text:
Intent and Karmic benefit
With intent being so important, would the karmic benefit of saving someone's life because they were in danger be the same as doing it because you thought you would be rewarded for it?

While the act of saving someone's life does bring great overall benefits to the person's future lives, his intent does influence the orientation of such wholesome rewards. For example, a person performing the act with the intent toward relinquishment and liberation will receive an outcome conducive toward that direction, while another performing the same act, but with the intent of gaining worldly rewards, hence  would also get positive outcomes, though oriented towards more of a mundane worldly kind of merits.

The Pali scripture says "kamma is intention"

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech & intellect.
AN 6.63

Therefore, intention born of greed will not be the same as intention born of good-will.

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident
from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.
AN 6.39

The intent is certainly the most important thing for karma.
Let's use giving gifts as an example.
There are eight reasons why one may give gifts.

“Bhikkhus, there are these eight grounds for giving. What eight? (1)
One gives a gift from desire. (2) One gives a gift from hatred. (3)
One gives a gift from delusion. (4) One gives a gift from fear. (5)
One gives a gift, thinking: ‘Giving was practiced before by my father
and forefathers; I should not abandon this ancient family custom.’ (6)
One gives a gift, thinking: ‘Having given this gift, with the breakup
of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a
heavenly world.’ (7) One gives a gift, thinking: ‘When I am giving
this gift my mind becomes placid, and elation and joy arise.’ (8) One
gives a gift for the purpose of ornamenting the mind, equipping the
mind. These are the eight grounds for giving.”
AN 8.33

All eight are not equal.
Of the eight listed, the last one, which is ornamenting the mind or adorning the mind, is the highest reason with the highest benefit.
Please see this answer for details on what is meant by "ornamenting" or "adorning" the mind.

“Yes, Sariputta, there would be the case where a person gives a gift
of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit,
whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears
great fruit and great benefit. .......
“Having given this gift seeking his own profit—with a mind attached
[to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought],
‘I’ll enjoy this after death’—on the break-up of the body, after
death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then,
having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that
sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world. ......
“—but with the thought, ‘This is an ornament for the mind, a support
for the mind’—on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears
in the company of Brahma’s Retinue. Then, having exhausted that
action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a
non-returner. He does not come back to this world.
“This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives
a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great
benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it
bears great fruit and great benefit.”
AN 7.52

No the two are different in intent and what that intent does to you.
When you save someone with the intent of saving that person, that act is an act of compassion. Its an act you performed for the benefit of the other person. Not to accrue something for you. When you do such an act that Karma does little or no contribution to reinforce that the saknkna (signal) of yourself. Thus, such an act of altruism does not contribute to you building 'sakhkhaya dhitti' (the mistake of taking the process of living as a person - in short: 'I').
When you do the same act with an expectation on your mind, that act reinforces the concept of 'self' in you.
Say you saved person X, that means;

You are the savior of X
X exists
X exists as part of the existing World
If X was Saved by me, then I exist
Because World exists and I perceive it, I exist

At the core of it, the effort is to reinforce yourself that 'you' exist. This is quite dangerous for the practicing Buddhist. This is why, practicing Buddhists perform their acts without any expectations or returns. They are trying to see through the process which we simply take for-grant as 'myself'. Anything that reinforces it, is thought of as a hindrance to Nirvana.


text:
Are there any commentaries in the pali cannon on The Iddhipāda-Vibhaṅga Sutta -- An Analysis Of The Bases Of Power (SN 51:20)
Are there any commentaries in the pali cannon on The Iddhipāda-Vibhaṅga Sutta -- An Analysis Of The Bases Of Power (SN 51:20). And in general, what are some sources for the commentaries, obviously in pali but also in english. (If only in pali, a preference to be able to locate and navigate without knowing much pali.)

I haven't found a traditional Pali commentary on this yet but here is a modern commentary by Piya Tan: Iddhipada Vibhanga Sutta (SN 51.20).
Piya Tan usually refers to multiple sources including the traditional commentaries, to write his own.

Abhidhamma Iddhipada Vibhanga
Visuddhimagga (search under 'roads to power')
Malaysian scholar Piya Tan usually has references to Commentaries: Iddhi,pāda Vibhanga Sutta

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I have a question about mantra?
Is it bad to do my mantra backwards? I say it normally, just I have been moving the beads backwards. Should I move them forward?

Are you practising in a particular tradition, and do you have a teacher?

I was new to mantra and Buddhism. And I showed some of the other people who are practicing Buddhism, and they said that I’m doing it wrong I was doing it counter clockwise, and they told me I should be doing it clockwise. What do you mean particular tradition? Would you call the other people who practice Buddhism teacher because they did teach me. I’m a paraplegic in a wheelchair and in my city I couldn’t find a temple that is wheelchair accessible.

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


text:
What is MN 116 ( paccekabuddha sutta) about?
MN 26 describes the Buddha after his awakening, as follows:

If I were to teach the Dhamma, others would not understand me, and
that would be wearying and troublesome for me.’ Thereupon there came
to me spontaneously these stanzas never heard before:
‘Enough with teaching the Dhamma That even I found hard to reach; For
it will never be perceived By those who live in lust and hate.
Those dyed in lust, wrapped in darkness Will never discern this
abstruse Dhamma Which goes against the worldly stream, Subtle, deep,
and difficult to see.’
Considering thus, my mind inclined to inaction rather than to teaching
the Dhamma.

MN 116 says:

Once upon a time, five hundred Buddhas awakened for themselves dwelt for a long time on this Isigili. They were seen entering the mountain,
but after entering were seen no more. When people noticed this they
said: ‘That mountain swallows these hermits!’ That’s how it came to be
known as Isigili.

It seems when the world is completely saturated with 'thicksters' (Buddhadasa translation of 'puthujjana') & 'drooling idiots' (Thanissaro translation of 'eḷamūga') the Buddhas decline to teach.
So what is MN 116 about? Do the silent Buddhas enter the mountain to end life, such as starving to death?

The Isigili entry in the Palikanon Buddhist Dictionary of Pali Proper Names states the following. According to Buddhaghosa, the Isigili mountain was simply the dwelling place of the Pacceka Buddhas and they did come out of the mountain to get alms.

One of the five mountains round Rājagaha and one of the beauty-spots
of the city (D.ii.116). There was, on one side of it, a black stone
called the Kālasilā. This was a favourite haunt of the Buddha and the
members of the Order. See e.g., Viii.ii.76, where Dabba Mallaputta is
asked by monks to provide for them accommodation there; see also
Vin.iii.41.
It was also the scene of the suicide of Godhika and Vakkali (S.i.121;
iii.121f) and of the murder of Moggallāna by the brigands (J.v.125f;
DhA.iii.65). .....
In the Isigili Sutta (M.iii.68-71) the Buddha is represented as saying
that while the other mountains round Rājagaha - Vebhāra, Pandava,
Vepulla and Gijjhakūta - had changed their old names, Isigili retained
its former name and designation.
Five hundred Pacceka Buddhas once resided in Isigili for a long time;
they could be seen entering the mountain, but once entered, there was
no more sign of them. Men, observing this, said that the mountain
swallowed up the sages and so it came by its name of Isigili (Isī
gilatī ti = Isigili).
Buddhaghosa adds (MA.ii.889) that when the Pacceka Buddhas returned
from their begging rounds, the rock would open like a folding door to
admit them. Within the rock they had made for themselves cloisters,
dwelling-houses, etc.

Venerable Nāgārjuna says:

Not the one and not another, unending and impermanent --
of the many
Buddhas' transformative teachings, this is that sweet nectar's taste.
For if a Buddha is not born in the world, or if the Buddhadharma is
completely extinct,
all of the wisdom of the Pratyekabuddhas would separately arise (from this).

(MMK XVIII.11-12 Madhyamakaśāstra T 1564.23c16)
The commentary from Venerable Vimalākṣa explains that "unending" refers to how, even in the age of Dharma-extinction, there are still the Pratyekabuddhas who attain Nirvāṇa. It is "unending" because it is not dependent upon a Samyaksaṃbuddha to proclaim it. Moving ahead to the section that analyses the lines about the Pratyekabuddhas:

The words of the many Buddhas are transformative teachings with the taste of sweet nectar. In worldly speech, it is like when they talk of drinking the elixir of heavenly nectar and never growing old, falling ill, and dying, (and being) without any degeneration or distress. The true aspect of the many phenomena is the taste of the true nectar. The Buddhas say that the true aspect is in three families. When the true aspect of all phenomena is attained and all of the vexatious afflictions end, this is called the Dharma of the Śrāvakas. With the arising of great compassion and the emanation of the unexcelled citta, this is called the Great Vehicle. When a Buddha has not arisen in the world, when there is no Buddhadharma, the wisdom of the Pratyekabuddhas arises separate from these. If the Buddha has already taught and entered nirvāṇa without remainder, if his Dharma has entirely degenerated in the world already, if there are those to attain the way, they but meditate upon giving up in disgust the causes and conditions for suffering. Alone, they wander into the mountains, into the woods, (wandering) away from trouble and disturbance, and they attain the path. These are called the Prakyekabuddhas.

