood near the door of the Brāhmin Adinnapubbaka. The Buddha sent forth a ray of light to attract the attention of the youth, who was facing the interior of the house. The youth saw the Buddha; and as he was very weak he could only profess his faith mentally. But that was enough. When he passed away with his
  heart in devotion to the Buddha he was reborn in the Tāvatiṃsa celestial world.
From his celestial abode the young Maṭṭakuṇdali, seeing his father mourning over him at the cemetery, appeared to the old man in the likeness of his old self. He told his father about his rebirth in the Tāvatiṃsa world and also urged him to approach and invite the Buddha to a meal. At the house of Adinnapubbaka the question of whether one could or could not be reborn in a celestial world simply by mentally professing profound faith in the Buddha, without giving in charity or observing the moral precepts, was brought up. So the Buddha invited Maṭṭakuṇdali to appear in person; Maṭṭakuṇdali then appeared in his celestial ornaments and told them about his rebirth in the Tāvatiṃsa realm. Only then, the listeners became convinced that the son of the Brāhmin Adinnapubbaka, by simply devoting his mind to the Buddha, had
  attained much glory.

Reference: The Story of Maṭṭakuṇdali

Great answer. Thank you

You've asked about metta.
The deepest example of metta does not use the word metta.
In SN6.1, we hear that Brahmā Sahampati kneels and asks the Buddha to teach the Dhamma.

Sir, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the Holy One teach the Dhamma!

To which the Buddha humbly replied:

Thinking it would be troublesome, Brahmā, I did not teach the sophisticated, sublime Dhamma among humans.

The Buddha spent the rest of his life teaching. Now that is the very definition of metta.

It's well established that the Buddha spent 45 yrs of his life teaching.. looking for more specific references to his love and compassion, either in his actions or words.

You have a hidden unvoiced constraint, a judgment of the Buddha's actions and words. Every sutta that records the Buddha's teaching is another example of his Metta. For example, in MN86 he says, "I have stopped, now you stop!" Nobody else had the love and the compassion to do that. Would you have done what the Buddha did?


text:
How do you write Anicca (Impermanence) in Pali script?
I'm looking to get a tattoo and have anicca written in Pali in several places.  Can you help me with how to write this in Pali script?
Thanks in advance!

There is no "Pali script" as such, is there? i.e. Pali is written using various scripts (or "writing systems") -- including Sinhalese, Khmer, Roman, etc.

Who, if knowing about anicca, would beauty his ugly, decaying body with a tattoo and pull such truth into not-seriousness... harm himself and wast his past merits...

"The essence of practice is remembrance, whether its remembering to come back to the present moment or recalling the truth of impermanence" - ANdrew Holoceck || . This tattoo is my structure for remembrance!

@AriCuadra There was a comment requesting you to share if you finally discovered and chose Anicca in a certain script. In this case, you can post an answer with it.

Pāli was in oral tradition, so pāli had no its own script. However, pāli can be written by most of the indo-europian script instead.
Therefore, the best tattoo in Buddhism is reciting the Sutta in pāli, it is the beginning of all meditations.
Anicca is anicca (अनिच्‍च; อนิจฺจ) without number&gender-definition.
It is aniccā (अनिच्‍चा; อนิจฺจา), aniccāni (अनिच्‍चानि; อนิจฺจานิ) as plural.
It is aniccā (अनिच्‍चा; อนิจฺจา), aniccaṃ (अनिच्‍चं; อนิจฺจํ), anicco (अनिच्‍चो; อนิจฺโจ) as singular.
It is mostly used as an adjective, and its noun often is plural.
"Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā (सब्बे सङ्खारा अनिच्‍चा; สพฺเพ สงฺขารา อนิจฺจา)" is common widely used.

Thank you Bonn.  This was extremely helpful!

Which scripts are these?

@ChrisW It's devanagri, अनिच्‍च, and Thai, อนิจฺจ.

You might try searching for "anicca pali images" in Google. This will get you exactly what you asked for. However, consider the following experience.
When I went to India I travelled to Varanasi (yes, the one in the suttas). I asked for a henna tattoo of "gate, gate, parasamgate, bodhisvaha". And they looked at me and said. What on earth is that?
So I told them it was the Heart Sutta. And they looked at me and said what on earth is that?
So I told them it was a Buddhist Sutta. And they said, "oh. The Buddha.".
They asked me if Sanskrit was fine, and it was.
I got my tattoo and it was very very fine.
Later that year I related this wonderful experience to my monk friend. He laughed and said, "The Buddha didn't write the Heart Sutta."
So now I just study the EBT's and don't worry about tattoos.
To study the suttas, I use SuttaCentral Voice, which is a companion website to SuttaCentral. SuttaCentral Voice is designed for the visually impaired (I have AMD and cannot read printed material).  The search box is used just like Google's, but only searches the EBT Pali Canon as hosted on SuttaCentral. In this way, we can search for any phrase such as "root of suffering" and browse to our hearts content. Our hearts are all slightly different, so what you type will depend on you.
Perhaps start witn anicca.
:pray:

What EBts have you studied, and would recommend me to start with?

@AriCuadra thanks for the suggestion. I have added a link.

@AriCuadra See also English translations of Pali Canon and Chronological or other sequence for beginners

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Kayagatasati Sutta
In the above sutta the Buddha said that one knows every step one is untertaking. Whether it's walking, sitting, standing, lying down, bending etc. Does this imply simply awareness of body sensations (since the sutta is titled kaya which translates as body)?
How does this sutta then differ from Anapanasati Sutta?

OP: Whether it's walking, sitting, standing, lying down, bending etc. Does this imply simply awareness of body sensations (since the sutta is titled kaya which translates as body)?

This is to be mindful of the sensations when doing these activities as sensations lead to craving, unwholesome roots, perception and thoughts which can be subjected to corruption.
For a more detailed description see: ignoring thoughts vs understanding them

OP: How does this sutta then differ from Anapanasati Sutta?

The 1st tetrads of Ānāpānasati is also Kayagatasati using the breath as a proxy as the breath is the body conditioner (Kaya Sankhara).

Kayagatasati Sutta is similar to Satipatthana Sutta, namely, an extensive list of various, often disconnected, practises.
Where as Ananapanasati Sutta is a description of path fruition; where each stage basically follows the preceding stage.
Ananapanasati Sutta is breath is experienced; which calms the breathing; which gives rise to rapture; the calming of which gives way to happiness; the calming of which gives way to the underlying mind; the purification of which gives rise to joy, then purified concentration, then liberation (opening) of the mind; which then gives rise to clear seeing of impermanence; which results in dispassion, cessation of suffering & relinquishment.
Ananapanasati Sutta can be done in one meditation sitting/session of at least 3 hours long.

Thanks. You know why my ear and my head is hurting when I'm trying to follow the breath? Is it because I breath forcefully?

First when you want a quick analysis of a sutta, you can consult Pya Tan
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer/sutta-titles-2/majjhima-nikaya
In mn119, there is nothing to understand. the buddha lists various ways to "develop of mindfulness immersed in the body", including the jhanas.
To "develop of mindfulness immersed in the body", you can start with any paragraph, like this one ...

"Furthermore, when walking, the monk discerns that he is walking. When
  standing, he discerns that he is standing. When sitting, he discerns
  that he is sitting. When lying down, he discerns that he is lying
  down. Or however his body is disposed, that is how he discerns it. And
  as he remains thus heedful, ardent, and resolute, any memories and
  resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their
  abandoning his mind gathers and settles inwardly, grows unified and
  centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the
  body.

... and you can continue to develop it, in other situations, by practicing other paragraphs like this one ...

"Furthermore, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel
  ground - one day, two days, three days dead - bloated, livid, and
  festering, he applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is
  its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate'...

Some people claim that they have "mindfulness immersed in the body." because they are good at practicing one paragraph only, and are eager to say that they are good at mindfulness, instead of saying that they are good at "developing" mindfulness; but having "mindfulness immersed in the body" means precisely to be good at having "mindfulness immersed in the body" in all the situations listed by the buddha, not just one.

