text:
When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" thing that is born and dies what do they mean?
When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies what do they mean: do they mean that conventional desginators like "I" only refer to different concrete things (a baby, an old man) but they also mean something different?
Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man?

“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is the same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way?

Hope I haven't misread it! He then goes on to describe dependent origination.

Which sutta[s] is this question asking about?

i'll find the quote @Dhammadhatu Chris

i can't find it @ChrisW :( someone must know...

Why not asking the Ven. Author? He could be even called.

When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies

The words "birth" ("jati") and "death" ("marana') are defined in SN 12.2 as producing or imputing the idea of "a being" ("satta") upon the manifestations or changing appearances of the aggregates.
What is important to understand is not so much the aggregates but how ideas of 'self', 'persons' or 'beings' are imputed upon the aggregates.
For example, when you see "my mother", "my father", "my wife", "my friend", "my enemy", "my favourite pop star", etc; and Arahant, in the same situation, sees only aggregates, elements and sense objects.

Specifically: can we say, conventionally or otherwise, that the old man or the baby have aged, or that the baby grew up into an old man?

Convention is different than ultimate truth. In ultimate truth, only aggregates change & cease. This is why there are so many suttas that says an arahant is not born, does not age, does not die (example, MN 140; SN 22.85; etc).
When there is no idea or view of a "self", "person" or "being", the ideas of birth & death do not arise.

This topic is analyzed a hundred times over in all schools. For example, in The Questions of King Milinda:

The king said: ‘He who is born, Nāgasena, does he remain the same or become another?’
[Nagasena:] ‘Neither the same nor another.’
[King:] ‘Give me an illustration.’
[N] ‘Now what do you think, O king? You were once a baby, a tender thing, and small in size, lying flat on your back. Was that the same as you who are now grown up?’
[K] ‘No. That child was one, I am another.’
[N] ‘If you are not that child, it will follow that you have had neither mother nor father, no! nor teacher. You cannot have been taught either learning, or behaviour, or wisdom. What, great king! is the mother of the embryo in the first stage different from the mother of the embryo in the second stage, or the third, or the fourth ? Is the mother of the baby a different person from the mother of the grown-up man? Is the person who goes to school one, and the same when he has finished his schooling another? Is it one who commits a crime, another who is punished by having his hands or feet cut off ?’
[K] ‘Certainly not. But what would you, Sir, say to that? ’
The Elder replied: ‘Neither I am what is now the grown up, nor was I what was the tender tiny baby, flat on its back. But all these are tied in one by means of this body.’
[K] ‘Give me an illustration.’
[N] ‘Suppose a man, O king, were to light a lamp, would it burn the night through?’
[K] ‘Yes, it might do so.’
[N] ‘Now, is it the same flame that burns in the first watch of the night, and in the second?’
[K] ‘No.’
[N] ‘Or the same that burns in the second watch and in the third?’
[K] ‘No.’
[N] ‘Then is there one lamp in the first watch, and another in the second, and another in the third?’
[K] ‘No Sir. But thanks to that lamp the light shined all the night through.’
[Nagasena:] ‘Just so, O king, does the continuity of dharmas connect. One emerges, another dissolves, connecting as it were without [a clear boundary between] the previous and the next, thus the former-consciousness and the next-consciousness cannot be categorized as either the same nor as different.’

This is then analyzed fabulously in all conceivable details by Nagarjuna in his Mulamadhyamakakarika. Basically, the idea here is that reality is not as discrete as the mind would like to believe. Things morph and develop continuously, rather like drifting clouds which only temporarily take certain recognizable shapes and are strictly speaking never the same nor are not themselves at any given point in time.
Strictly speaking, things and people don't have an immutable "core" or an atomic identity that would move through time from one moment to another. Each consequtive state of things develops from previous state through morphing, moving, and interacting - but the idea that it's still the same entity is imputed by us, it's not there.
Another traditional simile, also used in Milindapanha, is that of the milk produce cycle. As milk goes sour, then becomes butter, then ghee - does it retain its identity or not? The Buddhist answer is that the identity is an imputation of the mind. To anyone interested in Western perspective on this, I recommend a short work called "Hierarchy Theory" by Valerie Ahl and T. F. H. Allen.

I think I agree with Samana Johann's answer, i.e. "conventionally" you give a name to a person, and say that, "the person named so-and-so was born in such a year, took their retirement 65 years later, and died in some other such a year."
Buddhism warns against having self-view, including e.g. "I am this body" or "this is my house". I think it gives at several reasons for that:

SN 22.59 says something like, "the body is impermanent and you don't control it, so it's unworthy to be described as self"
MN 22 says that sorrow etc arise from assuming any self-theory
I think that later doctrines point out that things (everything), including anything like "body" etc. which you might be tempted to identify as "self", are "empty" instead of being (here I forget what term they use, but something like) "real" or "genuine" or "genuinely existent".

Nevertheless it's conventional to use "I" sometimes. "I" is the first word in this answer for example, for what that's worth, I often use it on this site to avoid speaking in a "this is the word of God" mode, i.e. to avoid e.g. making assertions such as, "Samana Johann's answer is correct", when I don't want to be that black-and-white about it. I also use words like "perhaps".
The parable of the chariot as explained to king Milinda says explicitly that such a thing as a named person is a "convention".
Buddhist doctrine describes or mentions the 5 skandhas and the 12 nidanas, and I think that's to explain what "really" exists instead of what people conventionally use to be self, e.g., "there isn't really 'me', instead what there really are are 5 skandhas, etc.", but I think those too are 'conventional' and empty.
SN 5.10 is maybe the earliest instance of the chariot allegory.
Then  there's a doctrine of kamma ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions") possibly to explain how past, present, and future are inter-related (the doctrine of the 12 nidanas is another description of that), but I think it does that without claiming that there's any identical or constant or eternal self.
When the Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" bundle of psycho-physical properties that is born and dies
Perhaps, if they did say such a thing, they might be saying something like that anything is dependently originated -- it exists because the conditions for its existence exist. And that the conditions at one time are different from the conditions at another time.
A baby exists depending on its parent, an old man doesn't, so baby and old man aren't the same.
That's true of the body but also true of perceptions, they're impermanent. Furthermore each perception is impermanent -- it doesn't exist, then it exists, then it doesn't exist, and then a different perception exists instead -- so it's not the same perception.
You might call it "a different bundle" in the same way that "grandfather's axe" or the "ship of theseus" isn't the same, though I don't know if that's Buddhist.

I read it as a reference to anicca/impermanence. Concepts like "baby" or "old man" deceives us to believe that skandhas that makes up for our existence are constant over time.