(from the commentary)
From the OP inquiry:

So what is MN 116 about? Do the silent Buddhas enter the mountain to end life, such as starving to death?

Turning to an EBT, the Mahāsāṃghikas preserve a version of the story of Ṛṣigiri (lit. "the Sage Mountain," the Pāli is "Isigili") which suggests a distant passed-down memory of a group of Pratyekabuddhas (or sages who came to be remembered as, described as, "Pratyekabuddhas" by subsequent generations including the Buddha) who practiced self-immolation atop it. The passage is similar-enough between the versions. The Buddha recounts that Ṛṣigiri mountain near Gṛdhrakūṭa was once home to a community of Pratyekabuddhas. Once they entered the great mountain...

At that time, all the Pratyekabuddhas would, amidst the ākāśa, burn their bodies to reach Parinirvāṇa.

(EĀ 38.7 Ṛṣigirisūtra T 125.723b06)
The "ākāśa" here (空) refers to "the sky," and my tentative suggestion is that "the sky" here means "the summit of the peak" (i.e. "amidst the sky").

Isigili Sutta is about Pachcheka Budhdha. More information on Pachcheka Budhdha or Pachcheka Bodhi can be obtained here.
The storyline behind the Sutta is about a mountain formation (pabbatha) where many Pachcheka Budhdha lived. People saw monks (Isiwaru) going to this area but none of them returned as they became Arhath in Pachcheka Bodhi, and chose to live and pass away in the same place. So, people who lived in the surrounding area thought that the mountain rage is dangerous and called it Isigili Pabbatha (mountain that swallows Isiwaru/monks - Isi (monks) + gili (swallow) = Isigili).
This sutta is quite different to other sutta as it names many Pachcheka Budhdha who lived in the Isigili Pabbatha. None of them starved to death. They simply did not chose to come out of the mountain range (probably the mountain range was lush in vegetation throughout the year and could provide sustenance for the monks who lived there).
The Pachcheka Budhdha and Samma Sambudhdha are different in the capability to teaching and making someone else understand the Dhamma realized by the Budhdha. Please read my previous answer here, to gain more details on the differences.

thank u for your effort


text:
Better results when pausing meditation?
I meditate a few years now. Since 3 months circa 1h at 4 days a week. Sometimes I pause due to "worldly" obligations. Today I started again after a 2 weeks pause. I experience a better ability to "get into the flow". I often made the experience, that pausing meditation can "level up" the experience. Sorry for the possibly not appropriate words. I have to say, that between these meditation phases I learn Dharma like listening to Shantideva "Way of a Bodhisattva" or sth. else. And I do mostly Shamata. Do you experience sth. similar? Is there a statement of the Buddha about the value of pausing meditation?

Interestingly, I experience a similar phenomenon when I miss a day.  My first sit back on the cushion always seems to be better (you'll note the emphasis).  I always feel more relaxed and it appears that I'm able to follow my breath a bit more closely.
But this is a complete illusion.  It also largely misses the point of meditation.  How you feel on the cushion, how focused you think you are, how "in the flow" it appears - none of that is really important.  Meditation isn't about "feeling good" or "being focused".  While those sensations will often arise, when they're your metric for judging your practice, you're headed down the wrong path.  Mediation is, first and foremost, the catalyst for insight.  It is a tool we use to uproot our karmic obstacles.  While a sharp and well maintained tool has an esthetic all its own, its real value is only in the work it allows us to do.
If you haven't been on a retreat, this may sound strange, but I think the following example might help.  On day one of a sesshin (for instance), our sitting is the sitting of the world.  If we are sitting well in our day to day practice, we sit even better those first couple of hours.  Gradually, however, the perceived "quality" of our sits begins to decline.  We may start to "feel" more antsy or distracted, for example.  The reality, however, isn't that our sitting has gotten worse.  What's happening is that our minds are beginning to become still.  We don't become restless, but rather we notice the restlessness in ourselves that was always there.  As the retreat progresses, we start to move through even deeper layers.  Our restless might evolve into sadness, hopelessness, and feelings of futility.  We may start to remember awful events from our past - memories that we'd rather not confront.  We might begin to question everything about ourselves, our lives, all that we have done and have left undone.  By the metric of "being in the flow" or "sitting in bliss" we'd immediately label these as "bad sits".  But they're not.  These feeling were always there, but the flurry of our lives was allowing us to ignore them.  In periods of deeper sitting, they become apparent and can be worked through.  These are the sits that help move the needle of our practice.  These sits are the reason we practice at all.
To bring this back to your question, when we first begin to sit, those first few months can be like a cool breeze on a summer's day.  Sitting is so unlike our previous lives.  The respite is provides is as sweet as lemonade sipped on the front porch.  The longer we sit, however, the more we begin to tap into our karmic obstacles.  These don't taste as sweet.  When you take a break, you're going back to the lemonade.  It is appealing and offers fleeting satisfaction, but don't mistake it for the real meat of practice.

Koan 17 of the Hekiganroku
Cutting through nails and breaking steel for the first time, one could
be called a Master of the First Principle. If you run away from arrows
and evade swords you will be a failure in Zen. The place where even a
needle cannot enter I’ll leave aside for a while, but when the foaming
billows wash the sky, what will you do with yourself then?
Case
A monk asked Kyorin, “What is the meaning of Bodhidharma’s coming from
the west?” “Sitting long and getting tired.”

Thank you very much.

We're not really looking to make meditation easier. Wanting to do so is a desire that should be observed with mindfulness.


text:
Have any historical texts identified whether a reincarnated soul's true identity can be identified?
If reincarnation were true, in that a soul takes on different human bodies across several different lives during that soul's existence, have philosophers, theologists, scholars or any scriptures ever indicated whether one of those lives is the true identity of that soul? Or is it implicitly always assumed that the first life or incarnation of that soul is its true identity?

I suggest that you can post this exact same question on [hinduism.se] SE too. You may get different answers there, compared to what you may get here.

Looking forward to the answers here. Judaism SE would be even more exciting.

I think this question is off-topic here because Buddhism does not have a concept of "reincarnated soul"... Or maybe that could be an answer, @user610620 what do you think?

@StopPutinStopWar The doctrine of someone like HH the Dalai Lama looks like the concept of "reincarnated soul", doesn't it? But I don't at all understand the idea that the "true identity" is either the first life or a specific life: if "reincarnation" means something I'd expect it to mean all incarnations are of the same identity. Like looking at a flock of sheep and saying, "they're all sheep" and then someone asks, "which one is the true sheep?", isn't it a nonsensical question.

I'm not sure I follow about HH etc., but sounds like we want to keep this question open, okay

Identity and pronouns are of utmost importance to human communication. If we refer to a being by all 5 lives and names they lived, it would be a communication hodge-podge, kind of nonsensical, whereas you refer to that being by its most popular form or identity, it becomes more coherent and recognizable conceptually. So this is a bit of a philosophical question, but asking to draw from verified sources from law and scripture, from whatever civilization, regarding the "rules" of reincarnation. Out of all the lives that a soul lives, which of those lives is the soul's true or primary identity?

There's classic doctrine here that "there is no permanent individuality" and that a name of designation refers to a set of aggregates (a co-exience of various parts). That makes the question hard to answer. Within Buddhism the word 'soul' is used in the context of the doctrine of "non-self" (and not the doctrine of "self"). The idea of a "soul" and a "true identity" sounds non-Buddhist -- so perhaps this question can't be answered (or can only be answer "no")?

For more about "reincarnation" in Buddhism see for example answers to this topic

Based on the subject of that other post, is reincarnation a capability of every soul or Buddhist? Which souls reincarnate or not reincarnate and why (not)?

Maybe you'll find these answers lucid: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/157/254 and https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/10113/254 and https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/58/254

So Buddhism favors the idea of rebirth, rather than reincarnation where a soul takes a body as a vessel. Feel that all ideations of reincarnation though, in any religion, implies rebirth, that is, the soul re-starting its existence in a completely new body. Never possessing an existing body.

I think that Buddhism teaches that there are many births, and not that there's an identifiable soul that's constant (the same soul) from one birth to another. Except perhaps to say that everybody is the same.