It doesn't mean "awareness of body sensations" in both sutta.
It means "The practitioner should meditate ānāpānassati every time, no when&where is an exception (walking, sitting, standing, lying down, bending etc.)"
"Awareness of sensations" is virtual, IndriyaSaṅvaraSīla, and concentration meditation, Samādhi.
However, the Anupassanā meditation of sensations is in Vedanā-Cittā-DhammāNupassanāSaṭipaṭṭhāna of MN Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta. This section is about the comprehension of nāmas' origin.
Buddha taught only the first 1-4/16 steps (Samatha-meditation part) of ānāpānassati to the practitioner who interested in the beginning of the Ānapānassati-meditation, which was talked in the current conversation at the origin of Sutta. Ma. U. Kāyagatāsatisuttaṃ (body/kāya and sati in this sutta refer to kāya-anupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna):

"Just now, lord, after the meal, on returning from our alms round, we gathered at the meeting hall when this discussion arose: 'Isn't it amazing, friends! Isn't it astounding! — the extent to which mindfulness immersed in the body, when developed & pursued, is said by the Blessed One who knows, who sees — the worthy one, rightly self-awakened — to be of great fruit & great benefit.' This was the discussion that had come to no conclusion when the Blessed One arrived."

But Buddha taught the full version of ānāpānassati-meditation to Taruṇa-Vipassaka, the practitioners who had already meditated the first 1-4/16 (Samatha-meditation part) of ānāpānassati in the Buddhist Lent of Sutta. Ma. U. Ānāpānasatisuttaṃ, however, it was the end of that Buddhist Lent when they would go to the next step, the other 5-16/16 (vipassanā-meditation part).
So Buddha decided to remain at Savatthi for another month, pavāranā saṅgha, to turn those Taruṇa-Vipassakas enlighten Nibbāna easier by the other 5-16/16 (vipassanā-meditation part) between that the Buddhist Lent before they transport to the other country after Buddhist Lent because the transportation will make those Taruṇa-Vipassakas meditation dropping down. Then those practitioners enlightened in time, so Buddha concluded the 16 steps Ānāpānassati-meditation of those practitioners as the main content of Sutta. Ma. U. Ānāpānasatisuttaṃ.

...
"Monks, I am content with this practice. I am content at heart with this practice. So arouse even more intense persistence for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. I will remain right here at Savatthi [for another month] through the 'White Water-lily' Month, the fourth month of the rains."
...
Now on that occasion — the Uposatha day of the fifteenth, the full-moon night of the White Water-lily Month, the fourth month of the rains — the Blessed One was seated in the open air surrounded by the community of monks. Surveying the silent community of monks (the silent means all practitioners there have already enlightened and sitting with attainment in Phala-Samāpatti), he addressed them:
...
"In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.
...(full 16 steps of ānāpanassati meditation)...

These lines are most simple version of the instruction

Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out
Furthermore, when .., he makes himself fully alert.

It appears that mere alertness/awareness of the body & things tied to the body such as breath; or thinking about the body & things tied to the body is what is meant.
As far as i can tell one should practice both with and without discursive thought, classically [traditionally] nothing or counting methods have been held to be good,  particularly useful for begginers and for those developing meditation with discursive thought in general (ie modern vipassana with noting methods, contemplation..).
It is imo like using a mantra or not using a mantra, both methods work. The mantra might be useful for non-distraction & contemplation and not using a mantra is useful for calming as it requires less effort.
Therefore some people verbalize thoughts internally as they paralell feel their breathing sensations whereas others view thoughts as a distraction and rather simply feel the breath as one would stare at an object without thinking.
Both are valid methods that lead to  jhana and even nibbananirodha. Many people find thinking to be a distraction which makes them anxious whereas others are comfortable doing.

A detailed study of both (from EBT sutta perspective):
http://lucid24.org/sted/16aps/index.html
http://lucid24.org/sted/kayagatasati/index.html
with most, if not all, sutta passages referencing those practices, and links to full sutta.

This answer violates the site policy on own personal site promotion - please see this Buddhism Meta SE question and its answers, as well as this page to understand the policy. 1) You need to paraphrase, summarize or partially quote the content of the link in the answer. 2) The user need not have to click into the link to benefit from the answer. 3) The link is only there to support the answer. 4) You must disclose yourself as the author of the linked site. Please update this answer.

You can delete all portions of my comments that link to my site that you deem questionable.  I only try to provide information of use to the OP, not promote myself or my site.

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


text:
Why are these called "The All"?
Based on the sutta quote below:

Why are these called "The All": the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas?
Why someone trying to explain "The All" as being something else would fail?
What does "it lies beyond range" mean?

From Sabba Sutta:

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who
  would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if
  questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement,
  would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief.
  Why? Because it lies beyond range."

I would say 'beyond the range' means beyond the intellect, beyond conceptual fabrication or beyond the categories of thought. It would be impossible to think what is beyond thought or speech and so we can only fail to imagine or describe it. . .

If one would try to de-fine something beyond the All by himself he would not need to ask such pointless question containing the answer in it's question... Nobody can do you "(letting go) home work" (germ. Haus-aufgabe) for you to see as it is. Happy path-gaining if this could move your lazy back! Mudita

From what we can guess from the clues in the suttas, when Buddha started his quest for Enlightenment, there were many competing spiritual teachings in existence (such as e.g. the Jain's) claiming to be The Truth, which were postulating theories about things that were however impossible to see for oneself and verify by the direct testing in the here and now.
In contrast with that, Buddha's approach has been to work with the immediately observable reality. Buddha insisted that True Dharma must have a firm foundation, something that can't be reasonably denied. This approach led the Buddha to the perspective of phenomenology. In this perspective, the seeker of Enlightenment starts with "the given", which is his own direct experience - the five senses, the experience of suffering etc., and then goes on to discover "how things work" from the first-hand, not through blind faith or mediation of a priest.
This is why, when the students of other sects were trying to pull the Buddha in the direction of metaphysics, by asking about such speculative concepts like "The All" -- which is usually assumed to mean the Universe -- the Buddha insisted on staying firmly grounded in the directly observable phenomenology of our five senses plus mind.
So The All means all that can ever be experienced by a sentient being, it is sentient being's personal totality of existence. Even though this phenomenological All seems radically simpler than the All we know from natural sciences, it is equally all-encompassing and has a huge advantage over the metaphysical theories in being directly observable, describable, and verifyable by anyone.
If someone were to try and deny the primacy of the phenomenological All, and postulate some other All, as for example the totality of everything that objectively exists, or perhaps the totality of everything that ever existed and will exist, or maybe the totality of everything that potentially may exist, one would get into infinite speculative arguments about philosophical categories of existence and non-existence, and other categories lying outside of immediate experience, which would lead to endless frustrating objections, clarifications, and debates that would most likely end up in exhaustion and disappointment rather than in Peace of Liberation.

I marked this answer up, even though, as usual, it contains no references. I also sense the Buddha's teaching of "The All" is related to ideas of "The All" held by other sects and religions. Possibly we need to do more research on this.

Buddha's time in India there were many views about the world. This is similar to saying nowadays "The all mighty God" etc. These views are discussed in the Brahmajala Sutta. These wrong views lead you to a wrong destination. However, according to Buddhism the right view lead to Nibbana.
What Buddha saying is nobody can comprehend anything beyond six senses.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html

this answer would be improved if you provided relevant quotes from the Bramajala Sutta. regards

However I marked this answer up because it placed the teaching in a broader cultural context

Why are these called "The All": the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose &
  aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect &
  ideas?

What else is there? Note: Here the word 'ideas' is a loose translation. The pali word is 'Dhamma'.

Why someone trying to explain "The All" as being something else would
  fail?

Because anything you can see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think comes under these categories.

What does "it lies beyond range" mean?

It means if you claim that there is something else other than these, it will be limited empty words and not backed by direct knowledge.

I marked this answer up because it inspired me to not believe in reincarnation

Both reincarnation and the belief that all ends at death are rejected in Buddhism.

0. History base knowledge about wrong and right view: See SarathW's Answer.
Then:

Why are these called "The All": the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose
  & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect &
  ideas?
Why someone trying to explain "The All" as being something else
  would fail?
What does "it lies beyond range" mean?

The wrong view has the wrong condition(s). The right view has the right condition(s). The all right condition is the dependent origination, because the conditioner and the conditioned relate each other in balance, nothing left out of the cycle of the condition.
the dependent origination explains  "Thus arises this whole mass of dukkha".
Each conditioner of the dependent origination causes the whole conditioned effect. For the example, ... the (Six-)Saḷāyatanas-conditioner causes the whole conditioned Six-Phassa; The Six-Phassa-conditioner cause the conditioned six-vedanā ...
So, if one, who questioned, explains the All, whole, into the dependent origination as the Buddha did, that one is able to explain the whole from the beginning to the end follow to the dependent origination such as the Buddha can explain every view in Sutta. Tī. Sī Brahmajālasuttaṃ.
But if one, who questioned, explains the All, whole, out of the dependent origination, that one would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would feel hard to answer (fail). Why? Because it is beyond that one's abilities, he exactly answers the wrong condition (fail), i.e. God condition the being.
SN KhandhaVagga and SN ṢaḷāyatanaVagga, such as SabbaSutta, come after SN Nidānavagga, the dependent origination because they are the whole elements which cycling in the dependent origination.