The five aggregates are form or matter, feelings or sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness.
All of these are constantly changing, depending on conditions. None of it stays the same. Also, none of them are independent. All the five aggregates arise and fall dependent on conditions.
So, what stays the same? The self?
From the Vina Sutta, we find that when different parts of a musical instrument work together, music is created. Music exists for sure, but it does not exist standalone from different parts of the musical instrument. If you break down the musical instrument into its constituent parts, you cannot find music.
Similarly with the five aggregates and the self. When the five aggregates work together, you can find the self appearing. But if you break them down to pieces and examine them carefully, there is no self in the constituent parts.
Even the self that appears when the five aggregates work together is not the same and changes.
The self is basically a mental idea, a constant fundamental identity that we give ourselves.
In the sutta quote below from SN 12.61, we find that the Buddha says it is better for an uninstructed worldling to consider the body as his self, because he can see that it is impermanent - it arises, changes and passes away.
However, mind and consciousness are always changing from moment to moment. The uninstructed worldling may cling to the idea of a self being his consciousness or mind, that he cannot easily see arising and passing away, as he would, his body.
From SN 12.61:

“Bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion
  towards this body composed of the four great elements; he might become
  dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it. For what reason?
  Because growth and decline is seen in this body composed of the four
  great elements, it is seen being taken up and laid aside. Therefore
  the uninstructed worldling might experience revulsion towards this
  body composed of the four great elements; he might become
  dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.
“But, bhikkhus, as to that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and
  ‘consciousness’ —the uninstructed worldling is unable to experience
  revulsion towards it, unable to become dispassionate towards it and be
  liberated from it. For what reason? Because for a long time this has
  been held to by him, appropriated, and grasped thus: ‘This is mine,
  this I am, this is my self.’ Therefore the uninstructed worldling is
  unable to experience revulsion towards it, unable to become
  dispassionate towards it and be liberated from it.
“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take
  as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the
  mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great
  elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three,
  four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years,
  for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’
  and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
  another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest
  grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets
  that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’
  and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as
  another by day and by night.

The Pali Suttas don't say that ("Pali suttas say that it is not the "same" person who is born and dies"), actually. So the question is not valid, corrupt.
If asked of what the Buddha said, the Suttas tell:

"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. ...The Burden

i don't understand how this is an answer

No one can help you to gain understanding. One just sees what one likes to see.

@user3293056 I think this answer contradicts the premise of the question. The question says, "The Pali suttas say that it is not the same person who etc." -- and this answer contradicts that, it says, "The Pali suttas say that the 'person' (to which or to whom people give a personal name) IS the 'carrier of the burden' (i.e. which carries 'the burden' from birth to death)". This is so (i.e. there is a sutta which says this), and if the question doesn't reference any (other) specific sutta then it's difficult to say that this answer is off-topic (i.e. isn't the same topic as the question).


text:
Is there any forwarding benefit to ask equal?
Or is it just to maintain ones home, dwelling, without any fruits toward liberation?
Given one is in debt, is it wise to seek advices by those in debts or wouln't it be smarter to ask those having left this state?

It depends on the question.
There are people who understand the canon better than I do and who can help me to read and understand it, so it makes sense to ask that sort of question.
Also there are people who have experience of different teachers, doctrines, and/or practices, perhaps it makes sense to ask about that kind of experience too.
So maybe you're right, i.e. "no, it doesn't make sense to ask an equal -- instead it makes more sense to ask people who know better, or who know different".
See also what this answer says about "conceit", though, i.e. beware of thinking that one is "equal" etc.

What does that mean in regard of liberation, thought one might search for such interested in Dhamma?

Any teacher knows that the best way to improve your understanding of a topic you think to have mastered is to try to teach it to someone else. Only then, through your student, you will see where your own lack of understanding lies.
No one is at the same level in the same topics as you are in the path. No one understands the same topics the same way as you do. No one faces the exact same struggles as you do.
Just exchanging ideas among equals, with periodic access to a more advanced teacher or source to answer and explore your doubts, is perhaps the best and easiest way to advance.

The teacher must have the following qualifications according to the Udayi Sutta. There are no requirements here towards being enlightened.

"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
  within the person teaching. Which five?
"(1) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  step-by-step.'
"(2) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"(3) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out
  of compassion.'
"(4) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
  for the purpose of material reward.'
"(5) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  without hurting myself or others.' (see Note)
"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when these five qualities are
  established within the person teaching."
Note:
  According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself.
  "Hurting others" means putting other people down.

It is a good question Samana Johann…. Given that one is in ‘samsaric’ debt, it is wise to seek advice from those having left this state.  This is about the bondages and attachments that we keep making towards other living beings and other.  Our lives and existence are based on constantly getting into debt and then paying off debts. When we get into debt, the nature keeps track of that via kammic energy. We are reborn to pay debts. This is another way of looking at the cycle of rebirths. If one is not aware of this fact, during a given lifetime, only a little debt is paid off, but a lot more gets added.  We become indebted to other living beings or to the “world as a whole” as a result.
One who walks this Noble Eightfold Path has to make sure to relieve oneself of this bondage. Otherwise one cannot go far in this Path. In this beginning-less sansara, we have been indebted to unbelievably many beings. Thus, we have to know how to properly transfer the merits that we’ve accumulated to all beings.  Also, whenever we have done something harmful to another being in this beginning-less sansara, we have become indebted to that being, unless we start seeking forgiveness from such. One needs to do this with sincerity, truly understanding the suffering caused by one’s actions to others.
Then there’s this other aspect, where others become indebted to you because of the good deeds that you have done in this beginning-less sansara to other. So you should know how to free others from this indebtedness to you, so that you become free from ALL bondages (the state of being bound) if you are to walk this Noble Eightfold Path.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Desperate for help about intent and my fears
I am hoping for help as I’m feeling really horrible right now. I’m not a Buddhist but I have OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) that is focussed on religion. I am sorry for such a long post but I don’t know how else to explain this.
My main fears have always revolved around being the worst person and committing unforgivable sins. When I learned about the unforgivable sin in Christianity I became absolutely ruined with fear of committing it. I do not want to commit it but my OCD drove me insane with this. I am now having these same issues with Buddhism. I think despite not being Buddhist, my fear is that it could be true and I don’t want to do the worst sins.
I have to say this since my fear is about it:
I do not want anyone to die no matter what. Please do not kill anyone no matter what.
My fear is the five cardinal sins/heinous crimes. I keep getting thoughts about this all the time and I don’t want them. I am scared because I will get thoughts about for example killing my father and I absolutely do not want that but the thought worries me so much. What is now making things so much worse is I feel like when I have a thought I am saying things out loud/whispering them by moving my lips. I don’t think I am but I keep thinking what if I am? So I have thoughts like “kill my father” and I fear I am mumbling this and someone will see me doing this and then they will kill my father. This makes me feel like it’s because of me that they killed them. Like I contributed to them dying. But I have no intention for them to die. It’s gotten to the point this happens constantly and I try to cover my mouth everywhere, I am constantly having to say “Do not kill” after every bad thought I have. I feel like my head will explode.
I think in Buddhism it is the intention behind an action that would result in karma. So I tell myself I have no intention to cause harm to my father but when I get these thoughts and feel like maybe I said something like “don’t do X or else kill father” but I want to do X so I try to counter this/cancel it out by thinking/saying “I have to do X or else kill father” but then maybe I cannot do X or don’t want to do X anymore (X can be something as simple as drinking milk) so now I feel like I CHOSE to say that and am willfully going against it so then I am responsible for someone killing my father even though I don’t intend for any harm to my father. I hope this makes sense I am so sorry it’s difficult to explain this.
I am also having the same fear about the heinous crime of killing an Arhat and I DO NOT want to kill them and have no intention for them to die.
I am hoping you can help me in:
-   Would I be committing these heinous crimes/sins if I don’t have any intention to kill/cause harm? Even if I willfully think something/say something and someone kills because of it – I don’t have intention to kill and in my heart I don’t want to hurt anyone.
-   Is my intention what counts? It’s what I am telling myself “I don’t intend for anything bad to happen”
Thank you for reading all this I really just don’t want any of this to happen. I don’t want these thoughts and I don’t want to cause harm to anyone. I would be very grateful if anyone can help me.