I can't offer you the Jewish yarmulke, but I can try to explain the Buddhist Yamaka. The Yamaka Sutta is one of the texts you can read. There are more in this answer. Another one is the Vina Sutta.
Let's take the example of someone called George, whose mother has now passed away.
George knew his mother since he was a child. Then she was young and energetic.
As she grew older, her body and appearance changed. She then has wrinkles and white hair. She had trouble walking long distances because her legs weren't what they used to be. Her outlook of life and her opinions have changed. But she's still his mother.
Then in her very old age, George's mother became senile, experiencing dementia. Now she could not recognize George anymore. Her personality had changed drastically. Even George couldn't recognize her personality anymore. But she still looks like his mother and George hopes that "she is in there somewhere".
Then one day she died. George looked at his mother's dead body and cried, "Mother, why have you left me?" Although the body is there, he thinks his mother has left him. Why is this the case? Does he think his mother is not the body? Then what does he think his mother really is?
When they had a funeral service for his mother, George looked at his mother's body in the casket, and said "Goodbye Mother, I love you." So, now he thinks the body is the mother?
Long after the funeral, he reflected that when she became senile, it was like she wasn't there anymore. George thought, "Mother really left me a long time ago."
Later, after a year, he has a new daughter born to him, who looks and behaves a bit like his deceased mother. George wonders, "could my mother have been reborn again to be my new daughter?"
So, who really was his mother? Was she the form (body)?  Was she the feelings (sensations)? Was she the perceptions (including memory)? Was she the consciousness? Was she the mental formations (including personality)?
Or was she none of these? Or all of these in combination?
If you remove each of these one by one and examine it, would you find the mother?
What was her true identity?
Form, feelings, perception, consciousness and mental formations - these five aggregates are all impermanent (anicca), unstable and unreliable.
It's just like the case in the Vina Sutta where the king broke a lute into its constituent parts to find the melodious music that it produced. He couldn't find it.
Even in this very life, it's hard to pin down exactly the true identity or the true self. In this case, how would it be possible to pin down exactly the true identity or true self across multiple lives?
The Buddha taught that "all phenomena is not self" (sabbe dhamma anatta). If you look for the true identity or true self, you will find that there is none.
Also, please read this answer, this answer and this answer.


text:
Books on monastic traditions and techniques
Almost twenty years ago I did a meditation on death that catapulted me into a Near Death Experience the likes of which I could not even have imagined possible. This 'mini enlightenment' allowed me to let go of some but not all attachments.
Over the years, I have tried (in vain) to recreate that experience via the same method and by trying other techniques from a variety of traditions.  But since I did not get results and living in a world of phenomena competing for my attention I ceased seeking after 15 years.
Recently however it occurred to me that there might be some resource out there, such as a book, that lists all of the techniques developed by the monastic tradition within buddhism, and that I might profit from systematically trying all of them that I am able to.  I'm aware that it is folly to seek such experiences as ends in themselves.
Does such a book exist?

In the Theravada tradition, a book that comes close to what you are asking for is the Visuddhimagga: The Path of Purification (translated from Pali by Ven. Ñāṇamoli). This book is in the PDF format and downloadable for free.
The Wikipedia entry on Visuddhimagga introduces this book as follows:

The Visuddhimagga (Pali; English: The Path of Purification), is the
'great treatise' on Buddhist practice and Theravāda Abhidhamma
written by Buddhaghosa approximately in the 5th Century in Sri
Lanka. It is a manual condensing and systematizing the 5th century
understanding and interpretation of the Buddhist path as maintained by
the elders of the Mahavihara Monastery in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka.
It is considered the most important Theravada text outside of the
Tipitaka canon of scriptures, and is described as "the hub of a
complete and coherent method of exegesis of the Tipitaka."

Thanks ruben2020, your answer was useful but I am unable to mark it as such because my reputation is less than 15.

That book doesn't exist.  Not in Buddhism anyway.  What you are describing isn't the goal of Buddhist meditation.  In fact, from a Buddhist perspective, what you experienced would be akin to you accidentally starting a kitchen fire and thinking it was high end French cooking.  Dramatic?  Maybe.  Liberating?  Nope.
The phenomenology of meditative experience is secondary and in some cases even antithetical to Buddhist practice.  Some people simply will never experience "the cool" stuff on the cushion yet may become very deeply enlightened.  Other people are hounded by visions, oracular portents of the future, and angels dancing on their nose but will never find true awakening.
There's a ton of terms in your question that trouble me.  It's full of words like "recreate", "seek", "try", "profit", and "results".  I think you're somewhat aware that this isn't the approach you should be taking.  Let me dispel any doubt - this approach is absolutely futile.  In fact, it's wholly counter to your endeavor.  You weren't expecting that experience to arise when it did.  Your mind was that of a beginner.  You were completely unaware of what was possible.  That openness, that lack of expectation, is what characterizes the practice of a rank beginner and that of the master.  Now that you are in between those two poles, the possibility of you entering into a similar experience is strictly a function of how willing you are to practice without the possibility of similar event ever happening again.  This can't be achieved by self talk or some engineered resolve to have no desire.  It can only be found by letting go, of everything, everyday, and for years.
I remember being a college student waiting for the bus to campus.  These damn things were always late.  Sometimes they never even came.  To practice Buddhism is to wait for the bus.  You have no idea when it will arrive.  You also can't force it to show up.  But you have to show up - everyday - even if there's the possibility that the bus will never come.

I find your answer to be paradoxically condescending and egotistical.  I can only hope you don’t occupy any position of authority within a religious institution.  When I have the requisite amount of reputation to downvote this response I shall come back and do so.


text:
Why is a soul reincarnated, and the purpose of reincarnation?

A soul from a previous generation is reincarnated in a later
generation into a specific set of circumstances which are tailored to
engineer a rectification of a previous sin

Are there instances in Buddhist scripture or history where there is a confirmation of the above statement as being typical, or being the purpose, of reincarnation?
Don't know if sin prefigures in Buddhist thought or has connections to reincarnation, but the source of the quote above is drawn from Judaism and Kabbalah's conceptualization of reincarnation, which they do relate to sin.

There's not an entity or being that gets reincarnated. That's a misunderstanding of reality and Buddhism.

Welcome to Buddhism Stack Exchange. The system flagged this as a low quality answer. This answer is too short and doesn't contain enough details. Also, if possible, it is preferred to cite sources to support the answer. Did you intend it to be a comment under the question? If not, please see this guide on how to write a good answer.

There is no soul in Buddhism and it is not the same mind that persists going from one life to another.
It's as if one was to light a fire from another fire, the two fires are not technically the same fire but one is a cause & requisite condition for another and in that sense they are a linked and are in a sense "a fire".
The mental truths are such as feelings, thoughts, perception, things that aren't measured in mass. These are also with a cause, this or that mentality is linked to previous development and one's mentality does not become extinguished if there are causes for it's maintenance as fuel.
Buddha taught how to remove the causes for the arising of mentality and the truth & reality of it's cessation principle.

Does a reincarnated soul have memory of their past lives?

if the body (similar to candle wax) ceases, how can a flame pass to another flame?

Not sure what that means.

The difference with the Buddhist notion of reincarnation (lit. "re-enfleshment") is that the two incarnations do not share the same mind, nor does the same mind physically travel between physical bodies. There is no notion of "the soul" in Buddhism. Instead, there is "the mind," "the body," and "the life faculty."
"The soul" is a Judeo-Christian concept. Certainly, other cultures have things in them that resemble "the soul" (such as the "po and hum" of traditional Chinese religion, or the "Ka" of ancient Egyptian religion, etc.), but when we analyse these closely we will find that they don't line up identically to the Westerly notion of "a soul." Certainly, they are theories about a part of the impermanent human being that is, in fact, immortal and ageless, but these diverse theories are not all identical and not all describing "the same thing."
Instead of related to "sin (against God)," Buddhist rebirth/reincarnation (it's all the same words in Buddhism and Buddhism natively does not differentiate between "rebirth" and "reincarnation," those both being English-specific terms) is related to "karma," both the old karma which is a burden and the new karma which will propel further births.

So if the question is presenting the correcting of sin as the purpose for reincarnation to occur, Buddhism says no, this is not the reason for reincarnation, but that reincarnation has no purpose, it just happens passively and naturally?

It happens according to karma, AFAIK.

What are some karmic circumstances for reincarnation to occur?

Taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīranti vā, bhikkhu, diṭṭhiyā sati brahmacariyavāso na hoti. If you have the view that the soul (jiva) and the body are different things, there is no living of the spiritual life. https://suttacentral.net/sn12.35/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false

What are some karmic circumstances for reincarnation to occur?

i am a bit perplexed by this statement. If there is rebirth, then there has to be something that goes from body to body. Otherwise, this is an entirely different being. I don't see why people here frequently insists that "you don't reincarnate". In my view, this is not a useful nor accurate statement. In fact there are people who remember their past lives pretty well and feel emotions / ideas of their past selves

It is the Buddha who says that the notion that one particular consciousness goes from body to body is a mistaken view. See his dialogue with Sati the Fisherman's Son.

There are some suttas providing info on this like MN 135 (quoted below), MN 136 and AN 4.85.
However, as mentioned in other answers, there is rebirth in the suttas, but no reincarnation. And certainly there is no soul or impermanent self. According to MN 38, there is no continuity of the same consciousness throughout one or more lives.
Please see this answer for an explanation.
Rebirth is only the continuation of chained conditioned processes and the continuation of suffering. We don't assign any identity or self or soul to this rebirth.
However, the rebirth-of-self view is also used as skillful means or as a tool to get unenlightened persons with self view, to instill the mindset of being ashamed of doing evil (hiri) and having a fear of doing evil (otappa). This is found in AN 5.57 and in line with the Right View with effluents or taints in MN 117.