I marked this answer up because it inspired me to not believe in reincarnation

@Dhammadhatu That the sad news. Actually, the reader should take the middle path between the reincarnation and un-incarnation. Why is the reader still losing the path and bias to the black forest?

Why are these called "The All": the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas?

Ven. Bodhi's note citing the Commentary to SN 35.23:

Spk: The all (sabba) is fourfold:
  (i) the all-inclusive all (sabbasabba ), i.e., everything knowable, all of which comes into range of the Buddha's knowledge of omniscience;
  (ii) the all of the sense bases (aatanasabba), i.e., the phenomena of the four planes;
  (iii) the all of personal identity (sakkyasabba ), i.e., the phenomena of the three planes; and
  (iv) the partial all (padesasabba), i.e., the five physical sense objects. Each of these, from (i) to (iv), has a successively narrower range than its predecessor. In this sutta the all of the sense bases is intended.
  The four planes are the three mundane planes (sensuous/form/formless planes) and the supramundane plane (the four paths, their fruits, and Nibbana)."

The Comy.'s explanation above could also help answering your 2 subsequent questions.

@Andrei Volkov, this is a back-to-back instance where I got downvoted for no reason. I also sent another notification to ChrisW on my other post. I suspect some ongoing activity by someone with malicious intent against me. Possibly a kind of "revenge voting" or something.

yes I can see that you and a certain other user have extensively downvoted each other. Perhaps we should try setting up a chat with the two of you and one of the moderators?

I marked the answer down because it merely repeats what is said in the sutta. I read nothing compelling in the answer.

Ah hah, turns out it's @Dhammadhatu. Well, from now on, you better provide an explanation for your downvote or be prepared to get the proper countermeasures.

I am reading Volkov's answer now and it could be on the right path. I think there is more to "The All" than your copy & paste of what is self-evident in the sutta. Possibly Brahmanism needs to be searched for "The All".

You yourself did tons of copy and paste yourself

Maybe. But my answers are compelling & illuminating.

@Dhammadhatu wrote: "But my answers are compelling & illuminating". Wow, quite a humble quote from an advanced and esteemed user on this forum!

@santa100 - In the interests of justice I'll say that I feel your answer is correct, illuminating and directly relevant to the question.

Buddhism's methodology is trying to make people aware of what they are not instead of giving them informations of what they are. But this doesn't mean that Buddhism denies some of the other traditions view of the universe. I watched Thich Nhat Hanh's dhamma talks and he said many times that "we are waves in an ocean". So in a practical sense, every meditator can come to this point. Especially If you reach to the really advance stages in your spiritual path, you start to be more aware of the spiritual essence of things than their form identities all the time. And ofcourse, the experience of Nibbana itself will lead people to this "oneness" idea easily. I think there is nothing wrong with that If you are deeply involved in the practical side of the Buddhism: Which is meditation/mindfulness.
I think the reason for Buddha's methodology of telling people what they are not is to avoid people's tendencies to make the spiritual path to a belief/worshipping based religion. For example he used words like "Emptiness". "Nibbana". You can not worship Emptiness, Nibbana..You can only worship the god. Maybe Buddha's methodology saved Buddhism from transforming to a dry/harmful religion like some of the other religions that most of us know. This doesn't stopped many Buddhists misunderstandings of the core of the Buddhism but the core of the teachings of the Buddha is still alive and being practised by many monk and lay people in the world. And this leads to some people's complete freedom from suffering. So these things proves that this methodology works well. The vast majority of the humans will never get involved with true spirituality but that is not Buddhism's fault.

interwaving... hmm? Let us bow down to the waves nature of inter-being. Are waves included in "the All"? Just curious...


text:
Do all Buddhists say that nirvana exists?
Do all Buddhists say that nirvana exists? I can't believe I don't know the answer to that question, the amount I've read about Buddhism.
Off the top of my head, some say it has svabhava, those that equate it with emptiness probably say it does not have svabhava, and some say it is the self.

Mahayana doctrine states that nothing really exists and nothing ever really happens. Nirvana would have a conventional or dependent existence but for an ultimate analysis would not exist. This is the 'Two Truths' doctrine (or way of thinking about the issue). . .

Nibbana is an element (dhatu).

There are these two elements:
Dve imā, ānanda, dhātuyo—
the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.
saṅkhatādhātu, asaṅkhatādhātu.
When a mendicant knows and sees these two elements,
Imā kho, ānanda, dve dhātuyo yato jānāti passati—
they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.
ettāvatāpi kho, ānanda, ‘dhātukusalo bhikkhū’ti alaṃvacanāyā”ti.
MN 115

The Pali suttas use the term "sa dhatu" rather than "sabhava".

Mendicants, whether Realized Ones arise or not, this element
  persists, this regularity of natural principles, this invariance of
  natural principles:
Uppādā vā, bhikkhave, tathāgatānaṃ anuppādā vā tathāgatānaṃ, ṭhitāva
  sā dhātu dhammaṭṭhitatā dhammaniyāmatā.
AN 3.136

The term "sabhava" has a valid meaning in Theravada Commentary but because the term contains the word "bhava" (which has different meanings & can mean "ego"), the Mahayana misconstrue "sabhava" and use for for their propaganda. Also, the Mahayana teaches emptiness different to the Buddha. Mahayana exists because people have different ideas. In the Pali suttas, the term "emptiness" does not mean "empty of inherent existence". It means empty of "ego" or "I-thinking" & "my-thinking". Theravada does not concern itself with whether "things" exist or not. Theravada only concerns itself with ending suffering; which occurs with the ending of craving, attachment & egoism. If I believe a computer exists, this does not cause suffering. Suffering only occurs when I regard a computer as "my computer".

I like this answer although perhaps feel it doesn't entirely answer the question. I feel Mahayana denies the independent existence of Nirvana. Although Nibbana is given no positive description in the Abhidhamma it is said to be a dhamma but it would be an object of realisation, not of philosophical thought or mental fabrication, and if it is considered ultimate then it must transcend the existence/non-existence.distinction such that we cannot positively say 'It exists'. I like the way you try to reconcile the two traditions on this issue.   .

"If I believe a computer exists, this does not cause suffering. "... It does not exist! Suffer?

So again: "Buddha, Dhamma of his, does not concern whether "things(nama or rupa)" exist or not. One who understands that Dhatus "are" as such... might be able to go beyond ñāṇa. It's not possible to under-stand Nibbana.

I think all Buddhists say there is Nirvana.
It's true that in Mahayana Buddhism, Nirvana does not have svabhava. In this question, I tried to link Theravada emptiness to Mahayana emptiness. My understanding of this is that Nirvana does not have the inherent essence given to it by mental reification. This means Nirvana is not what you imagine it to be, but it does not mean that it does not exist. It means that the mental idea that I have of Nirvana is non-existent.
However, a disagreement between Theravada and Mahayana is on the topic of whether Nirvana and Samsara are the same, or completely different. This answer may have the right explanation to the fact that probably there is no disagreement after all. I quote it here:

Samsara is Nirvana in at least two senses:
Nirvana is achieved here, in this world (="samsara"). We don't fly to
  another planet or go to other dimension when we achieve Nirvana; our
  perception changes, and so does our subjective reality.
Samsara is Nirvana because we should stop trying to escape. Trying to
  escape "this" is what makes it Samsara. The idea of otherworldly
  Nirvana is exactly the kind of craving that leads to suffering.
  Samsara is Nirvana means one has stopped craving. That is called
  cessation.

So, ultimately, there may be no real disagreements between Buddhist traditions on Nirvana.

no no according to some mahayana sutras does have svabhava, i'm sure. we've been this before, i cited the nirvana sutra. have you read the nirvana sutra, or do you have a scholar that agrees?