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

Both Buddhism and Christianity teach an infinitely forgiving doctrine. The latter has often been misrepresented as being all about hellfire and damnation but this is medieval fear-mongering. If you can handle a difficult book I'd recommend  'A Course in Miracles' (googleable). This talks at length about love, forgiveness and the overcoming of fear. It states that Jesus (like Buddha) teaches a doctrine of sinlessnesss. If you can get a grip on the idea of sinlessness you might find it easier to relax. All you can do is your best.

i have same ocd and fear and in covid times i have had smoked ciggerette in open and also sometimes not used masks, which created doubt that due to me life of my parents came under danger.
Do you have similar thoughts too??

"Would I be committing these heinous crimes/sins if I don’t have any intention to kill/cause harm? Even if I willfully think something/say something and someone kills because of it – I don’t have intention to kill and in my heart I don’t want to hurt anyone. - Is my intention what counts? It’s what I am telling myself “I don’t intend for anything bad to happen."

In Buddhism, it's the intention behind an action that counts. It's the intention that's "kamma-potent" and what causes future effects to take place.
Harming or killing another living being can only happen with an impure mind, i.e. a mind that acts with intentions of anger, hatred, ill-will.
If your intention is wholesome, i.e. based in renunciation, good-will, harmlessness and a sincere and honest wish to help other beings, then only wholesome future resultants will take place.
Please read about "Right Intention (Samma Sankappa)", p. 26 in "The Noble Eightfold Path", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi and the Twin Verses about "Intention", p. 58, in The Illustrated Dhammapada.

"...I have OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) that is focussed on religion..."

Are you in any medical or therapeutical treatment? If not, you might want to see a therapist regarding the OCD.

Sadhu for elaborating, extending

Thanks for your trust for opening yourself to us.
Although this is a Buddhist forum, I'd like to speak not so much as a buddhist, but as a human being.
Obssesions can be difficult to be dealt with. I know that because I've been there too. But there is, most of the time, a peaceful and gradual ways to overcome such problems.
A few years ago, I went through the hardest phase of my life: I suffered from severe depression, and stayed home, away from friends, school and jobs for almost three years. Suicidal thoughts came constantly though my mind. I couldn't see any escape from that mindstate.
My parents suggested and encourage me to go to psychotherapy. At first, I didn't want to go, mainly because of my prejudices towards that kind of treatments. But I had nothing to lose, and I went ready to open myself to anyone able to help me. And believe, that "little" step was one of the best decisions of my life. It helped me to start to see life from a different perspective. Since that professional was someone outside my circle of close friends and relatives, she could see things that everyone else could not, and she wasn't afraid of telling me those things. It was just after a while, almost a year and a half after starting my treatment, that I became acquainted with buddhism, and it was for the best, because it was just now that I was receptive enough to understand the Buddha's teachings.
Buddhism can offer a lot to anyone disposed to open themselves to view reality from different eyes. Buddhism is not about optimism nor about pessimism; the Dhamma is about realism, about seeing things for what they are, even if they seem unconfortable at first glance. And maybe a good way to start on this path is to give yourself a chance for helping youlself and to ask for help. And you can combine that medical help and knowledge with the Buddha's teachings. Those two perspective should not be necessarily mutually exclusive.
Psychotherapy can help you to solve problems from your past, and Buddhism can offer you strategies and tools for attending the present (present thoughts, emotions, feelings, sensations, ideas, etc.) in a skillful way. This two approaches can help you to transform your mind into your ally.
This worked for me, and it could work for more people as well. My advice is this: give yourself an opportunity for seeing this kind of options. What can you lose?
And if we can help you with something else, just write your questions over here.
Kind regards!

Good to seek for friend, Sadhu: (3) "In four ways, young householder, should one who gives good counsel be understood as a warm-hearted friend:
(i) he restrains one from doing evil,
(ii) he encourages one to do good,
(iii) he informs one of what is unknown to oneself,
(iv) he points out the path to heaven. http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara_en.html

Thank you for these words. Is it ok if I ask do you think if I do not intend anything bad in my heart that is what matters?

Sorry one more question, do you think I need to always counter the bad things or is that I don't intend/want anything bad to happen enough? Thank you

@jj5828 Hi again! Don't apologize for asking these things. We're here for that very reason. The first step is to be mindful of your intentions, because they are fuel for your actions. But sometimes we do unskillful deeds even with the best intentions. If unwholesome thoughts arise, recognize them, without trying to supress them by force or negate them. If they are there, the wisest thing to do is to know what to do with them (with your thoughts). Maybe you can let them go, while trying to not to feel guilty.

@jj5828 Once you have paid attention to your thoughts and emotions, and once you let them go, you can start to analyse the cause of such ideas. If you find them, accept those causes, and look for measures to cultivate thoughts of compassion, both for yourself and for the people around you. Take one step at a time, and don't be so harsh on yourself. The process for achieving peace of mind can be gradual and progressive, so be happy with every step you give.

@jj5828 Intentions, as I said, are the fuel for our actions. But from a single kind of intention, there are infinite courses/possibilities for action. You have to look for the most skillful ways to act, in benefit of your own mind and in benefit of other. And that skill can be developed with patience and reflexion. And the 5 precepts can be a good point to start. Be nice to yourself, and ask for help when needed. I wish you the best for your life. Kind regards!