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or
man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to
killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having
adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad
destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body,
after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the
bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human
state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way
leading to a short life: to be a killer of living beings, brutal,
bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living
beings.
"But then there is the case where a woman or man, having abandoned the
killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, and
dwells with the rod laid down, the knife laid down, scrupulous,
merciful, & sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings. Through
having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the
body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination, in the
heavenly world. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead
of reappearing in a good destination, in the heavenly world — he/she
comes to the human state, then he/she is long-lived wherever reborn.
This is the way leading to a long life: to have abandoned the killing
of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to dwell with
one's rod laid down, one's knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, &
sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings.
"There is the case where a woman or man is one who harms beings with
his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having
adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after
death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead
he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is sickly wherever
reborn. This is the way leading to sickliness: to be one who harms
beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.
"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not one who harms
beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.
Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of
the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If
instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is healthy
wherever reborn. This is the way leading to health: not to be one who
harms beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with
knives.
"There is the case, where a woman or man is ill-tempered & easily
upset; even when lightly criticized, he/she grows offended, provoked,
malicious, & resentful; shows annoyance, aversion, & bitterness.
Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of
the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation...
If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is ugly
wherever reborn. This is the way leading to ugliness: to be
ill-tempered & easily upset; even when lightly criticized, to grow
offended, provoked, malicious, & resentful; to show annoyance,
aversion, & bitterness.
"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not ill-tempered
or easily upset; even when heavily criticized, he/she doesn't grow
offended, provoked, malicious, or resentful; doesn't show annoyance,
aversion, or bitterness. Through having adopted & carried out such
actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in
a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then
he/she is beautiful wherever reborn. This is the way leading to
beauty: not to be ill-tempered or easily upset; even when heavily
criticized, not to be offended, provoked, malicious, or resentful; nor
to show annoyance, aversion, & bitterness.
"There is the case where a woman or man is envious. He/she envies,
begrudges, & broods about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence,
salutations, & veneration. Through having adopted & carried out such
actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in
the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human
state, then he/she is not influential wherever reborn. This is the way
leading to not being influential: to be envious, to envy, begrudge, &
brood about others' gains, honor, respect, reverence, salutations, &
veneration.
MN 135


text:
In my next life, can i meet him again?
Regarding reincarnation, I have a few questions:

Unfortunately, because of a big mistake and peoples' interference, I lost the love of my life to another woman almost 30 years ago, but still love him deeply. He's moved on. But I am stuck and can't stop thinking about him  every single day of my life. Can I be finally united with him in my next life?
Will my parents be the same in my next life?
I don't like to study too much in this life. Can I be what I dream of being in my next life? I would love to be a doctor, to be part of Médecins sans frontièrs and cure people for free, but in this life I didn't succeed in doing so, as my IQ was not perfect in many fields of study.
I appreciate your answer.
-Farah

I've edited some spelling and grammar in your OP. Is there anything wrong with the changes?

"You" won't have a next life. Rebirth is such that each birth is different. You'll be named so-and-so and you'll come from such-and-such a background. There's no reason it would be the same for you or who you love.
I would recommend practicing renunciation and restraint concerning thoughts about this person. They love someone else. There's nothing to be done about it.

Yes! You may be reborn in such a way that you can stay together with your life partner in future lives, if you both are in tune in conviction, virtue, generosity and discernment (wisdom).

And Nakula's mother said to the Blessed One: "Lord, ever since I as a
young girl was brought to Nakula's father [to be his wife] when he was
just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to him even
in mind, much less in body. We want to see one another not only in the
present life but also in the life to come."
[The Blessed One said:] "If both husband & wife want to see one
another not only in the present life but also in the life to come,
they should be in tune [with each other] in conviction, in tune in
virtue, in tune in generosity, and in tune in discernment. Then they
will see one another not only in the present life but also in the life
to come."
AN 4.55

We cannot predict the next birth. Coarsely, next birth is based on aspects like: kamma, chuthi chiththa, habits, behaviors, and preferences. However, when you refer the Jathaka stories you can see a pattern. We can be born among  those who near and dear to us (sometimes we can be re-born among our enemies as well). This could be because we have unfinished karma with those people.
However the situation, as a Buddhist; one cannot advice another to take a path towards re-incarnation. This is because we have little to no control of how, what or where we will be re-incarnated. And there are many things that can go wrong and one could end up spending eons in miserable and painful places. There is a story in Buddhist literature (Sorry I cannot recall the reference) that a man who had lust for a woman being re-born as a worm in her piles of excrement for thousands of lifetimes. My advice to you, learn Buddhism and attain Nirvana, the supreme bliss of them all.

From your explanation, you have been carrying this burden for more than 30 years. During this time you must have been angry and envying at his current wife. These are strong feelings that could become detriments to your path in sansara. And they could lead to many dark places in many a lifetimes in the expanse of endless time. IMHO, best option is wish them the best and move on. Be careful not to be angry or envious. Kind, and loving thoughts are the best.

There is no guarantee that your current parents will be your parents in next life. But you won't remember even if they did. So, best not to worry about such things. However, you can treat your parents well, take care of them to the best of your ability. Karma will follow you like a shadow.

If you are not enthusiastic about something in this life, chances are you could be the same in the next as well. If you didn't like to study, try to get to the bottom of its, as to 'Why don't I like like to study?'. It could be various reasons, like wrong approach, not the best subjects, or even uninteresting teachers. Alleviate these obstacles and continue your studies. It doesn't matter what your age is. The best time to change your trajectory of sansara is NOW. What you practice and form as habits in this life will be your foundation in the next. So, practicing studying and achieving success should not be put aside till the next birth.

It will be quite beneficial to you if you can learn the meaning and even chant karaniya metta sutta (a.k.a. metta sutta). Metta.

Question: At our death can we be reborn, find again the people who are dear to us, who have died and are in another life?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Yes, we can. As I explained yesterday, it’s through our kamma that we are related. The people to whom we are dear, or are dear to us: We have lots of kamma with them, so we’re likely to meet them again.

~ "The Karma of Mindfulness: The Buddha's Teachings on Sati & Kamma" https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/KarmaOfMindfulness/Section0016.html

Can i be finally united with him in my next life?
Will my parent be the same in my next life?

For people to meet again in future lives there must be conditions favorable to that coming again together. Things conducive to it are having same beliefs, same generosity, same wisdom, same virtue, similar faculties & behavior, apples don't fall far from the tree in general.
To give an example if two people behaved like dogs and cultivated that behavior successfully, they would be born in the company of dogs and probably together still because their minds incline to it and conditions are favorable.
Coming back together may occur in circumstances where conditions such as gender are changed and one may become a dog, a horse or whatnot.

I love to be a doctor be part of medecins sans frontiers and cure people for free but in this life didn't succeed as my iq was not perfect in many fields in study.

Maybe you can and maybe you can't. This again depends on how you cultivate your mind. As an example if a dog looks up to humans and imitates their good behaviors, then even the dog can attain the human state, how much more a human who imitates the behaviors of wise people.

can't stop thinking of him every single day of my life.

When we think about something it is recognized and explored as a basis for pleasure, pain or equanimity.
Thoughts associated with pleasure are pleasant and inflame the mind, nothing is as obsessive as thoughts of infatuation with the sexuality.
Whatever you give frequent attention will become the inclination of the mind as the mind adapts to work efficiently. The pathways by which thoughts travel become developed & strengthened due to frequent use.
One can think of this as sending an electric current through wires, the charge will simply follow the path of least resistance and activate those structures.
If you give attention only to a positive aspect of an idea then that perception of beauty will be given a lot of attention and it will become the dominant perspective on it, the perception of beauty will become established and the perception of drawbacks will be given little to no weight & entertainment. This person will become "intoxicated" with beauty, due to not paying mind to the unattractiveness, then will behave irrationally seeing beauty in what is essentially not worthy of such regard & pursuit.
This site has many questions about the removal of distracting thoughts and development of good mental behavior.


text:
Can i be reborn having my father again?
I lost my father when I was a kid. Can I be reborn with the same father?
I didn't know him well, as I was very young, but from people's words, he was a great man, and I'm dying to know him, to love and to feel him, and I'm dying that he can't take me down the aisle and watch me grow. Can I be with him again and fulfill my dream? Growing up and not having a father has caused me to have tons of troubles and complexes. What was this punishment for? Sometimes I think God didn't like me and I was too cruel in my life.

I've edited some of the grammar in your comment. Did I get anything wrong? Does the new version match your intentions in writing?

Your father is dead. He's currently "someone else." He's not even your father right now. He's someone else. He won't necessarily be your father in the future if he's not now.
Like Frankk pointed out, there's a possibility that you'll all stick together, but not in the ways you currently are now. For all anyone knows, you could be his father in another life.

Close Family and friends tend to rebirth into the same family and circle of friends again and again, just as those in the living world tend to like to stick to their close ones. Your father could potentially come back as a son, niece, nephew, children of close friends, a pet, etc. depending on his karma and merits.
Or if you and he both have strong positive karma, and he's in a godly realm, then humans with strong positive karma tend to have a bigger circle of friendly deities who lend a helping hand in this life. For example, family and friends of mine, and myself on occasion have experienced divine intervention preventing serious accidents. People who do lots of good attract benefactors, and seem to enjoy lots of good 'luck' in this life, and people who do lots of bad tend to have 'bad luck'. It's no accident.

A person is a concept and doesn't exist. There exists only experience.

Welcome to BSE. I wonder if you could consider adding some more meat to your answer. There's something intriguing what you have written, and I think expanding more on that would develop that intrigue into something more substantial. Please read here for more information about answering questions.