I like this answer although perhaps feel it doesn't entirely answer the question. Mahayana denies the true existence of anything. Still, although Nibbana is given no positive description in the Abhidhamma it is said to be a dhamma. But it would be an object of realisation, not of philosophical thought or mental fabrication. .   .


text:
What is the purpose of the Mahayana 'emptiness' doctrine?
Another naive question...
Further to e.g. this answer, which may be an overview of what Mahayana teaches about emptiness, my question is why does Mahayana teach that?
I gather that the purpose of the anatta doctrine in the Pali canon is, at least partly if not wholly, to end suffering etc. -- e.g. MN 22:

It would make sense to grasp at a doctrine of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
Taṃ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṃ upādiyetha, yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.
But do you see any such doctrine of self?
Passatha no tumhe, bhikkhave, taṃ attavādupādānaṃ yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā”ti?
No, sir.
No hetaṃ, bhante.
Good, mendicants!
Sādhu, bhikkhave.
I also can’t see any such doctrine of self.
Ahampi kho taṃ, bhikkhave, attavādupādānaṃ na samanupassāmi yaṃsa attavādupādānaṃ upādiyato na uppajjeyyuṃ sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsā.

What is the benefit if any of the emptiness doctrine? Does it have a "soteriological" purpose?
How does that work, i.e. what is the mechanism by which the doctrine is beneficial?
Or is it meant to be simply true, an observation or description of fact, without benefit?

How is that a Naive question? Overly humble might be guilty of 'false speech'...just joking! Good question and look forward to quality answers.

"Emptiness" or dependent-arising is meant to free someone from ignorance and delusion. Nagarjuna examines this thoroughly in the Middle Way. When you see emptiness, you can see suffering, the path, and its cessation. But, emptiness is much more than suffering. For example, from emptiness we see the inter-connectedness and inter-dependence of things, which leads to compassion.

Good question.
Emptiness is supposed to be fact regardless of its benefit. It brings vast benefit to see the emptiness of phenomena, of course, but it is not an invention with the purpose of being beneficial, just an explanation of the nature of phenomena. As the Upanishads say, 'the voidness of one is the voidness of all'. This would be just how it is.
The subtlety here would be the non-difference of emptiness and appearance but this issue may not be relevant to your question.
The answer to the question of why the Mahayana teaches anything is always that it is 'what is the case'. Naturally, not everyone agrees it is.
The question about the soteriological benefit of realising emptiness is probably too difficult for a forum answer. A good commentary on Nagarjuna or Milarepa should cover it.
EDIT: Comments from Chris rightly suggest that I should say more if this answer is to be useful.
Emptiness is the absence of inherent existence. If suffering were not empty then there would be no path to its cessation. In relation to self and phenomena it would be precisely their emptiness that is the soteriological teaching of the Buddha.
Here is Chandrakirti from his Entering the Middle Way:

"Since selflessness is what liberates beings,
  The Buddha taught two types: the selflessness of individuals and of phenomena,
  Then, in order to better help those to be tamed,
  The teacher taught further classifications."

Even Nirvana would be empty. If the things that compose Samsara do not exist then how could there be a transcendence of them? In the Prajnaparamita Sutras the Buddha taught,

"Nirvana, too, is just like a dream."

A Vaira song of realisation of the Lord Milarepa begins...

"From the standpoint of the truth that's genuine,
  There are no ghosts, there are not even buddhas,
  No meditator and no meditated,
  No paths and levels traveled and no signs,
  And no fruition bodies and no wisdoms,
  And therefore there is no nirvana there,
  Just designations using names and statements."

The final verse reads...

"All of this a union vast and spacious,
  And all those skilled in realising this
  Do not see consciousness, they see pure wisdom,
  Do not see sentient beings, they see buddhas,
  Don't see phenomenon, they see their essence,
  And out of this compassion just emerges,
  Retention, powers, fearlessness and all
  The qualities embodied by a Buddha
  Just come as if you had a wishing jewel-
  This is what I, the yogi, have realised."

Thus it would be precisely the emptiness of self and phenomena that is the soteriological message of the Middle Way doctrine.
It may be noted that this view of phenomena allows to us to makes sense of change and motion which, as Western philosophers know to their cost, is paradoxical and incomprehensible for all other metaphysical views and doctrines.
The essential idea required to make sense of emptiness intellectually in the the absence of any acquaintance, it seems to me, is that the genuine nature of Reality would be beyond all conceptual fabrication, unthinkable, unsayable, a unity free of all division and distinction. Such a 'phenomenon' could only be a conceptual void. Another way to say this would be to say that Reality is non-dual. Thus Nagarjuna's metaphysical scheme is shared by all non-dual traditions from advaita Vedanta to the Christianity of A Course in Miracles.
These references come from The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
'  .

There are many i.e. innumerable "facts" and "explanations of phenomena"; there's a tendency to prefer the useful explanations, or is there not? So I was wondering how this explanation is useful, or why its considered "skilful" or whatever it is.

@ChrisW - Could you rephrase your comment. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

@ChrisW - Are you asking about my answer, or about the usefulness of emptiness as an explanatory device?

Possibly both? I thought I was (in the OP) trying to ask how the doctrine is helpful; and I think your answer is that the question about how it's helpful is too difficult for a forum answer ... and I'm kind of struggling to take that as a helpful answer. Why is it "probably too difficult" -- is it too long, could you summarise it ... or reference a pre-written summary, perhaps online? Or is it something that has to be explained in person? Or only in certain contexts, but not this context for some reason?

@ChrisW - Um. Now you've put me on the spot. I can't stop now but will come back later and edit my answer.

@Chris - Thanks for making me answer properly.

I assume when they refer to "essence" - they mean the essence of emptiness? Because an essence in itself suggests an inherent existence which would contradict Nagarjuna?

@user29568 - when they say "essences" I assume they mean "elements" or "tendencies" - the subtle/energy aspect behind "solid" things...?

@user29568 - I suppose you could say their essence is a lack of essence or is  'essential emptiness' or just 'true nature'. The way I see it we each have to find the meaning of the words for ourselves. My answer is only a quick summary.    . ,

@Chris - Thanks for the edit. Much better. I couldn't make the text behave.

You're welcome, thank you for the references. There is "Markdown Editing Help", in this case >  to start a block quote, and two spaces at the end of a line to force a line-break (for verse).

Short answer: because understanding that phenomena are not "solid", but are in fact an interpretation/imputation, removes craving and passions in regards to them, which prevents dukkha that arises from that.
Long answer:
Normally we think that world is like a fish tank - a 3D environment full of objects, some of which are food, some friends, some dangerous sharks etc. with ourselves being one of the fishes in the pool. Then we spend most of our lives chasing the food and attractive fish, avoiding sharks, and trying to occupy the best spot in aquarium.
We assume that the world actually exists as it appears to us. We take it for granted that objects are objects, that some of these objects are awesome and some are not, that we are in competition with the others, and that the objective of the game is to achieve happiness by arranging a perfect environment for ourselves, and then maintaining it as long as possible.
This entire dream is based on an idea of solidity of the external world, an idea that things are actually out there as they appear, awesome or bad independently of our mind, and that therefore obtaining them or avoiding them is the right thing to do, and that therefore failing at that is the right reason to be upset and to experience suffering.
However, attaining an insight into "how things really are" - which is to say in how things are not solid, and how the mind of illusory solidity develops (process known as D.O.) -- having a direct insight into all this pulls the rug from under the initial illusion of solidity and the entire complex of behavior that comes with it.
The traditional analogy is rope that seems like a snake. Once you see it's a rope, the fear of getting bitten is gone and has no basis for ever coming back.
The next question naturally is, what exactly are we talking about when we say things are not solid, and how does that help remove the craving and other kleshas.
When we say things are not solid, we are saying that each individual thing is in fact multiple independent phenomena that seem to be lumped together, but only when observed from a certain perspective. In fact, this perspective is the main force that gives things their illusory solidity. Or, put in other words, much of what things seem to be actually comes from ourselves, from our own interpretation. Remember the snake-rope.
Once we get a very clear first-hand insight into how we "project" (impute) our perspective onto things, and learn to loosen that up, we realize that much of the importance we assigned to things is in fact our own game of make-believe. We also realize how many conflicts and passions in the world originate from people taking their own perspectives/interpretations all too seriously and assuming things are the way they look to them, and that all other ways of seeing are wrong.
Just like individual phenomena, entire world as it appears in our subjective experience is a giant interpretation that we assemble by looking at things a certain way, and pulling together certain strings of ideas to form a (semi-)coherent picture. And then of course our idea of ourselves, our feeling of "me-ness", is similar construct, made up of a million separate strings we strive to maintain intact. Emptiness of self is studied at length in Pali Canon, under the name of Anatta.
What Buddhists call the circle of Samsara (the cycle of subsequent generations of people inheriting this ignorant way of perception and passing it on to their children) and the struggle that comes with it - entirely depends on ignoring the fact that reality is our interpretation and that our interpretation is based on our limited exposure, and that our exposure comes from the circumstances, and that our circumstances come from results of previous actions, and that previous actions came from taking the illusion of solidity at the face value.
But once we understand how it all works, we can be free from it to a large degree, at least we can certainly be free from the subjective dukkha, and oftentimes even free from getting ourselves into troublesome situations that involve conflict of ideas.
Why? Because when we see that things are our own projection/interpretation/imputation - we no longer are seriously attached to them, we are more flexible, we allow for other interpretations, we see things from multiple perspectives which is a more robust way of seeing things. It turns out that most of our cravings, conflicts, and passions - most of our trouble and suffering - came from the assumption that things are real and actually possess all those qualities and characteristics, and now that we know they are/do not, now we can be free from all that.