@jj5828 I want to share with you five Dhamma talks that helped me through my way of overcoming my fears, traumas and obsessions. I hope you can take something useful from them. They are long, it's good to take your time when hearing this talks. Patience is key to develop a healthy mind. https://youtu.be/fixvb3s25Uk https://youtu.be/e7rFsrdtMM8 https://youtu.be/USC5MJVZLy8 https://youtu.be/eu0RtEG6V4A https://youtu.be/hLvU7ppM4vE

@Brian Díaz Flores Wow thank you. I am getting a better understanding now. I am sorry for being annoying but I think I am in distress because of the intentions part since that is what I am scared of. May I ask you to answer this if you want to:
Is it correct that intentions are what matter and if my intentions are not bad then there will not be bad karma?
Thank you again.

@jj5828 Based in my very limited understanding and interpretation of the buddhist concept of kamma, I'd say yes: if you don't have unwholesome intentions, there would be no dark kamma. But there's something else to keep in mind: kamma (volitional actions) and its vipaka (results and consequences) can should be mainly observed considering its effects on our own minds. If an actions is done with unwholesome intentions, those intentions will be strengthen and more internalized in our minds, and so, the conditions for suffering will keep existing, maybe even more ingrained that before acting.

@jj5828 To clean and remove our kamma means to eradicate our unwholesome habitual tendencies in order to stop sustaining the conditions for more future suffering. In modern terms, doing skillful deeds with wholesome underlying intentions will gradually "rewire" your brain and behavior, and you will start to change the way you react towards the stimuli from the outside world and the inside (thoughts, memories, emotions, ideas, etc.) You become more equaninous towards the vicissitudes of life.

@jj5828 I'm sorry for bombarding you with more and more information, but these resources have really helped me along the way. Here are two more short videos about these topics, but seen from a secular (modern) perspective. The first one is about kamma, and the second about the cultivation of the "divine abodes", which include loving-kindness and equaninity: https://youtu.be/oN5292K60yc https://youtu.be/LMS37DNxG2A Kind regards!

Two answers.

First, according to Buddhism, yes: your intention matters. And it's good to have no intention to kill.
Any careful person will ordinarily try not to cause serious accidents, but that is not quite the same thing as intentional killing.
Apart from "intention" another bit of Buddhist doctrine talks about "remorse" -- e.g. if you are angry and hurt someone on purpose (because you're angry) then you might feel remorse (i.e. regret your action) afterwards. An ideal is to be well-behaved or ethical, to maintain non-anger, to maintain compassion not ill-will (for others), so that you don't feel remorse.
Even if someone dies (which people do eventually, for one reason or another), it might help to be able to tell yourself, "I didn't intend for that to happen, I didn't do something with the intention of harming them, and so I have no cause for remorse".
Another bit of Buddhist doctrine is about "attention" or being "heedful", i.e. what do you pay attention to, and e.g. whether you're attend to thoughts which cause suffering (for yourself or others), or to thoughts which lead away from suffering.

Secondly if I Google ocd harm I find for example an article Living with Harm OCD which says, among other things

Harm OCD is a common subset of OCD in which sufferers are constantly worried about causing harm to others.

... and the following are said to be "misconceptions" i.e. untrue ...

Having these thoughts is a reflection of your character and moral compass.
Someone with Harm OCD is more likely to act on their thoughts than a non-sufferer.

Anyway I hope you're able to find some relief from your fears -- perhaps (I'm guessing) through therapy (talking with a teacher, psychologist, fellow-sufferer), through medicine (talking with a psychiatrist or medical doctor), and/or through meditation (possibly with a group or with a teacher again).

So you say that fear to kill someone is a misconceptioned idea? Like hell should one fear wrongdoings

No, it's that "fearing to kill someone" is a common form of OCD, but doesn't imply that they're going to die, doesn't imply that you're going to kill hem, and doesn't imply that it would be your fault if they died for some other reason. Furthermore that fear may be misplaced, i.e. not helpful, excessive, inappropriate ... e.g. I have no fear of killing (except careful when driving a car) because I know I have no intention to, it (i.e. my killing someone) just isn't going to happen. Also I'm sure (from experience) it's possible for someone to have a diagnosed mental illness and yet be harmless.

it's not to called a sickness then at all, but very health if strong fears of wrong doing. Look at Lanka and you know what can be called rightous sick and even treating...

@SamanaJohann Nevertheless I think an excess of fear can be unhealthy or counter-productive: e.g. a preschool teacher who is afraid of hurting children will avoid hurting them, which is good; but someone who is excessively afraid  that preschool children might become hurt accidentally might have panic attacks about that and so be unable to act as a professional teacher. When the OP wrote "my CD drove me insane", I'm not sure it's right to contradict that and say, "no that's very healthy".

It may be true, too, that enlightened behaviour and attitudes might seem wrong to lay society -- and that laypeople's intolerant or judgemental attitudes to so-called "mental illness" can be part of the problem, and contribute to suffering rather than being part of the solution -- but that wasn't the question either. Perhaps someone with wisdom or experience might be able to help, if you can find or arrange to meet them.

Thank you so much. Yes these ideas are exactly what I don't want, I do not want to kill anyone or cause anyone to die. In my heart  I do not intend these things. That is why these thoughts bother me so much. So you think as it is not my intention it would not cause bad karma?

Sorry one more question, do you think I need to always counter the bad things or is that I don't intend/want anything bad to happen enough? Thank you

@jj5828 I don't really know what OCD is or what therapies are helpful, so I hope you might arrange to meet someone who can help. My lay/superficial understanding is that OCD is some obsessive thought (e.g. "someone might break into the apartment!") plus maybe compulsive behaviour (e.g. locking the door 30 times, to prevent that), which isn't (objectively) necessary (e.g. locking the door once might be enough). I think a lot of people troubled by repetitive thoughts, perhaps (I don't know) OCD is a matter of degree. Some people practice meditation, for tranquility (perhaps like some other ...

people "practice" playing a musical instrument, i.e. to get better at it). I knew someone -- not that you're like this, just that this was my experience -- someone with a symptom of PTSD (so unwanted "flashbacks" to a long-past traumatic event), and psychosis (e.g. hearing a voice that was telling her what to do). She knew that voice wasn't giving her good advice, though, and so she was gentle, and harmless, and although she "heard a voice" she heard it but didn't always obey it, and continued to know that it isn't right to harm people (though she found the symptom stressful and distracting).

@ChrisW Thanks again for taking time for me.
I think I am understanding but I’m so scared. May ask if you can help answer this:
Is it correct that my intentions are what matter and if my intentions are not bad then there will not be bad karma?
Thank you.

@jj5828 One of the suttas says (in translation, something like), "intention is karma". This answer explains that for example if someone tells a lie because they're intending to be greedy then that's one type of karma, or if they tell a lie because of hate that's another type of karma -- the intention which caused the action affects what karmic result there is.