Welcome to Buddhism Stack Exchange. The system flagged this as a low quality answer. This answer is too short and doesn't contain enough details. Also, if possible, it is preferred to cite sources to support the answer. Did you intend it to be a comment under the question? If not, please see this guide on how to write a good answer.


text:
Does a reincarnated person have memory of their past lives?
Do Buddhist teachings or scripture say anywhere whether or not a reincarnated soul has memory of their past lives? Referenced passages are encouraged.

Not all people can recall their past lives. Only some small percentage can or unless one's an advanced meditator. However, it's important to notice that Buddhism doesn't really have the concept of a "soul", meaning there's a perpetual unchanging "self" entity transmigrating from life to life. So although there're rebirths where one's Kamma serves as the fuel/propellant, there's no permanent unchanging "self" associated with it. The expression "I" in the sutta excerpt below simple serves as a label to describe the new manifestation of Kamma in a new person with a new identity in a next life, not a permanent unchanging "soul":

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: 'There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.' Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details. ~~ MN 36 ~~

could you please edit the post by relating the quoted passage to your own writing in terms of "one's memory of past lives"? That is the question, kind of looking for yes or no.

Post dedited as requested.

What enables someone to recall their past lives or not?

The meditative strength in the case of advanced meditators. In the case of a small percentage of young children possessing similar capability, it's still a subject under research.

Are there real life examples or documented claims of Buddhists retelling their past lives? What are their names

Reincarnation is a natural phenomenon not only experienced by Buddhists alone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P0FIq6VyAQ  . Also see Dr. Ian Stevenson's documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWMEWubrk0

Any real case examples. What are the famous claims of reincarnation

In Buddhism the world you conceive & perceive is a world in a system of worlds.

Whatever in the world through which you perceive the world and conceive the world is called the world in the training of the Noble One. And through what in the world do you perceive the world and conceive the world?
Through the eye in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. Through the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind in the world you perceive the world and conceive the world. sn35.116

The entirety of a world is conceived & perceived by this or that nervous system and there is no conception nor perception of the world otherwise.
Each frame of reference wherein conception & perception occur is a closed system of information, no person can experience the world as another and thus no two conceived & perceived worlds are the same because their conception depends on two different instances of sensory contact.
A person's mentality such as feeling, attention & perception, are dependent on this or that physical frame of a body but this body is just a small part of a world conceived by this or that person.
As wherever you are is a "here" for you and you can be anywhere in this world you perceive whilst still being "here", the "here" changes as it persists and it is not one and the same "here" but they are all of this world. As time is always "now" and as this "now" changes as it persists, it's not the same "now" but it's in the same world which also changes as it persists.
So does there being a body, in dependence on which there is a conception & perception of this or that world in a world-system, persist while it changes in course of transmigation. Next life is simply the next world, next here, next now, next body, next mind but still in this in the very world system.
Maybe you can see that it follows that any one capable person having conceived a world, has with that conceived the entirety of formation & information of that world and can access any information without any storage of memory other than that which is that world system conceived by a mind which also which changes as it persists through transmigation until the extinguishment of that which changes as it persists for a cessation of the world.

The Blessed One said: "And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.
"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. This is the origination of the world.
"And what is the ending of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world.
"Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises ear-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises nose-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises tongue-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises body-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact... Dependent on the intellect & mental qualities there arises intellect-consciousness. The meeting of the three is contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. Now, from the remainderless cessation & fading away of that very craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering. This is the ending of the world." sn12.44

In other words whatever is grasped with wrong view as or as personal for this or that person, mental or physical, is part of nature conceived & perceived by that person and being part of nature all information about that nature is accessible right there. It is as if asking if nature's intellect can know that which can be known of nature. There is simply nothing else that can know it other than intellect which develops in that very nature and it can be grasped with wrong view to be personal or as a person.

You kind of left it open-ended. According to Buddhism, does someone re-birthed have memory of past lives, or not


text:
Mastery of skills outside the Buddhist path and desire
I have run into a mental trap about desire on the Buddhist path. I know desire is good if it is wholesome, ie say desire for enlightenment and etc. Yet what about a desire for the mastery of a skill such as being a musician or artist, and what about wanting in part that mastery for something as a career? The desire to make a enjoyable living seems ok but is it at odds especially if you want it because there is an aversion to other work that one finds disheartening and unfulfilling? Thank you.

I'd guide you toward the Hsin Hsin Ming on this:

The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent, everything becomes clear and
undisguised.  Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and
earth are set infinitely apart. If you wish to see the truth, then
hold no opinions for, or against, anything.  To set up what you like
against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.  When the deep
meaning of things is not understood, the mind's essential peace is
disturbed to no avail.
The Way is perfect, like vast space where nothing is lacking and
nothing is in excess.  Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or
reject that we do not see the true nature of things.

Now obviously, there are going to be some things that you enjoy more than others.  Unless you're the Buddha himself, there's little chance that you will meet cleaning the toilet with the same mind that sits down for tea with your friends.  But that's alright because your practice will be to meet both with the same mind.  You're allowed to prioritize.  It's the affirmation and rejection based on personal desire that's problematic.  As the Hsin Hsin Ming later goes on to say, "just let things be in their own way".  Greet sunny days and rainy days the same.

thank you for this I am not familiar with many chan masters, my focus is more Theravada, but I shall look into him more

It ultimately comes down to priorities. And different people will have their own priorities. There're only 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, so there're only limited resources to be put into mastery of a certain thing. One who places enlightenment at the top of his list, will probably have to renounce lay life to fully dedicate all his time and energy into pursuing that goal. Similarly for other mundance disciplines like musician, artist, mathematician, engineer, etc. So if you want to do both: working towards enlightenment AND mastery of a certain trade, at least set the priority level as appropriate to your current situation so that you can allocate the appropriate amounts of time/effort for each goal. At the end of the day, unless you're already a fulltime monk, it'd be quite difficult to cultivate the Path as a lay person without a job, no shelter, no food, etc. So possessing a decent skillset at a certain trade to be able to make a living is also part of the suitable and necessary conditions to enable one to cultivate the Path.

Thank you. Yes the older I get the more I consider the weight of priorities. I am a father of two girls so monasticism is out of the question for now.

Yet what about a desire for the mastery of a skill such as being a musician or artist

Such a desire is not something that will bring one closer to Nibbana - its merely a distraction rooted in greed.


text:
Why is "jīva" translated as "soul"?
SN 12.35 is translated by Bhikkhus Sujato, Bodhi & Thanissaro as follows:

Mendicant, if you have the view that the soul and the body are the same thing, there is no living of the spiritual life.
Taṁ jīvaṁ taṁ sarīranti vā, bhikkhu, diṭṭhiyā sati brahmacariyavāso na hoti.
If you have the view that the soul and the body are different things, there is no living of the spiritual life.
Aññaṁ jīvaṁ aññaṁ sarīranti vā, bhikkhu, diṭṭhiyā sati brahmacariyavāso na hoti.

Is there an explanation why the translation of "soul" is used here for "jiva"?

I think Jiva is from Proto-Slavic *živъ or Proto-Indo-European *gzih₃wós akin to the slavic root "жив" or "живость" seen in Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian and Macedonian. Transliterated as "Zhiv" it is pronounced same as [jiv] in "jiva" and translates eg "Ладно, не беспокойтесь, он ещё жив. Alright, don't worry - he's still alive."
As i understand it Jiva denotes semantic properties of being alive, the living being, the life faculty and life as element.
I don't think there can be much justification for what the translators are doing but i can see how one would be compelled to do so without regard for the semantic properties of the term "soul" being a christian notion where it is made by god eternal.
Jiva is sometimes used in a similar expression to how one would use "soul" when asking: "Do you hold that soul is something inside one's head, looking out through one's eyes as if those were windows?"
A similar expression is found in QKM using jiva instead of soul. I personally don't think one should use the term soul because it is misleading.

Jiva can mean life or life force or soul, depending on context.
In the context of SN 12.35, it refers to soul.
If the soul and body are the same, then this refers to annihilationism, because when the body is destroyed, the soul is destroyed.
If the soul and body are different, then this refers to eternalism, because when the body is destroyed, the soul continues existing.
Instead, the Buddha taught the middle, which is dependent origination.
So, the term "soul" here is not used to affirm the existence of a soul, but it is used to refer to eternalism and annihilationism.

If there is the view, ‘The soul and the body are the same,’ there is
no living of the holy life; and if there is the view, ‘The soul is one
thing, the body is another,’ there is no living of the holy life.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition,
volitional formations.’
SN 12.35 (Bodhi)

i scored the above answer down because it is unclear.

The answer is perfectly clear. Don't mark answers down just because you don't agree with them, it's childish.