By the word "solid," you are referring to reification of self vis-a-vis having an inherent existence? It might be unclear for some, I assume.

By the word "solid" I mean asaṁskṛta.

This gets my vote. The snake analogy always makes me think of a game of snakes and ladders, which seems a good metaphor for this game we play.

Further to e.g. this answer, which may be an overview of what Mahayana teaches about emptiness, my question is why does Mahayana teach that?

Well, emptiness is not a Mahayana's invention. They just further elaborated on it. It's been there all along in the Buddha's Teaching. There's a whole Division in the MiddleLength Discourses dedicated to the theme, it's called the Division on Voidness - SunnataVagga, composed of MN 121 thru 130. While it's mainly part of the Insight side of training, but it's also an important theme for the cultivation of Sila and Samadhi:

"Bhikkhus, for direct knowledge of lust, three things are to be developed. What three? Emptiness concentration, markless concentration, and wishless concentration." ~~ AN 3.183 ~~

Good point about emptiness not being a Mahayana or even Buddhist invention, just as what we call gravity was not a scientific invention.  .   . . .


text:
Can Jiddu Krishnamurthy's teachings be considered Buddhist in nature?
There was a guy named Jiddu Krishnamurthy. He talked a lot about conditioning, awareness and to see the things as they are. One of the content from the hyperlink is

His aim was to set humanity free. He maintained that the individual is freed by becoming aware of their own psychological conditioning, and that this awakening will enable them to give love to another.

My question is

Was his teachings Buddhists in nature?
Do any Buddhist teachers or philosophers opine about him? If yes, in what ways?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it appears to be contrary to this policy.

@ChrisW I didnt share.  I found after asking.

Was his teachings Buddhists in nature?
This is a quote from the page you referenced ...

Krishnamurti said: "I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect."

... so, according to him, accoding to that, maybe not (not in name).
From the same page ...

Krishnamurti was raised within the Theosophical Society to become an incarnation of Maitreya, the messianic Buddha.

... so he was presumably (I don't know) exposed to some kind[s] of Buddhist doctrine.
Do any Buddhist teachers or philosophers opine about him? If yes, in what ways?
Well I don't know about him in particular.
This answer says that the Theosophists (I think these were an early 20th-century European group) were trying to consolidate all religions into one -- to say that all religions were essentially the same or One in some way.
I think I've seen some people (who would call themselves themselves Buddhist) disagree with that doctrine, and disparage the Theosophists, so ...
See also e.g. this answer -- someone leaving the "Theosophical" society to found a "Buddhist" society

Actually, just simple google search gives so much material on 'Buddha and Krishnamurthy'. It seems there is indeed a strong association between the two.

When K visited Bodhgaya with Annie Besant (then president of the Theosophical Society) K pointed out to her that he remembered the place as he had been at this place in his previous births as a monk-a part of the Buddha Sangha.

The book 'Lives of Alcyone' by CW Leadbeater (Theosophical Society) which supposedly chronicles the previous lives of J Krishnamurti mentions that K was a monk in the Sangha of the Buddha in 2 previous lives. K took robes and learnt Dhamma at the feet of Lord Buddha.


text:
Is it proper to teach Dhamma to someone wearing a hat?
or when wearing one oneself?
(The question might be worthy to copy also in your meta-section... for possible increase of general respect toward the Gems and enviroment for providing such, since else might cause harm for many althought not aware for now.)

The following rules are part of the Sekhiya rules of the Patimokkha. The Patimokkha are rules for (Theravada) monks and nuns.

I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not ill: a training to be observed.
I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

The explanation for these come in "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

Sixteen of the Sekhiya Training rules set down how and to whom a
  bhikkhu should teach Dhamma. These rules are also concerned with the
  etiquette of showing respect, respect not only for the bhikkhu but
  more importantly for the Dhamma that he is teaching. (The Great
  Standards would imply here that modern ways of showing respect and
  disrespect would be similarly covered by these rules.) These rules
  prohibit a bhikkhu from teaching anyone he considers to be showing
  disrespect to the Dhamma. Here is a summary of these Sekhiya
  Trainings:

"I will not teach Dhamma to someone who is not sick but who:
— has an umbrella; a wooden stick (club); weapon in their hand.
— is wearing (wooden-soled) sandals/shoes; is in a vehicle; is on a
    bed (or couch); is sitting clasping the knees; has a head wrapping
    (turban); whose head is covered; who is sitting on a seat while I am
    sitting on the ground; who is sitting on a high seat while I am
    sitting on a low seat; who is sitting while I am standing; who is
    walking in front of me while I am walking behind; who is walking on a
    pathway while I am walking beside the pathway." (Sekhiya 57-72; See
    BMC pp.505-508)

How these rules are observed may diverge in different communities.
  Some will strictly follow the above while others will be more flexible
  according to modern conditions. As Venerable Brahmava"ngso remarks:

"...These Sekhiyas ensure that one teaches Dhamma only to an audience
    which shows respect. One may not expound from a soapbox in the
    marketplace... to the indifference of passers by. However it is common
    these days in the West for a seated audience, wearing their shoes and
    maybe even a hat, to respectfully listen to a speaker standing at a
    lectern... and as the audience is considered to be behaving
    respectfully according to the prevailing norms there seems no reason
    why a monk may not teach Dhamma in such a situation." (AB)

Good to quote what was given by the Buddha and long time preserved by his courageously and faithful Sangha.


text:
Distinguishing Between Past Lives and The Active Imagination
How could anyone recognize the difference between experiencing a past life recall and simply experiencing a vivid imagining of the mind? While meditating I often slip into states that take me outside my current sense of self and into another experience. Though I don’t believe this to be a past life recall, I often wonder if I experienced this 2000 years ago in Indian society, would I have consider this a past life? Just like past lives can be consider endlessly varied so can these vivid experiences.

It’s seems a typical answer to this question is, either, 1. Your not meditating good enough... or 2.There is no self and hence no past lives. I feel these are insufficient answers.
In regards to 1, I think maybe people misunderstand my interpretation of imagining. I do not mean an intentionally based conjuring of thoughts or day dreaming. It is in deep stillness that these conditions arise, taking on the appearance of life experiences, and they appear  distinct from my current life situations.
In regards to 2, I take non-self or the emptiness of self and things to mean the impermanence of states of being or existing. We are confined to bodies, that is to say, the neurons in my brain control the movement of my thumb typing this. Of course we are socially, biologically, and environmentally interconnected and none of our actions goes uninfluenced by the actions of others as a hole. Yet at the end of the day my bank account number belongs to me and I am legally responsible for my actions within society.

Very easy. A mind in meditation doesn't imagine. From your description likely you are not into any level of meditation, but just mind-wondering or, daydreaming... quite often happened to followers of Vajrayana Tibetan technique. This article may give you some clues of when can you do past life recall.

According to the sutta below, one has to have a bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, steady and imperturbable mind immersed in concentration that can be directed towards the recollection of past lives. A mind full of imagination does not fulfill this criteria.
From MN 4:

When my mind had become immersed in samādhi (concentration) like this  —purified,
  bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, workable, steady, and
  imperturbable — I extended it toward recollection of past lives. I
  recollected many kinds of past lives.
That is: one, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty,
  fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand rebirths; many eons
  of the world contracting, many eons of the world evolving, many eons
  of the world contracting and evolving. I remembered: ‘There, I was
  named this, my clan was that, I looked like this, and that was my
  food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that was how my life
  ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn somewhere else.
  There, too, I was named this, my clan was that, I looked like this,
  and that was my food. This was how I felt pleasure and pain, and that
  was how my life ended. When I passed away from that place I was reborn
  here.’ And so I recollected my many kinds of past lives, with features
  and details.