Firstly, Buddhist teachings and practices are no substitute for professional healthcare. So, please consult a doctor.
Secondly, one way to deal with this is to treat mental imagination like it's a television. If you see someone killing another on television, you won't consider it as having anything to do with you, would you?
Similarly, if you suddenly have the mental imagination of killing someone, without the actual intention of killing someone (which is normally accompanied by anger and rage, not fear and anxiety), then treat this imagination like it was something that flashed on television. It has nothing to do with you.

Thank you so these are in my mind but that doesn't mean I intend for these things?

Sorry one more question, do you think I need to always counter the bad things or is that I don't intend/want anything bad to happen enough? Thank you

Strong fear of wrongdoing is a good fear and should be appreciated and cultivated, is nothing that is wrong but praiseworthy.
It's not possible to act without intention and there is no way to excuse acts. Taking life is taking live, stealing others possession.
Killing ones father is one of the five heaviest wrongdoings. Aside of never having the change to become monk or nun, one is sure not to prosper in Dhamma, understand it, i.e. no future, no happiness, destinated to hell and sure to have a lot of pain.
So it's manly a matter of your future since virtue is a protection for you and it would be foolish to cut oneself hopeless off.
What ever your father do, did... thats his business. You should think about your good future and happiness and seek for what ever refuge, i.e. the tripple Gems, you can find and with Refuge take the five precepts.
If wishing to do that online, that promis, no monk next, you can make it here: Refuge and requesting Silas online, what ever time if my person is avaliable, or another monk.
At last but not least, one owes a lot to one father which could not easy repayed.

“I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world.
“But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one’s mother & father.“
— AN 2:32

Lessons of Gratitude
As no place to replay to comments: You are always welcome here, Nyom. Again: foolish thought might come up and stop only when having reached the Path. And there is nothing wrong within someone having great fear in wrongdoing, just the understanding of what is wrong and right should be understood completely and it's actually simple. Taking precepts, a promise in front of the Noble Ones.

Hi, thank you for your comment. I have thoughts about what I don't want to happen my biggest fear. I do not want to cause harm. Do you think I am okay?

Hi you said "It's not possible to act without intention and there is no way to excuse acts" this scares me do you mean I have these intentions? But I really do not want anything bad to happen, I don't want to kill anyone and I don't want anyone to die. I don't have these intentions in my heart, that's why I am so scared and obsess over bad thoughts because I don't like them. Please help me.

Thank you again. I think I understand.
May I ask to help bring me relief, if you can please help answer this for me:
Are intentions what matters? Is it correct that if my intentions are not bad then there will not be bad karma?
Thank you.

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


text:
Critique on Kalama Sutta: Is Buddhism bad for Buddhism?
Kalama Sutta is a key part of the Buddhist teaching that tells you to question everything, not to blindly follow any dogma or teacher. This is one of the features that make this religion/philosophy so special
however this view seems to be contradictory in many Buddhist circles.
Many monks and Buddhists shave their heads and wear mallahs to identify themselves more with the doctrine (ego and attachment) or perhaps to fit in better within the "Buddhist gang" as if this dogma was the ultimate truth and they may get offended when you "dare" to question their "faith" or their idolized masters.
They rarely question the Sangha with psychology, existential philosophy, other religions and they seem to fall in love with it following this process of dependency by illusionment/attachment/joy and ultimately doubt disillusionment/detachment/sadness which is clearly explained in the Buddhist sutra itself.
Osel Hita (a Spaniard who has appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of lama Yeshe) quit Buddhism and complained about how much suffering he had to endure during his childhood nevertheless this is rarely debated within Buddhist circles. In some Buddhist countries children are indoctrinated in the dogma therefore they see it as truth and don't question it therefore it is used as a political tool for the masses.
It is true that the Sangha may have saved some peoples lives and so has the army, Scientology and the Christian Church but this has to do with psychology, purpose in life and mental health and it doesn't make Buddhism any better.
Meditation has been proven by the World Health Organization to be beneficial for mental health nevertheless you don't hear much from monks that you don't really need to be a Buddhist to meditate.
Some features of the dogma such us Bardos, Rebirth or (reincarnation), Samsara or even Enlightenment have vague definitions or are impossible to double check because they are based of the subjective experiences of masters or monks and it's up to the practitioner to believe them or not and have the same credibility has "original sin, virgin birth, Heaven, etc." and even less than the Simulation Hypothesis. Some people left Buddhism because their views on the oneness of consciousness or karma were not compatible with the view shared by the particular sect (Zen, Chan, Tibetan, etc).
Siddhārtha Gautama was a dissident of believes the vedas to attain enlightenment and escape the wheel so Samsara so was Jesus Christ, and Lao Tse and the main spiritual figures in human history. Isn't Kalama Sutta encouraging you to do just that? Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases? Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?
This question is an adaptation of the Reptilian Conspiracy vs Buddhism question which was not accepted in this forum and Criticism on the Buddhism from Wikipedia and both articles here and here.

“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he
  generally believes to be true.“ Demosthenes  384-322 BC
“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want
  their illusions destroyed.” Friedrich Nietzsche
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not
  based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”  Carl
  Sagan
“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at
  least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.” ―
  René Descartes
“My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God.
  Non-violence is the means of realising Him.“ Mahatma Gandhi
John 8:32 “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you
  free.”
“There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not
  going all the way, and not starting.” Buddha? (or not...doesn't
  matter)

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

You are completely 100% right about this. Which is why in my Zen Master's (Seon Master Go Sung Shin) tradition, as well as in my Root Guru's (Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche) tradition, we are taught to abandon all attachments, including attachment to Dharma or to seeing oneself as a Buddhist. (Of course on this site I'm staying within the boundaries of the format, but not in a dogmatic way as you can hopefully see from my answers.)
Most Mahayana schools teach this very idea on the advanced levels. Specifically, such teachings as Zen and Mahamudra are exactly about taking this idea of going beyond Buddhism to its complete fruition. So it's a little funny that you are saying this as if you were the first to think about it, while it is in fact a big and famous part of the living tradition for about twenty six hundred years.
In fact, this topic of getting over one's attachment to Buddhism is so big, so important, and so popular, that Chogyam Trungpa wrote an entire book just about this, called "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" - you are welcome to check it out.
In my personal case, I was lucky enough to read this book in ~1995/6 - so getting over all attachments, including attachment to Buddhism, and even attachment to getting rid of attachments, has been my Main Practice for many years. Taken to its logical perfection, this is one of the most powerful liberating techniques I've known and I can't recommend it high enough. Your intuition is completely right on this.
I do recommend that you read everything by Trungpa you can lay your hands on, I bet you will find a lot to like.

Sir, this idea is also presented in Theravada school. "Monks, I will teach you the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." ~ cited from Alagaddupama Sutta. Also one should not cling to Nibbana known as Vibhava tanhā which prevents himself/herself attaining Nibbana.