"Jīva" was one of the terms used for "soul/self" by non-Buddhists. Therefore, since the Buddha very frequently addresses non-Buddhists and non-Buddhist ideas, he'll use "jīva" for "self" like they occasionally do in the Upanisads, Vedas, etc.
Here are two dictionary entries for "jīva," one from a Pali dictionary and one from a Sanskrit dictionary:

Jīva, 1 (adj. -n.) (Sk. jīva, Idg. *gǔīǔos=Gr. bi/oQ, Lat. vīvus, Goth. quius, Ohg. queck, E. quick, Lith. gyvas) 1. the soul. Sabbe jīvā all the souls, enumerated with sattā pāṇā bhūta in the dialect used by the followers of Gosāla D. I, 53 (=DA. I, 161 jīvasaññī). “taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīraṃ udāhu aññaṃ j. aññaṃ s. ” (is the body the soul, or is the body one thing and the soul another?) see D. I, 157, 188; II, 333, 336, 339; S. IV, 392 sq.; M. I, 157, 426 sq.; A. II, 41.—Also in this sense at Miln. 30, 54, 86.—Vin. IV, 34; S. III, 215, 258 sq.; IV, 286; V, 418; A. V, 31, 186, 193.—2. life, in yāvajīvaṃ as long as life lasts, for life, during (his) lifetime D. III, 133; Vin. I, 201; Dh. 64; J. II, 155; PvA. 76.

The individual or personal soul enshrined in the human body and imparting to it life, motion and sensation (called jīvātman as opposed to paramātman the Supreme Soul); Y.3.131; Ms.12.22-23; सम्पद्यते गुणैर्मुक्तो जीवो जीवं विहाय माम् । जीवो जीवविनिर्मुक्तो गुणैश्चाशयसंभवैः (sampadyate guṇairmukto jīvo jīvaṃ vihāya mām | jīvo jīvavinirmukto guṇaiścāśayasaṃbhavaiḥ) || Bhāg.11.25.36. (here jīva = liṅgaśarīra).

Jiva can mean life, living being.
The ordinary always think "long life, long being and the soul still going on even after death" but the truth is the particles and minds are arising and vanishing trillion times per second. Nothing is long life and nothing big, it's all very small and living only a moment of trillion moments per sec.
It's always be same even in the past lives and the next lives. What we should do is meditate Jhana and recall the past to see the small and fast particles and mind arising and vanishing to see the truth "what we are? nothing. Where we go? nothing go. Why it still going on? because of Karma with craving, to be again, in the past which appear before the last death, it's arising and vanishing again and again, never ending suffering".


text:
SN 12.35: why do both phrases have the same meaning?
SN 12.35 says:

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “Bhikkhu, whether one
says, ‘What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this
aging-and-death?’ or whether one says, ‘Aging-and-death is one thing,
the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’—both these
assertions are identical in meaning; they differ only in the phrasing.

Why are the following two statements identical in meaning:

What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this aging-and-death?’

‘Aging-and-death is one thing, the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’

Because they are different from each other.

Two statements, 1 & 2.
Question 1: "What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this aging-and-death?"
Answer 2: "Aging-and-death is one thing, the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another."
Question 1 presumes the state of affairs as given in Answer 2. Thus, since the statement in Answer 2 is malformed, Question 1 is malformed. How do we know that the state of affairs from Answer 2 is malformed?

"Timbarukkha, I don’t say that—with the feeling being the same as the one who feels, existing from the beginning—pleasure & pain are self-made.1 And I don’t say that—with feeling being one thing and the one who feels another, existing as the one struck by the feeling—pleasure & pain are other-made. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathāgata teaches the Dhamma via the middle..."

(SN 12.18)
The "one who feels," like the "one for whom there is aging-and-death," is contrary to dependent origination. "One who feels," in this instance is a pudgala theory, or a sattva theory: ultimately, a theory of subtle self-view.

very good. this answer sounds the same as this answer https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/46805/8157

It is a re-worked version of an earlier answer that you said wasn't an answer. I added a sutta quote. I suppose it's an answer now.

The explanation has to be read as a whole to understand the context. It's about the body-and-soul duality.
Aging-and-death is a phenomena that visibly occurs to a body.
The two phrases are really the same because they imply that there is a body to which aging-and-death visibly occurs to, and that it is experienced by a soul.
If there is a separate body and soul, then this leads to eternalism and annihilationism, as explained in this answer.
This is an invalid question to ask, because it leads to eternalism and annihilationism, which renders it impossible to pursue the path to liberation ("living the holy life") because these are wrong views.
Instead, the Buddha taught the middle, which is dependent origination. This is the right view, conducive to pursuing the path to liberation.

When he had said this, a certain bhikkhu said to the Blessed One:
“Venerable sir, what now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there
this aging-and-death?”
“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “Bhikkhu, whether one
says, ‘What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this
aging-and-death?’ or whether one says, ‘Aging-and-death is one thing,
the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’— both these
assertions are identical in meaning; they differ only in the phrasing.
If there is the view, ‘The soul and the body are the same,’ there is
no living of the holy life; and if there is the view, ‘The soul is one
thing, the body is another,’ there is no living of the holy life.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With birth as condition,
aging-and-death. ’”
SN 12.35

this answer sounds wrong. for example, MN 140 says: the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

Dependent origination defines "death" as the death of "beings in a category of beings". SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 define "a being" as strong attachment & a view. Thus as SN 5.10 says: "there is no being to be found" because "a being" is merely a thought or convention dependently arisen from ignorance.
Therefore, it appears both statements are wrong views or invalid, which is why they are the same.
SN 12.12 is similar. Questions including "for whom" are always invalid; thus always the same.


text:
SN 12.35- why is there no living the holy life?
SN 12.35 says:

“Not a valid question,” the Blessed One replied. “Bhikkhu, whether one
says, ‘What now is aging-and-death, and for whom is there this
aging-and-death?’ or whether one says, ‘Aging-and-death is one thing,
the one for whom there is this aging-and-death is another’—both these
assertions are identical in meaning; they differ only in the phrasing.
If there is the view, ‘The soul and the body are the same,’ there is
no living of the holy life; and if there is the view, ‘The soul is one
thing, the body is another,’ there is no living of the holy life.
Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata
teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With birth as condition,
aging-and-death. ’

Why is there no living the holy life when  there is the view, ‘The soul and the body are the same,’ and if there is the view, ‘The soul is one thing, the body is another’?

As long as one has wrong view, has not left home/stand, what ever ways one lifes, it's not to be regarded as living the holy life. Of course right view requires proper attention at first place, not grasping straw-men.
Not able to take on the Jīva (stand/robe of the Arahats, eg. right view, leaving home), what should/can a house/stand-maintainer expect to validate holy in his ways?
Understand? Speech and mind aren't different for one of right view. Just Ahara-hants think one way, speak in another, act different of both.

Why is there no living the holy life when there is the view, ‘The soul and the body are the same,’ and if there is the view, ‘The soul is one thing, the body is another’?

"The body" is comprised of form derived of the four elements. "The cosmos" is also derived, in traditional Buddhist thinking, of form derived of the four elements. The view "The self (or soul) and the body are the same" is the same as the view "The self and the world/cosmos are the same" that is rejected in DN 1. Furthermore, both views are self-views. View 1 states that the self is the same as form derived of the four elements. View 2 states that the self is something other than form derived of the four elements. They are both self-view.

thank u for your answer but you appear to have presented no evidence above that "jiva" refers to "self" and thus equates with the teachings in DN 1

This is from the Concise Pali-English dictionary. I've removed the jargon and will include a link to the full definition at the bottom:
"Jīva, 1. the soul. Sabbe jīvā all the souls, enumerated with sattā pāṇā bhūta in the dialect used by the followers of Gosāla D. I, 53 (=DA. I, 161 jīvasaññī). “taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīraṃ udāhu aññaṃ j. aññaṃ s. ” (is the body the soul, or is the body one thing and the soul another?)" https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/jiva#pali (Scroll down to "Pali-English dictionary" to find the rest)

sorry a dictionary is not evidence. also Gosāla was not a Buddhist, whatever Gosāla believed is irrelevant

Yes, a dictionary is evidence. This is a world-class dictionary that contains correct information in it. If you don't like the dictionary, maybe you should try to compile your own, independent of the qualified experts, and see if it's any good compared to theirs?

Dependent origination defines "death" as the death of "beings in a category of beings". SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 define "a being" as strong attachment & a view.
Therefore, it appears the ideas the life (jiva) and/or the physical body "die" are wrong views.
It appears "death" ("marana") occurs to a "self-view" born from ignorance & attachment at "jati". This is why many suttas (e.g. MN 87) refer to "the death of a mother", "a father", "a son", etc.
Therefore, it appears the matters of "jiva" ("life") & "sarīra" ("physical body") are irrelevant or invalid.
"Death" is not the ending of life or the ending of the physical body. Death is as defined as follows:

The passing away, perishing, disintegration, demise, mortality, death,
decease, breaking up of the aggregates, laying to rest of the corpse,
and cutting off of the life faculty of the various beings in
the various classes/categories/conventions of beings.

I marked this down. It is confusing "jīva" and "jīvitindriya." The usage of "jīva" here is soul/self, as substantiated in various Pali-English dictionaries.

dictionaries do not substantiate

I marked this down because you have answered your own question, a disingenuous  way of proselytising your idiosyncratic interpretations. "Laying to rest of the corpse" could not be clearer.

sorry but this forum allows answering own question

No it doesn't allow answering own question -- see here and here and here.


text:
What is the difference between sin and karma in Buddhism?
Christianity says sin is when someone does something bad. In Buddhism, people are reincarnated for karmic reasons, but they say this without reference to sin causing bad karma. Does sin preclude karma? What is the difference then between sin and karma (or what ever that causes bad karma)?