According to SN 22.79, the purpose of recollecting past lives is simply to become disenchanted with the change in the five aggregates, and the suffering associated with it, in the past and the future. It does not matter what is the content of the recollection. This can also be found in this answer.
If you wondering whether this refers to literal physical rebirth or metaphorical thought rebirth, perhaps this quote from the same sutta can help you:

When my mind had become immersed in samādhi (concentration) like this — purified,
  bright, spotless, rid of taints, pliable, workable, steady, and
  imperturbable — I extended it toward knowledge of the death and rebirth
  of sentient beings.
With clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient
  beings passing away and being reborn—inferior and superior, beautiful
  and ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how sentient
  beings are reborn according to their deeds: ‘These dear beings did bad
  things by way of body, speech, and mind. They spoke ill of the noble
  ones; they had wrong view; and they chose to act out of that wrong
  view. When their body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a
  place of loss, a bad place, the underworld, hell. These dear beings,
  however, did good things by way of body, speech, and mind. They never
  spoke ill of the noble ones; they had right view; and they chose to
  act out of that right view. When their body breaks up, after death,
  they’re reborn in a good place, a heavenly realm.’ And so, with
  clairvoyance that is purified and superhuman, I saw sentient beings
  passing away and being reborn — inferior and superior, beautiful and
  ugly, in a good place or a bad place. I understood how sentient beings
  are reborn according to their deeds.

How do you know the recollection is simply not an imagining? Does not answer the question at all.

@vajra78 Unfortunately, I don't have the experience of recollecting past lives, so I cannot give you a definitive answer. However, according to SN22.79, the purpose of recollecting past lives is simply to become disenchanted with the change in the five aggregates, and the suffering associated with it, in the past and the future. It does not matter what is the content of the recollection. This can also be found in this answer.

I did not score this answer because: (i) part 1 about the spotless mind was good; but (ii) part 2 is merely materialism because the word "kaya" does not literally refer to the physical body. The word "kaya" means "collection" or "group" (of five aggregates). Every act of kamma comprises of a different set of five aggregates. For example, the "kaya" of a happy drunk at a party is different to the "kaya" of the same person with a painful headache the next day. When the happy drunk kaya breaks up, what follows is a hellish kaya, the next day. This is not rocket science.

And what is "many eons of the world contracting and evolving" in the context of rebirth in MN 4? Could it be daily sleep and waking-up?

The concept of past lives is something that is very widely misunderstood. Lets throw every preconception you have about past lives out the window for a moment and think about this topic with a clean slate.
The central topic you should be thinking about when it comes to past lives, is your consciousness or as i like to call it, awareness or that which knows.
The highest truth there is to know, is that there is only one thing that exists. This is the reason for picking the descriptor "non-duality". The illusion (mara) is how we view the world. We think we are an observer, using our 6 senses to understand things that are separate from ourselves. This illusion is broken when we understand that consciousness/awareness creates our 6 senses, and our 6 senses create all the objects we see. But to say it "creates" them is incorrect, for there is only one thing! Consciousness is sight, is a tree, is an atom, is a wave.
Since there is only one infinite consciousness, we are all the same being. The same consciousness that is typing these words is also reading them many times over in different minds. This is the core understanding of past lives. Every conscious mind that is observing infinite consciousness is the same. Using incorrect verbiage, you could say that every living creature that has ever lived, or will ever live is a reincarnation of you.
Now, that being said, lets use that mindset to directly discuss your meditation experiences.

While meditating I often slip into states that take me outside my current sense of self and into another experience.

You are not slipping into another experience. There is only one experience we ever have, and we call it experiencing the now. You are still caught in the trap of associating your identity with a particular set of experiences, such as the sight of your body, or the opinions that appear in your mind. When you slip into these states where you believe to be in another experience, there is much to be learned! Ask yourself, why do I believe this experience is different from any other experience?

Though I don’t believe this to be a past life recall, I often wonder if I experienced this 2000 years ago in Indian society, would I have consider this a past life? Just like past lives can be consider endlessly varied so can these vivid experiences.

Time is also very widely misunderstood.
Lets take space as an example. I am sitting at my desk in a room in my house. I pick up a picture frame on the right side of my desk and move it to the left side of my desk. Have I created a new space? No. We believe there is only one space, and objects in space can be re-arranged into different configurations. No matter what you experience in the space, it is unchanging and always the same.
Lets take time. I am sitting at my desk right now. I pick up a picture frame on the right side of my desk and move it to the left side of my desk. Have I created a new time? No. We believe there is the past, now, and the future. This is incorrect. There is only one moment, now, and objects in the now can be re-arranged into different configurations. No matter what you experience in the now, it is unchanging and always the same.
We have all only ever experienced now. You can not leave the now and go to the past or the future. Even when you meditate and experience a vision of something you suspect to have happened 2000 years ago, that experience is happening now. You "remembering something that happened in the past" is happening now.
Reincarnation is not one identity becoming another identity through time. Reincarnation is one simplified explanation we give to teach that we are all one being, experiencing many different minds.
There are no past lives for there is no past, only now. There are no past lives for there is only one life, the life of consciousness.
What you see, hear, taste, smell, touch, and think has nothing to do with who you are. They are just experiences you are passively observing. I suggest, in your meditations, to focus less on the contents of your mind, and more on how those contents come to be. What is watching them? What are the properties of that watcher? How is the watcher affected by observing these 6 sense doors?
Congratulations on walking this path. You are extremely close to nirvana. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.

"Since there is only one infinite consciousness, we are all the same being. The same consciousness that is typing these words is also reading them many times over in different minds." - this is from the Advaita Vedanta teachings of Hinduism. This is not Buddhism. The same infinite consciousness in every individual is a kind of Self or Atma. Buddhism teaches anatta.

Anatta and infinite Conciousness are referring to the same teaching. It is like the story of the blind men and the elephant, all touching different limbs and arguing about what an elephant is when from one perspective, they are all correct.

Infinite Conciousness has no form. It is no-thing. It has the properties of nothing, so it has the ability to take the form of anything. From one perspective, you could say nothing exists and everything is an illusion. From another, you could say God is the creator of all things, and is the backbone of the universe. From another, you could say there is nothing permanent, only the ever changing. From another, there is only one thing, ever present and never changing. Most all religions are based on this understanding and trying to communicate it through teachings.

No. See MN 38: "consciousness is reckoned by the particular condition dependent upon which it arises. When consciousness arises dependent on the eye and forms, it is reckoned as eye-consciousness; (and the same for the other five aggregates) ...  when consciousness arises dependent on the mind and mind-objects, it is reckoned as mind-consciousness. Just as fire is reckoned by the particular condition dependent on which it burns—when fire burns dependent on logs, it is reckoned as a log fire; when fire burns dependent on chaff, it is reckoned as a chaff fire"

Only through personal experience can true understandings be cultivated. Enlightenment can never be reached through intellectual understandings or beliefs. Do not believe anyone. Not me, not the author of a book, not the buddha. Words and teachings can lead you towards the right direction, but without having the personal experience of abiding in Conciousness/awareness/Nirvana/God/that which knows/whatever you want to call it, none of the teachings have served their purpose.

I think you have the right understanding, but of the wrong religion. Your view is consistent with the (Hindu) Purusha Sukta of the Rg Veda, which states in its opening verse: "Thousand-headed is the Purusha, thousand-eyed and thousand-legged. Enveloping the earth from all sides, He transcends it by ten fingers’ length." One commentary states: "Here the transcendent totality of all creation is conceived as the Cosmic Person, the Universal Consciousness animating all manifestation." Your view is inconsistent with all Buddhist schools.

Maybe, "we are all the same being" sounds like a self-view (and "we are not the same being" might sounds like another self-view, and both would therefore be non-Buddhist).But saying that consciousness (and form) are somewhat impersonal sounds like anatta and maybe relevant to a question about "other lives".

@w33t You wrote, This is the reason for picking the descriptor "non-duality" -- where doesn't that description come from, e.g. what school of Buddhism uses it? Also why is consciousness described as "one thing" instead of seeing it as many little instances of consciousness which arise and cease?