Yes, perfect, I almost forgot about that. Of course, the raft!

Since the Kalamas were confused in what they should or not believe, The Buddha instructed that they should be pragmatic and adopt only views and conduct which would lead to their well-being and peace of mind insted of keep bothering themselves with unverifiable competing doctrines which would lead to nowhere but to stressful mind states.
This is unrelated to the examples you give regarding the traditional customs of the monks and the Sangha because the customs are not harmful per se, they may be actually a source of joy, which serves to propel the practice. It all comes to how you relate to it, as long as there is Right View, there is no harm.
The monks would be sabotaging themselves if they start raise against traditional customs just because their wrong personal view (disregarding the issue of dukkha) say so
(which is conceit, ingratitude and cling to self-view). The practice delineated by the Buddha intend to end all stress building up the proper conditions, and to do so, is necessary to settle the attention to the proper frame of reference. Any other preoccupation is merely the mind being dragged by its passion over sensory phenomena.

This world is in bondage to attachments, clingings [sustenances], &
  biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to
  these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases,  or
  obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty or
  doubt that mere stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing
  away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is  independent of
  others. It’s to this extent, Kaccāna, that there is right view.
SN 12:15

For complementary explanantion of why clinging to personal views are nothing more than fuel to the fetters, See: AN 10:93 and MN 63
Regarding the rebirth doctrine as it is decribed, it's  a attempt to explain a insight of  the Buddha himself. So it's suppose, for those who follows the Buddha's footsteps, to have such  experience (whatever it may be) as well at some point.
No one is demanding you to believe in it. However, aside of the feeling of samvega (disenchantment due the briefness nature of the sensory phenomena), having conviction in rebirth, will turn the
practioner much more eager to go forth.

A lot of the "question" sounds like a vector for anti-Buddhist propaganda or just trolling -- or just off-topic i.e. trying to introduce non-Buddhist theories, or to contrast or compare Buddhist doctrine with assertions made by non-Buddhists -- but anyway I'll try to answer the question as-asked.
Isn't Kalama Sutta encouraging you to do just that? Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases?
From memory the Kalama sutta says,

Don't believe a doctrine just because the teacher is famous
Believe what you "know for yourselves" to be true
Believe doctrines which are "praised by the wise"
These rhetorical or Socratic questions show that you agree with the doctrines of the noble truths, i.e. that craving leads to suffering

I think that's what the Kalama sutta says.
Terms like "free thinker" come with cultural/historical baggage. It refers to people who don't believe in the literal truths of doctrines taught by the Christian churches and/or don't believe they have a monopoly on the truth.
It may be a fallacy to assume that a "free thinking" attitude, which you decide is an appropriate reaction to Church doctrine, is also an appropriate lens through which to view Buddhist doctrine.
I usually try to concentrate on what Buddhist doctrine actually says.
On reviewing the kalama sutta now I see it's not exactly about the doctrine of the four noble truths, rather it's about the doctrine of the three poisons and the Four Brahmaviharas.
It ends with something analogous to Pascal's wager which I find odd or off-topic because I think of the Dhamma being, you know, immediate, visible here-and-now. To some extent there maybe a "hereafter" though, and I think that different bits of the doctrine appeal to different people with different concerns.
Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?
Yes and no, I guess.
An answer like this one might imply something about not being too attached to specific Buddhist views or doctrines.
But, I don't know, maybe that's like anything else -- e.g. in my opinion the doctrines of Newtonian mechanics are more or less true, and useful if not invaluable for certain types of problem.
Anyone might "go beyond" Newtonian mechanics, e.g. because they're a layperson who doesn't address that type of problem at all, or because they're a physicist with a need for more-advanced (e.g. relativistic) theories. Even so you don't disparage Newton's theories, it wouldn't occur to me to try to claim that they're like flat-earther theories.

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

It's true that when someone says vaccines are good, you should question it and find out whether vaccines are truly good.
However, it takes too much time to do double blind scientific studies yourself, to discover whether vaccines are truly good.
The best you can do is to read enough of other people's scientific studies to determine whether vaccines are good, then finally get yourself vaccinated.
However, in your question, you are proposing that you should spend your whole life questioning vaccines without getting vaccinated. If you do that, you will probably die early from the disease that could have been prevented using the vaccine, and you would get no benefit from the vaccine.
What's even worse is if you convince other people to perpetually question and avoid the vaccine.

I'm asking about the nature of the vaccine.  What's it made of? Is it made of truth or is a placebo and I don't need the vaccine at all because the vaccine is inside of you? Perhaps that vaccine could be taken as a candy instead of a shot? What's makes the vaccine work? Perhaps I could take a Christian, a Jewish or even a Lizard vaccine. Isn't that how Buddha attained enlightenment or discovered the "vaccine"? Buddha most likely would say "there is no vaccine"

Christian / Jew / with or without religion, one can discover the Dhamma if his/her wisdom was on point. And once that happens, they will be able to see through the conflicting doctrines and pick out the true essence instead of Blind Faith.

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... ... ..." - You just need little faith to start. Walk through the path and experience the results. Then you by your own decide what is the truth.

@PbxMan Actually, your view of "Buddha most likely would say 'there is no vaccine'" may be very much in sync with Mahayana Buddhism. According to the Heart Sutra, "Also, There is No Truth of Suffering, Of the Cause of Suffering, Of the Cessation of Suffering, Nor of the Path. There is No Wisdom, and There is No Attainment Whatsoever."

suffering is a mark of existence, so is impermanence and ego. the Buddha is just selling you a treasure that is already yours but you don't know where it is. Buddhism is not the only way to find the treasure.

1)
Siddhārtha Gautama was a dissident of believes the vedas to attain enlightenment...

During the time of the Buddha, the Hindu Vedas and the Trimurthis (as
we know it today) - do not yet exist.
The Jesus of the New Testament may had many run-ins with the rabbis
of his time, but he never preached of abandoning God. And, the Testaments certainly do not mention any concept similar to Samsara.
Very little is known of Lao Tse except of his work the Tao Te Ching,
and nothing in there mentioned anything similar to Samsara, or any divinities, or "soul", and etc. And no - Lao Tse is not the founder/originator of Taoism (the religion).

2)
Isn't Kalama Sutta telling you that it's better to be a free-thinker than a Buddhist, at least in some cases? Isn't it Buddhistic to go beyond Buddhism?

The Sutta did not say that at all.
During the time of the Kalamas (in the sutta), they wanted very much to believe every gurus that passed through their village. The problem was that the gurus contradicted each other and caused confusions. And so one day the Kalamas asked the Buddha for input, and he gave them a set of "test kits". And then - the Buddha said "Yeah, you can also use those test kits on my teachings too. No problem. Please do it. Please test.".
"Free-Thinker" is a modern connotation, created by and used by people from a culture and society with entrenched beliefs in the concept of One-True-God, ie you are labeled as "religious" or a "free-thinker".