Christianity says sin is when someone does something bad.
That sounds like a circular definition. At the risk of being off-topic on this site, here is some detail.
Christian doctrine includes the concept of "sin" -- these include, for example:

Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride

And there are virtues -- perhaps (depending on the list) corresponding virtues -- for example:

In Christian tradition, the seven heavenly virtues combine the four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude with the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.
The seven capital virtues, also known as contrary or remedial virtues, are those which stand opposed to the seven deadly sins. They are often enumerated as chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, kindness, patience and humility.

In my opinion the "sins" more-or-less correspond to Buddhist Kleshas (or kilesa):

Kleshas (Sanskrit: क्लेश, romanized: kleśa; Pali: किलेस kilesa; Standard Tibetan: ཉོན་མོངས། nyon mongs), in Buddhism, are mental states that cloud the mind and manifest in unwholesome actions. Kleshas include states of mind such as anxiety, fear, anger, jealousy, desire, depression, etc. Contemporary translators use a variety of English words to translate the term kleshas, such as: afflictions, defilements, destructive emotions, disturbing emotions, negative emotions, mind poisons, neurosis etc.

The theology may be different, but the lists or identities are similar, for example:

greed,
hate,
delusion,
conceit,
wrong views,
doubt,
torpor,
restlessness,
shamelessness,
recklessness

... or ...

Attachment,
Anger,
Ignorance,
Pride/Conceit,
Doubt,
Wrong view/False view/Opinionatedness

There are Buddhist lists of virtues too.
Christianity theology doctrine talks about sins being a deliberate distancing of oneself from God.
Buddhism is different -- there is no "God" in the same way, and no "God's law". But there is the Dhamma, the teaching, which might be called natural law -- I think it's meant to be self-evident, or evident to the wise person who looks into it:

The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā: visible here and now, immediate, inviting to come and see, effective, to be individually ascertained by the wise.

In my opinion a mental state like "anger" is unfortunate -- it's unpleasant, and with unpleasant consequences all round -- based on, like, personal experience.
Christianity identifies "pride" as the original sin:

Pride (superbia) is considered the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins on almost every list. It is the most angelical or demonic out of them.[40] It is also thought to be the source of the other capital sins, known as hubris (from Ancient Greek ὕβρις) or futility. It is identified as dangerously corrupt selfishness, the putting of one's own desires, urges, wants, and whims before the welfare of other people.
In even more destructive cases, it is irrationally believing that one is essentially and necessarily better, superior, or more important than others, failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of others and excessive admiration of the personal image or self (especially forgetting one's own lack of divinity and refusing to acknowledge one's own limits, faults, or wrongs as a human being).

The Buddhist analog to this seems to be "conceit" (identified as a cause of people arguing), but the Buddhist analogs of the "original sins" are probably the three poisons and especially "ignorance".
In Buddhism, people are reincarnated for karmic reasons
One of the explanations that I've read on this site is that people are reborn from moment to moment, and that the moment of death is no different (i.e. there's rebirth after that moment too).
There's some doctrine -- which pre-dates Buddhism, so far as I know -- that "good karma" leads to a favourable rebirth ... perhaps as a high-caste human, or in a heaven ... and bad karma leads to rebirth in a lower/suffering realm, as a hungry ghost or animal or in hell.
To end rebirth I think you have to end karma -- see also Four stages of awakening
Another difference between Buddhism and Christianity is I guess that, from a Buddhist perspective, a Christian wants to be reborn in heaven and expects to then stay there for eternity. Conversely Buddhism teaches that all conditioned states are impermanent, and that includes a stay in heaven ... that eventually the kamma which led to your rebirth in heaven runs out, and then you're reborn somewhere else. This more-or-less unending cycle is called Samsara, and a Buddhist ideal is to end rebirth. Many people don't subscribe to that ideal, and consider it either undesirable or unattainable, and might aim for some rebirth in heaven (or with loved ones) instead.
What is the difference then between sin and karma (or what ever that causes bad karma)?
Simplistically, using examples:

Murdering your parents and therefore being reborn in hell seems to me an example of sin and of kamma
Giving generously to the poor, with the intention of being reborn in heaven, is NOT a "sin" but IS an example of "kamma".

This is a difficult question to answer because there's so much Buddhist doctrine. I haven't even mentioned the Pratītyasamutpāda for example, which may be key to the doctrine of how "birth" comes to be.
Keep in mind, though, the thicket of wrong views. Doctrine about rebirth and so on is attractive or perhaps scandalous, depending on your upbringing, however,

[...] Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. [...]

in buddhism there are 3 types of kamma, including mental kamma. in other words, it appears the mental sins of christianity are akin to mental kamma rather than kilesa. In Buddhism, a kilesa is not necessarily mental kamma because not all kilesa is produced by intention. For example, MN 9 includes kilesa (asava) in the 1st condition of dependent origination. Obviously this exists prior to any kamma/intention.

Oftentimes, bad karma will be from "doing something bad," but it can also be just from thinking something bad.
The difference between "sin" in Christianity and "deeds that reap bad karma" in Buddhism is that a sin, in Christianity and Islam etc., is a sin "against God." It is a transgression of a commandment from God. In Buddhism, there is no notion of a "God of Abraham," so you can't "sin against him."
Both religions believe in "good and bad deeds," but only one of them believes in "sins."

kamma means action. vipaka is what is reaped

Yes, kamma is like a natural law, whereas sin is judged by a creator God.

Sin is a transgression against divine law (Wikipedia). Bad kamma is a transgression against natural law (dhamma niyama).
For example, a word search for 'transgression' in some Buddhist scriptures brings 134 results.
Sin & bad kamma both include murder, theft, sexual misconduct, false speech, etc. They are, in essence, the same. For example, whilst being a translation, a word search for 'sin' in some Buddhist scriptures brings 251 results.
In Buddhism, Christianity & Islam, engaging in sin or bad kamma leads to 'hell'. For example, a word search for 'hell' in some Buddhist scriptures brings 609 results. A word search for 'hell' in the Bible brings 15 results. A word search for 'hell' in the Quran brings 110 results.


text:
Can a layperson/householder live the 'Holy Life'?
I read the following (here) on the internet:

Not able to take on the Jīva (stand/robe of the Arahats, eg. right view, leaving home), what should/can a house/stand-maintainer expect to validate holy in his ways?

The Pali suttas say:

And what, bhikkhus, are the fruits of the holy life? The fruit of
stream-entry, the fruit of once-returning, the fruit of nonreturning,
the fruit of arahantship. These are called the fruits of the holy
life. SN 45.39

The Pali suttas also refer to householders reaching stream-entry, once-returning & non-returning.
Therefore, can a layperson/householder live the Holy Life (Brahmacariya) according to the Lord Buddha?

One can to an extent;

"And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. It is through this line of reasoning that one may know how admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life."SN45.2

“There is not any householder, Vaccha, who, not getting rid of the householder's fetter(s), at the breaking up of the body is an end-maker of ill.” MN71

But has the good Gotama even one layfollower who is a disciple, a householder clothed in white, a Brahma-farer who, by the utter destruction of the five fetters binding to this lower (shore) is of spontaneous uprising, one who has attained nibbāna there and is not liable to return from that world?” “Not merely a hundred, Vaccha, nor two, three, four or five hundred, but far more are those layfollowers, disciples of mine, householders clothed in white, Brahma-farers (brahmacārino), who by the utter destruction of the five fetters binding to this lower (shore), are of spontaneous uprising, those who have attained nibbāna there and are not liable to return from that world.”
But has the good Gotama even one layfollower who is a disciple, a householder clothed in white, and who, (though) an enjoyer of sense-pleasures, is a doer of the instruction, one who accepts the exhortation, who has crossed over doubt and, perplexity gone, fares in the Teacher's instruction, won to conviction, not relying on others?” “Not merely a hundred, Vaccha, nor two, three, four or five hundred, but far more are these layfollowers, disciples of mine, householders clothed in white, and who, (though) enjoyers of sense-pleasures are doers of the instruction, those who accept the exhortation, who have crossed over doubt and, perplexity gone, fare in the Teacher's instruction, won to conviction, not relying on others.”
But has the good Gotama even one woman layfollower who is a disciple, a householder clothed in white, a Brahma-farer who, by the utter destruction of the five fetters binding to this lower (shore), is of spontaneous uprising, one who has attained nibbāna there and is not liable to return from that world?” “Not merely a hundred, Vaccha, nor two, three, four or five hundred, but many more are those women layfollowers, disciples of mine, householders clothed in white, Brahma-farers who, by the utter destruction of the five fetters binding to this lower (shore), are of spontaneous uprising, those who have attained nibbāna there and are not liable to return from that world.”
But has the good Gotama even one woman layfollower who is a disciple, a householder clothed in white, and who, (though) an enjoyer of sense-pleasures, is a doer of the instruction, one who accepts the exhortation, who has crossed over doubt and, perplexity gone, fares in the Teacher's instruction, won to conviction, not relying on others?” “Not merely a hundred, Vaccha, nor two, three, four or five hundred, but many more are those women layfollowers, disciples of mine, householders clothed in white, and who, (though) enjoyers of sense-pleasures, are doers of the instruction, those who accept the exhortation, who have crossed over doubt and, perplexity gone, fare in the Teacher's instruction, won to conviction, not relying on others.” mn73

thank you for this answer, which appears well reasoned & substantiated. I learned a lot from it.