The Buddha did not ever recollect any "past lives". The Buddha only recollected what he called "past abodes" or "past adherences" (literally: "past homes"), which referred to when in the past his mind ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as "self". This can be read in SN 22.79.
Therefore, if the instructions & teachings in SN 22.79 are understood, there will not arise the question being asked about "imagination".
For example, when you were 4 years old, you identified yourself as "my mother's son" or "daughter". Then, when you were 20 years old, you identified yourself as "a communist" or "capitalist".
Every time in this life your mind considered itself as: "I am this", "I am that", "this is me", "this is mine", "I like this", "I like that", etc, and your mind "settled into", "established" or "defined" itself as some type of "identity", each of these "I" and "me" is a "past abode".
For example, if i truly believe: "I was student, I was a lawyer, I had a wife, I was a husband, I hated TV", etc, each of these is a "past abode".

Why is this downvoted?

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


text:
How can we know the original meaning of a word with certainty?
In a lot of discussions here in B.S.E, the topic of the exact meaning of some terms keeps recurring, and nobody seems to have the last word.
Words such as 'upapajjati', 'paccājāyati', 'abhinibbatti' are often translated as "rebirth", but for some, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or other terms as 'deva' or 'abhiñña' are understood as "god" and "psychic powers", respectively. Or even outside of Buddhist culture we find some terms such as 'prana', 'chakra', 'messiah', and so on.
How can we now the way people contemporary to the origin of such words understood those terms?
It is possible that they used those words to describe phenomena that we currently know by other more scientific terms?
For instance, in this entry (https://torvol.wordpress.com/2017/11/27/the-chakra-system-is-an-analogy-to-get-your-shit-together-not-spiritual-woo-woo/), this blogger assures that 'chakras' were the way used to talk about the regulation of emotions.
I hope you can understand my point.
Have a nice day, and thanks for your time!

This is the reason why the Buddha denies the follower to recite tipitaka in the other language in vinaya-pitaka. Tipitaka can explain itself directly while reciting. Reciting and memorizing are the way that used by atthakatha-teacher to explain tipitaka.

I understand the idea behind this reasoning, by I don't think that memorizing and chanting can assure the fidelity in the transmission of the original meaning of the words. Differences in interpretation may arise even between monks from the same tradition.

The rule of buddhist council is "reciting sutta together" and explain it together with 500-1000 Ariya-members. When one recited it wrong, he will know himself. When one explain it wrong, the other can ask him for the evidence from the other sutta.  Another, the reciting helps the reciter to understand the relation between word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, sutta, vagga, paṇṇāsa, saṃyutta, nipāta, nikāya, and piṭaka. This is called "weaving sutta as weaving flower to make tipitaka an effective system". Many mistaking comes from the only reader without reciting.

If you want to know the rule of word&meaning's relation in sutta. I recommend Netti: http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Nettipakarana

The discussion on "Different Pali words translated as ‘rebirth’ & ‘reborn'?" at SuttaCentral may also be of interest to you.

@Bonn Thanks for this information. I'll make sure to check it. But if those measures exist, then why do this debate exist in the first place (apart from me asking, of course). Thanks for your time and answers!

@BrianDíazFlores I think it's better to ask that as a new question "But if those measures exist, then why do this debate exist in the first place (apart from me asking, of course)." It's valuable question.

How can we know the original meaning of a word with certainty?
Yes.
I'm sure there's a scholarly answer -- not this from me though.
Your mentioning "chakras" reminds of something similar, i.e. the "chi" that we're taught in Tai Chi -- which I learned from, was taught by, a Chinese master.
His English wasn't good, even with a translator I didn't ask complicated question, my own Chinese was non-existent though, I'm not complaining. Anyway part of what he'd do is describe the movement of chi -- especially the dan tien for example -- in reply, some students would say they could feel the chi, others not.
Based on a couple of answers (one on Skeptics.SE, another on MartialArts, which I won't reference) I've decided that "chi" doesn't exist as such -- not objectively measurable, and/or not separate from other things.
But ...
A lot of the preliminary work is to affect how you stand -- posture -- knees, hips, back, neck, and so on. We're told to "stand straight" ... and to, "imagine there's a thread, from the sky to the top of your head, and that you're hanging from that thread -- so instead of being pressed and heavy and bent by gravity, you're being pulled and light-weight and hanging straight, with vertebrae aligned each above the other".
The exercise is effective, at least when you see it and follow along.
In reality, there is no such "thread"! :-) -- but I think it's a useful visualisation exercise. It helps you to stand straight ...

I guess I'm getting around to saying that "meaning" of a word is maybe difficult to ascertain.
One way, perhaps an important way, to know a word is by its effect -- what does it mean to you? What does it mean to other people? What is the effect of using the word?
In Tai Chi you can kind of judge how people practice --- how well (they practice), and how beneficial (their practice is).
Perhaps it's something similar in Buddhism -- i.e. you practice for a purpose, towards a purpose ... perhaps a purpose of your own ... or perhaps toward a goal and following a curriculum set by a teacher -- and the meaning of the words might be assessed by their effect, whether they help you to practice.
In a word like "rebirth" I think there are two important questions:

What does it originally mean?
What does it mean to me?

I see those as separate questions. I don't, can't, assume that I know the original meaning. I don't assume that what I understand is the real meaning.
It's partly a matter of ... is "humility" the right word? Knowing what you don't know? For example there's a bunch of stuff I know, that children don't -- how to drive a car, even how to bicycle. I imagine explaining that to a child, if they ask ... or "How does a radio work?" I could use words to explain, but would the words have the same meaning? If I say "electromagnetic radiation", what's that to someone who hasn't studied it? What is it even to someone who has studied it?
Similarly I, being only very ... you know ... a student, I don't think I should assume that I'm able to understand the "meaning" even when it's explained.
But "what does it originally mean?" is an important question. I've posted questions, "what does X mean?", so that people can explain that. And I don't think I should post to say "It doesn't mean that". I don't want to misrepresent, I don't want to falsify the transmission.
It used to be that my knowledge of, access to Buddhism was very second-hand, third-hand, fourth-hand -- e.g. I'd read a book, explaining Buddhism, written by someone who had studied with people who had studied with other people -- and what's written in the book is, sort of, their opinion, their summary ... which is OK but, maybe not reliable, and maybe not much depth, the words are an easy explanation and superficial and there isn't much there, much substance, to study.
So I'm grateful to meet something like an original scripture and be able to study that, like, to be able to read what people are talking about.
But "What does it mean to me?" is an important question too, though. It's good to ask and good to be told, not enough though to be only able to repeat what you've been told. It's like, maybe I go to a Maths lecture -- and being able to repeat what was said, to memorise the lesson, that's one thing -- to use what's learned, to understand new (Maths) problems and to know how to solve them properly, that's another.
So I take an interest in both:

What is the, what is an, orthodox doctrine ... about the meaning? Can I understand it? Can I reference it? Can I, even, repeat it without distorting it?
Are there several orthodox doctrines? Not overly surprising if there were. Does a word have more than one meaning? Does the meaning depend on the context? Did it have several meanings in the original? If several people understood it, did it have several meanings then? Was it intended for several people, perhaps with different understandings?

What does it mean to me? How can I use that doctrine? Can I use it? If I only understand it partially, is there a part of it I can use?

I guess a final question might be, how do I manage a part doctrine that I don't understand? I guess I "neither approve nor disapprove" but "put it aside". There's a lot of knowledge in the world -- practical and theoretical knowledge, science, arts, know-how -- the fact that I don't know something or don't understand it doesn't mean it's untrue, doesn't mean it's impractical, or badly taught.
nobody seems to have the last word
No.
This is meant to be a Q+A site, is one thing, so in theory everybody "has the last word". You ask a question, people answer, and you select from among the answers to build your own understanding. There may be some good answers, maybe some less good, you don't always have to have the last word, or do you.
One of the stack exchange guidelines I read was that answers should be "backed up" or "based on" something, either:

A reference
Something you have experience personally

I think that's quite a good guideline for this site and this topic (i.e. Buddhism) too.
If I answer I like to ...

provide a reference
and/or, explain from my personal experience

... and by doing that I hope to be not misleading.
(Not that all answers require references on this site ... e.g. with many people/users/readers are familiar with the same doctrines and it's often enough and more convenient to explain a doctrine without references).

Perhaps I should, I don't know whether I should, mention one more thing -- i.e. that you might want to know, be certain of, your own understanding -- perhaps to ask, "what do I understand?", to avoid confusion.
For me personally I think it's right to, I think we're taught to, disentangle from a "thicket of views", perhaps recognise and avoid "a thicket" from a distance, maybe "know your own mind" for what that's worth as they in English, and maybe no "It means this! No, it means that!" like the sectarians.