Motivated reasoning again. Kalama Sutta is telling you to have critical thinking skills not to follow any dogma because of years and years of indoctrination. If you make your critical thinking and search for truth "your religion" perhaps its' better not to follow any dogma. As said before "Buddhism is not the ultimate truth" unless you take it as a religion.

I'm afraid I had lost you there. The first part of my answer gave universally-accepted historical facts. And, no where did my answer claim or imply that "Buddhism is the ultimate truth". What are your motivation in asking the question and engaging in such debate? What do you actually hope to achieve? Whatever the answer - I hope they are all skillful and sincere.

You are not interpreting the point of the question and that's clearly motivated reasoning. 1) One those spiritual masters were indeed dissidents. 2) Kalama Sutta does indeed say that but implicitly because it advocates for intellectualism and critical thinking then again you won't see it.

@PbxMan Peace be with you.

"During the time of the Buddha, the Hindu Vedas and the Trimurthis (as we know it today) - do not yet exist" - the Vedas existed in Buddha's time, but not the trimurthis. The Buddha referred to the three Vedas (and not four like it is today) in the Canki Sutta. He also mentioned the Pali-fied names of the Vedic sages - Atthaka, Vamaka, Vamadeva, Vessamitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bharadvaja, Vasettha, Kassapa & Bhagu. Also see this answer for timeline of Hinduism vs Buddhism.

@ruben2020 Thank you for pointing me to Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translation of that Sutta. If you check out the other translations, you will notice they don't mention "Vedas" at all. (I will need to cross check the Pali texts). Having said that - two/three Upanishads exist during the Buddha's time - but not any of the Vedas.

@RalphTee It's also in Bodhi's translation of MN95 here and Sujato's translation of MN95 here.

@ruben2020 Thank you very much. I will check them out and make necessary knowledege "adjustment" if required so.

The Buddha’s advise to the people of Kalama in the Kalama Sutta, is to see whether whatever that is understood, and is practised, helps one to remove greed, hate, and ignorance (greed and hate arise due to ignorance).   This basis of seeing gives a filtering mechanism to weed out the doctrines that are clearly not worth pursuing. Thus the scientific method shown in the Kalama Sutta can be used as “pre-screening” to get rid of obviously unsuitable paths or “theories”.
Buddha Dhamma is not a religion in the normally accepted sense of the word “religion”. One attains Nibbana by purifying ONE’S OWN mind. The Buddha just showed WHY one should strive for Nibbana and HOW to purify one’s mind by following the Noble Eightfold Path.

1)
Many monks and Buddhists shave their heads and wear mallahs...
Unfortunately, this is a universal human problems regardless of religion. There are good and lousy monks, priest, rabbis, preachers, imams, and etc.
2)
Osel Hita (a Spaniard who has appointed by the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation...
Reincarnation is a Hindu concept. The Buddha taught of rebirth, and rejected reincarnation.
The practise of identifying a born-again person is uniquely attributed to Tibetan Buddhism. And the Tibetan Buddhists rinpoches/rishe/lamas/monks already knew that not all born-again persons are able to retain the qualities and attributes of their former selves. They took a bet with Osel Hita and they lost.
3)
Some features of the dogma such us Bardos, Rebirth or (reincarnation), Samsara or even Enlightenment have vague definitions or are impossible to double check...
And hence, this is where the Kalama Sutta speaks volume. Yes, that Sutta can't prove or disprove the Bardos, Rebirth, One-True-God, and etc. But you can use the guidelines and "test kits" in there on your spiritual journey. As a matter of fact, you can also apply it in a scientific study.

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

Yes humanist intellectuals love their fantasy of being a free thinker. According to them, being a free thinker is the pinnacle of humanity and not being a free thinker is horrible...
As usual from secular rationalist puthujjanas, what they claim has nothing to do with the dhamma.
The point given to the Kalamas is that it is normal to be confused by philosophers, by people who create worldviews and philosophies. Then the buddha says that for the confused people who know they are confused, they can only rely on what they know is bad and what is claimed bad by the wise, on what they know as good and what is claimed good by the wise.
THe problem is that most puthujjanas, especially the intellectual ones who hype what they call "rationality", clinging to their fantasy of reason, logic, philosophy, are just too weak to progress alone, let alone to stop being a puthujjana alone, because they refuse to see they do not know what is good and bad. THey are walled-in in their views and they either say the dhamma is wrong, or they try to mix their views with the dhamma in order to pass for good people with respect to their views and to the dhamma.

If we are not freethinkers or we don't have fee-will at all. Why should we spend though sends of hours meditating for remote shot at liberation? So in the end Buddhism is just a religion that cannot be put to test and we should that just good "faith" on the enlightened one. I think I have heard that one before.

@PbxMan Can I give you a personal recommendation? If I were you, I'd ask more direct, short, and specific question about each topic that sounds like blind faith to you. For instance, you could do a individual question asking "What does Samsara mean in the different Buddhist traditions?", or "Should we take all aspects of Buddhist doctrine literally?", or "What happens when buddhism contradicts scientific knowledge?". Maybe that would get you some straight answers. Kind regards!

@PbxMan I don't know if you've checked the channel I shared a while ago. If you haven't, here are two pretty insightful videos about the Kalama Sutta from a secular perspective, and about Buddhism for this modern and skeptical times. I hope you can take something useful for you out of them: https://youtu.be/Aa5cyQBBy-g https://youtu.be/lI83n5gE7yw

@BrianDíazFlores Thanks the first video gives more light into it


text:
Need reference for the two conditions need to realize path to Nibbana
In this article, it has mentioned that;

During the time of the Buddha there were two ways by which one could understand the Dhamma and realise the path to Nibbana. One is called “paratoghosa paccaya.” Hearing the true Dhamma from others who know it. The other is called “sammasati” or practice of meditation.

Would anyone please give me reference from Pali canon or any other book for the above statement?

The second is not suficent, since no sammasati when not samma ditthi (thats just a trader cheating). the first: Ghosa Sutta. AN 2

@Samana Johann Thank you for pointing out that. Perhaps here the word "sammasati" has another interpretation?

I didn't find that phrase on sutta central. https://suttacentral.net/search?query=paratoghosa
Still it's very common in the suttas to read of someone's entering the stream at the end of a sutta. Perhaps the first time that happens is in the first sutta, SN 56.11,

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.

Perhaps that's the most common way or almost the only way these days. The article you quoted said that "sammasati" is the method which the Buddha himself used (perhaps because he couldn't hear the Buddha-dhamma from someone else).
Note that "sammasati" doesn't just mean "meditation", it's also "right mindfulness" i.e. part of the noble eightfold path. So I suppose people won't complete the path without that, but they might enter the path (and I think that must be what was meant by "realise" the path).