According to this answer and its references I decided that, when the word "holy life" is used in the suttas, it's used to mean "a monk's life" or "life spent in fellowship with other monks" ... which means keep the rules of the Vinaya.
Saying that "stream-entry is consequent to the holy life" plus "laypeople can enter the stream" doesn't change that definition, doesn't logically contradict it. And the full quote from SN 45.39 mentions arahants also.
I don't know where Anagarika might fit in that definition (who, according to Wikipedia, "are full-time residents at the vihara where they ordained") -- I don't know that they're mentioned in the suttas at all.
As for the final question, refer to SN 45.2 -- it was addressed to Ananda (a monk).
I think that's how the word is used, in the suttas.

interesting answer but it appears not substantiated enough. In other words, it precludes a puthujjana monk being instructed by a Noble layperson. In other words, the answer says a Noble layperson cannot be a spiritual friend to a monk. This seems against the spirit of the Buddha-Dhamma and more in line with Brahmanism or Pharisee-ism

also, there is an impression this answer equates Brahmacariya with celibacy. If so, a layperson can be celibate.

I'm not saying they can't be celibate. What I did say, in the last paragraph of this answer, was that in SN 45.8 the definition of "right action" is to avoid three activities, which in fact correspond to the three parajika offenses, and which uses the word abrahmacariyā. It's that which got me to understand that what's translated "the holy life" i.e. brahmacariyaṁ is presumably equated with (or a synonym of) monastic life, with the Vinaya and so on.

To a certain extent, yes.
The practice of meditation and attainment of jhana is also recommended to lay followers, as seen below.

Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay
followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down
to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said
to him, “Householder, you have provided the community of monks with
robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick, but
you shouldn’t rest content with the thought, ‘We have provided the
community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal
requisites for the sick.’ So you should train yourself, ‘Let’s
periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.’ That’s how you
should train yourself.”
AN 5.176

Lay followers can attain stream entry and higher levels of jhana. An example is Citta.

“But how is a wise lay follower defined?”
“It’s when a lay follower is wise. They have the wisdom of arising and
passing away which is noble, penetrative, and leads to the complete
ending of suffering. Then they’re considered to be a wise lay
follower.”
SN 55.37

Citta is a famous lay householder who has even taught monks, for example, in SN 41.1, SN 41.5 and SN 41.7.
The monks he taught, stated:

“You’re fortunate, householder, so very fortunate, to traverse the
Buddha’s deep teachings with the eye of wisdom.”
SN 41.1

In SN 41.8, he states that he has achieved mastery of the fourth rupa jhana.
SN 41, called Cittavagga, contains 10 suttas dedicated to the life of Citta.
Finally, a lay follower can even attain arahantship, but most likely only on their deathbed.

If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ they should say: ‘Good sir, the
Brahmā realm is impermanent, not lasting, and included within
identity. It would be good to turn your mind away from the Brahmā
realm and apply it to the cessation of identity.’
If they reply, ‘I have done so,’ then there is no difference between a
lay follower whose mind is freed in this way and a mendicant whose
mind is freed from defilements; that is, between the freedom of one
and the other.”
SN 55.54

While the lay follower is holding to a house, he cannot attain arahantship.

i scored this post up because Citta reminds me of my good wise self. However, the interpretation of SN 55.54 sounds questionable. You appear to think only an Arahant is free from defilements.

@StopObama-BidenStopWar Only an Arahant is completely free of defilements, fetters, effluents.

yes. but the sutta doesn't include the word "completely" or "uprooted". A stream-enterer when practicing can be free from defilements. You appear lost in "theory"

MN 36 says "It isn’t easy, living in a home, to practice the holy life totally perfect"

Before my self-awakening, when I was still just an unawakened
bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: ‘Household life is confining,
a dusty path. Life gone forth is the open air. It isn’t easy, living
in a home, to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, a
polished shell. What if I, having shaved off my hair & beard and
putting on the ochre robe, were to go forth from the household life
into homelessness?’
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN36.html

Seldom there are those gifted who:

not only arrive at right view
give up holding on right
follow goodwill for all beings in thought, words and deeds
living on what is given
having right resolve and
no more eager after sakkāyadiṭṭhi
holding together and maintain stand, house and group-identifications
having left useless politics and the eight worldly Dhammas behind
maintaining the Uposatha all day and night...

Yet, others go direct for the fruits of the higher life
And those without faith, Saddha, not willing to surrender... seek for standumaintaining answers on BSE under the other lefties, not wiling to go on right, pervert war outwardly over [in preference to] real and fruitful battle to get the arrow of delusion and craving out of the heart.


text:
Hate myself more and more wish to die
Shall I be reborn as a girl again?  I've had a rough life, gotten a CVA (Cerebrovascular Accident) recently, and am now half-paralyzed.  I feel tired of living. I guess God forgot me, given all this suffering that I've faced during this horrible life.

Many people who've experienced death and return promise us that this life is worth it however much the pain.  Here is one such (hope it helps you!!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Euxh4Zgjc. I believe even the Buddha said something to the effect that "For Nirvana the body is needed"

I'm very sorry that you're having to go through recovering from a CVA. Please keep up hope and pull through. If you can, I hope that you can make use of the Dharma to help you in your recovery. I've edited some of the spelling and grammar in your post. If any changes that I've made are contrary to what you intended, please advise, and we can change them back.

It's very seldom to gain a human life and as one only here is able to work ones way out of the circle of life, one shouldn't waste such seldom possibility, good householder.
It's not for one's misfortune to get early known the first Noble truth. All others around are caught in the same misery, but are just not aware yet. So may good householder eager strive to comprehend also the other three Truths to spend most blessed life and go beyond the wheel of birth, aging, sickness, death.
Don't seek for unification as it would break apart either. It's good to gain the Gems as one's refuge. It's a matter of honore onejs old merits that allowed to arrive right here and a matter of loving one self truly that one developes liberation gratitude and gain the deathless, no more subject to birth.
The first step is becoming a god by oneself by developing goodwill, compassion, sympatic joy and equanimity toward all beings, being actually in such position, one should not seek to act like a poor, demanding all around, but see that all gained had been given by others and caused them pain, sometimes liberal, often even forced. What one gives, one gains. So start to give, goodwill and acting on it.

You should keep on living, sorry. I have to deal with what my karma has to deal me as well. This is me now. Live forever! I am, I have no legs. I know that is nothing compared to a stroke. But you should stay strong and live on! Life is too precious you must live on Please!!!!

We do not have absolute control over our next birth. But that doesn't mean we cannot affect it.
Buddhists view each human life as a blessing that they received. In numerous occasions Lord Budhdha has taught us that a birth in this plane (Human) is an extremely rare thing and we should do our utmost to make the most of it.
How can you consider yourself unfortunate when you are born as a Human with capability to hear, discuss and understand Dhamma in an era where Dhamma still survives? That in itself is a huge blessing, only a very few gets to enjoy. And having the capability and platform to discuss Dhamma with someone who live half way around the globe, and having the capability to listen to a Dhamma sermon uttered on the other side of the world, hand having the means to listen to it over and over again at the click of a button. All these are huge blessings only a very few enjoy. So, first understand that despite the hardships you have faced, you are extremely lucky. Those hardships have brought you to this moment, this conversation... sometimes life slaps us so hard we just fall down and knocks good sense into us.
Like the saying goes - "When life gives you lemons, make Lemonade".
Few stories for inspiration:

This boy was paralyzed and bedridden but he managed to write books with the few fingers he could still control
He is a famous motivational speaker despite his birth difficulties

I went through a lot of emotional abuse due to my marriage and even considered suicide a couple of times which made me find, learn and follow Buddhism. Looking back it was the turning point of my life. And even if I get another chance, I would not change anything, as it has brought me to the peace I experience due to Dhamma. During those tough times the best rock to lean on is Dhamma. Because Dhamma will not fail you as long as you are honest to your-self. Dhamma does not judge you for things you did in the past. Even though Karma will follow you like a cart that follows the oxen, with the help of Dhamma you can play tricks and get away in the short term.
To arrive at a lasting peace we need to commit ourselves to attaining Nibbana, one step at a time. As Lord Budhdha taught us, Sunatha (Listen/Study carefully), Dharetha (Remember/Understand intently), Charatha (Practice) Dhamma. And you can turn your fate around. You can twist your misfortune into a fortune that would accrue good fortune for the rest of your sansara (the endless cycles of life). Please read my answer here on explanation of the paths towards Nirvana (the supreme bliss). IMHO, the best option is to target for Sothapanna (Stream-enterer) state in Sharawaka bodhi.
Remember, A Lotus flower in bloom will be clean and pure, and it will smell nice, but it was born in the murky depths of muddy and dark water. Could it have bloomed without the mud or murky water? No. It needs that murky, muddy water to bloom. But the Lotus flower never carries the dirt, mud or smell. Everyone has the power to turn their fate and be the lotus flower. I know and trust that you do too.