When possible, the suttas give physical references for clarity:

They’re like a flax flower that’s blue, with blue color, blue hue, and blue tint. Or a cloth from Bāraṇasī that’s smoothed on both sides, blue, with blue color, blue hue, and blue tint. --DN33

Note that the Buddha's blue is not our blue.

However, the translation and understanding of experiential terms such as vitakka presents difficulties. The difficulties arise because what each term defines is a subjective experience. Fortunately, the suttas are quite consistent in terminology, especially EBT's such as the Pali Canon. Modern translations have difficulty achieving the same level of consistency because the meaning of modern languages changes in our lifetimes (and even with a single viral video). However, what is remarkable about the suttas is that one can map personal experiences to the terms used in the suttas. This is why we study the suttas. We study them for inconsistencies in our understanding.
Given that the practice and study of the suttas is deeply personal, it is useful to consult with a Sangha and/or teacher if you can. The Buddha warns about the thicket of views that arises as we search for meaning out of ignorance. Indeed, he flatly states:

For this principle is deep, hard to see

Fortunately, the suttas themselves provide a practical guide for study that is focused on what is

immediately effective --SN35.70

In general, if a sutta isn't immediately effective, just go on to what is indeed immediately effective. Eventually, one experiences a deeper understanding that unlocks formerly confusing suttas.
For example, one could get all contorted thinking about rebirth as literal reincarnation of a soul migrating between bodies. How do we test this? By dying? Do let us know how that goes...  :D
But what is immediately effective is to think about simpler meanings for words used in the suttas. For example, each of our cravings has a life. Our cravings are reborn because we want them to have continual existence, etc. We say "I like chocolate cake" and tell our friends. That saying has a life of its own. And because it has a life of its own, we can apply the teachings immediately to any such craving to see how it arises (I want the cake), how it ceases (I ate the cake) and how it is perceived and on the way to rebirth (I see cake).

There are three refuges in Buddhism. The Dhamma Refuge is comprised of two aspects, namely:
(i) the Dhamma was perfectly spoken by the Blessed One; and
(ii) this Dhamma is knowable & verifiable in the here-&-now has being immediately effective in leading to peace.
Therefore, the above conviction is the 1st step to knowing the original meaning of words.
Since the Dhamma is perfectly spoken, the 2nd step is to research the suttas and examine how the words 'upapajjati', 'paccājāyati' & 'abhinibbatti' are used contextually.
For example, 'abhinibbatti' definitely does not mean "rebirth" (it means "production") and on B.S.E we have researched the word 'upapajjati'. The word 'jāyati' does not necessarily mean "rebirth", such as in suttas AN 3.112,  AN 4.200 & AN 5.26.
The greatest difficulty is divorcing the mind from the monks such as Bhikkhu Bodhi, Sujato, etc, who people seem to place unshakeable faith in.
Personally, I think if you have even the slightest disposition to believe in post-mortem rebirth, this is your destiny. I think it will be quite difficult to convince you otherwise.

A few days ago I asked you something related to this issue, and I got no answer. I'll ask again: if the Dhamma is so clear and evident, why did the Buddha used terms such as 'deva' or 'realms', when those same words were being used in other religious contexts, and so, using the same word with different purposes may have caused confusion between indian audiences of that time? You said that the word 'deva' meant something other than 'god', but you provided no sources. What are your sources to say that devas were brahmin or ascetics? Thanks for your time.

Firstly, the Buddha spoke to people personally, There were no public written teachings. His Dhamma was an oral tradition. Secondly, about "deva", i think it is quite difficult to prove what the Buddha said about this; in contrast to the Brahmanistic cosmology monks possibly later placed into the suttas in their efforts, particularly under King Asoka, to convert people. Since I actually personally know enough people, mostly Christians but also Buddhists, with psychic powers, I have no doubts about psychic powers or what I think devas refer to. To me, deva (angels) are just people.

I think the question should be asked: "Why are there so many sects in Buddhism?" We seem to believe monks have integrity & are loyal to the Buddha but the number of sects in Buddhism show this is obviously not the case. If you go to the website called Sutta Central, you will probably see the 1st monk ever embracing Cultural Marxism & nuns engaging in all kinds of "non-gender" politics. This is merely a demonstration of how monks & nuns are prepared to depart from the Dhamma to pursue their personal agendas.

the thing is, 'abhiñña' can be translated as "direct knowledge". 'Clairvoyance' and 'intuition' are loaded words with some cultural baggage on them. We assume those they are "paranormal" abilities, but did that difference between 'normal' and 'paranormal' existed back then? Also, what evidence do you have to say that brahmanistic concepts and ideas were added afterwards to Buddhist teachings, corrupting the original teachings?

I already posted I have no evidence for the Brahmanistic cosmology. I merely said it was "possible" or "probable". By reading the suttas, we can read how fiercely the Buddha  kept his core teachings pure yet there are suttas where jhanas are called brahma gods. Personally I doubt the Buddha would ever substitute Brahma gods for jhanas. As I said in my answer, you appear to not have taken the 1st step, which is Refuge in the Here & Now Dhamma.

As for the "realms", there are many suttas that support the view they are merely mental states. This isn't a great issue of conjecture. There are suttas that literally say "The Hell of the Six Bases of Painful Feelings".

Aren't we all pursuing our own agendas? Is anyone free from that? Are you suggesting that you alone are an impartial buddhist, while everyone else are corrupted? Isn't this attitude of yours a pursuing of your own agenda as well, assuming that you have the right understanding of the Buddha's words, explicitly stating that most of Buddhist around here are just going the wrong direction?

No. I have no personal agenda. I think it is self-evident by my posts they are well supported with sutta research. Again, you appear to be completely avoiding the Dhamma Refuge. If you live in a monastery, you will chant the Dhamma Refuge every morning & every evening and physically bow down to it 3 times each chanting.

Also, believe it or not, I have the same position as yours, but I'm not completely sure if my position is grounded on the teachings of the Buddha, or if it is a result of my previous philosophical and scientifical study. That's why I always keep an opened mind, avoiding opinions and positions such as "only his is true", or "everything else is false". I'm not that wise nor experienced yet.

Personally, I only follow the Dhamma Refuge. I have total conviction in that. That is why it is logically probable that the cultural baggage was introduced at a later time, I recall i was only reading recently Sujato said DN 1 was written under King Asoka to resolve debates in Buddhism. I will have to confirm that. I only quickly browsed this link: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-long-discourses-dhamma-as-literature-and-compilation/11523

Sujato wrote (but of course without any evidence): "The first discourse, DN 1 Brahmajala, sets out a scheme of wrong views, and thus acts as a filter for the Dhamma, screening out possible misinterpretations. It seems that this arrangement was connected with the events of the so-called “Third Council” under King Ashoka, at a time when the Saṅgha was overrun with imposters who were not genuine Buddhists".

Take literate such as the extensive Jataka Stories, Past Life Stories of Buddha & Disciples, Abidhamma & Commentaries. No one disputes these were written hundreds of years after the Buddha. So the question arises: "Who wrote these books?" "Who had the political & institutional power to write these books & add them to the Canon?" If we ask these logical questions, we will sense a Buddhism that is no different to Judaism, Catholicism or Islam, where books are added to religious scriptures by mere clerics. In Islam, there a millions of "hadiths" supposedly saying of Muhamed.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Dhammadhatu, in your answer you spoke of disposition in believing post-mortem rebirth. Similarily, elsewhere you mentioned that being a monk (thus celibate and letting go of sense pleasures) is also disposition. Now I ask you this: How do we know if we have a disposition if we live in a materialistic environment and the disposition is currently 'hidden'? And finally: Isn't the path about gradual practise? No matter where, the Buddha always spoke about cultivating, "you should train yourself thus", "when developed and pursued" etc. Isn't this disposition belief fatalistic?

I suppose i am being a bit fatalistic but i suppose it will be known when we seriously pursue the path and whether we succeed or not.

What is your opinion on environmental factors? You are an advanced practitioners yet not a monastic. Does working and all other activies pose a hindrance to you?

One approach I follow is to use the Appendix section of Thripitaka to find places the word is used and read them. Sutta pitaka and Abhidhamma pitaka can be both useful. I also use search on them. I do this in pali.
Usually, important words with respect to Buddhism (e.g. Dukkha) are well defined within Thripitaka. By important words I mean, the ones considered those in relation to attaining nibbana.
Do also note that at the lack of certainty, there are only five ways to pick a solution (according to Buddha):

Based on faith
Based on liking
Based on reference
Based on contemplation
Based on views