Sir, the exact word I'm searching for is "Paratoghosa paccaya". Please let me know if you find that.

As I said, I didn't find that exact word on sutta central; but people "realising the path from hearing the true Dhamma" happens frequently in the suttas.

I could not find exactly that reference.
The closest that I can find is from SN 55.5:

What is a factor of stream-entry?”
Katamaṃ nu kho, sāriputta, sotāpattiyaṅgan”ti?
“Sir, the factors of stream-entry are associating with good people,
  listening to the true teaching, proper attention, and practicing in
  line with the teaching.”
“Sappurisasaṃsevohi, bhante, sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, saddhammassavanaṃ
  sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ, yonisomanasikāro sotāpattiyaṅgaṃ,
  dhammānudhammappaṭipatti sotāpattiyaṅgan”ti.

Listening to the true teaching is "saddhammassavanam", which is closest to "paratoghosa".
The closest to "sammasati" would be "yonisomanasikāra" or wise reflection or proper attention.
But as you can see, there are two other factors - associating with good people and practicing in line with the teaching.

Sir, the exact word I'm searching for is "Paratoghosa paccaya". Please let me know if you find that.


text:
Scattered mind while doing Body Scanning in Vipassana
I have been practicing Vipassana under the tradition of S.N Goenka for the last 2 and half year. When I scan my body and observe different sensations, I find that my mind is not clear and It's not like I'm sleeping but there is dullness of awareness. Some part of my mind is aware of the sensations but it's not clear and there is a thin layer of thoughts in between. It's like trying to see the sun(sensation) when there is thin layer of clouds(thoughts) in the sky. In other words the mind is scattered while doing Vipassana. I believe it's the sloth and torpor that is causing all this and Vitarka-Vicara faculty is not that much strong. I have read some suggestions for this like having the perception of light, walking meditation etc. but none of these are helping me out. I would be very grateful if someone could point out my mistakes and give some advise to overcome this.

Could try some troubleshooting first. Like, instead of the body scanning, try the technique of anchoring your awareness at a single point (tip of nose or upper lip) while watching the in-out breaths brushing the point of contact, then see if you get the same issue?

I have read some suggestions for this like having the perception of light, walking meditation etc. but none of these are helping me out. I would be very grateful if someone could point out my mistakes and give some advise to overcome this.

Interesting, because I was just about to suggest the same when I read your post saying it doesn't work for you.
When I walk meditation, I have the same problem as you and I deal with it by simply noting the length of the distraction. I don't fight it. I simply say, "oh I was distracted for a block." Or I say, "I was distracted for a mile."
This sounds so simple and so silly, right?
But it works because what happens is that you will find that the distractions decrease in length over days and weeks. This is exactly the same approach taken for noting the length of breathing: "this is a long breath" and "this is a short breath".  The breath becomes longer on its own without any struggle or grasping.
Similarly, notice that you are "scanning the body" or that you are "distracted from scanning the body". Just be aware. I counted my breath for decades. That is only the first step!  Just be mindful and aware of what is happening. It is not a race. Be gentle and mindful.

You could try to balance the Energy (viriya) faculty, i.e. to arouse energy. There are several ways to do that:

Splash cold water in the face before a meditation session
One can do walking meditation in a brisk pace before sitting meditation
One can go to a high place, e.g. a mountain or building and practice meditation
One can make a firm determination/resolution (Adhiṭṭhāna pāramī) to practice effortly and sincerely
One can do contemplation on Death (Maraṇasati) as that will induce a feeling of Urgency (Saṃvega)
One can reflect on the 5 Daily Recollections, i.e. That one will grow old, become sick and ill, die, loose everything that one holds dear and that one is the sole heir of one's actions

The citta is clear when it is in samadhi, not before, so it is normal to be in your situation. Samadhi means exactly non-scattered.
ANd you do vipassana when the citta is in samadhi, like here

‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s
  what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities,
  enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the
  phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an
  abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling
  apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those
  things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is
  sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all
  attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
  extinguishment.’ Abiding in that they attain the ending of
  defilements. If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with the
  ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously, because
  of their passion and love for that meditation. They are extinguished
  there, and are not liable to return from that world.

https://suttacentral.net/an9.36/en/sujato

If the mind is scattering concentrate on breathing. If your mind feels dull and you cannot feel the breath increase the area. As the dullness subsidies to gradually decrease the area to what one can manage. When one feels one has sufficient concentration then return to body scanning.

You want to adjust to the state of mind by picking the appropriate theme to be developed. Some notes on this here; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hRy-g6o8yKsDQnR6_sbBbY5ZVpDbQ5-_LURXqwxS7YU/edit


text:
Is samsara real?
If there is afterlife and sentient beings revolving around life after life in 3 different realms, and there is cosmic law that liberates all living beings and actually is eager to do so, then beings must be given ability to observe and realize the truth about samsaric worlds.
However all Buddhist text books(eg. DN16, 22) indicate that only after one reaches fourth jhana one is able to acquire special wisdom to penetrate the reality of revolve around. Moreover the 4th jhana is known very hard to reach unless so much of effort should be put on. I seriously doubt the theory of samsara.
Can anyone point out any flaws in my understanding and show how samsara could be real?

There's no sutta that says that one must attain 4th jhana to acquire insight wisdom. Certain level of jhana is needed, but it's not mandatory to have 4th jhana. See MN 70 for the classification on 7 types of noble disciples based on which dominant faculty they possess (ref: https://suttacentral.net/mn70/en/bodhi ).

I mean 3 supernatural powers of future life penetration, past life penetration, and cessation of suffering. Without these powers none can realize the truth of samsara on their own. These 3 are unanimously described to be given only after acquiring 4th jhana.

Again, nowhere in the suttas where it says one must attain the iddhis/supernormal powers to attain liberation. Did you check out MN 70 as recommended?

How do you define "real"?

@Lanka - You ask the critical question. What does the OP mean by 'real'? The Mahayana answer would be that Samsara is real and unreal dependent on whether we are speaking conventionally or ultimately. I believe one could say that Samsara is real for as long as for us it seems to be.

The law of Kamma is that one’s actions will have consequences. A natural extension of the law of Kamma is the validity of the rebirth process (samsara). It is because the result of a kamma can bear fruits in this life or in future lives. We will continue to acquire kamma seeds (good or bad) that can lay dormant for a long time until conditions become right for it to germinate, in this never-ending samsara. The only solution for this predicament is to come to Sotapanna (stream entrant) stage.  When one gains the knowledge to comprehend how suffering arises and how one can eliminate future suffering, one will get to know of the causes that need to be eliminated to overcome otherwise inevitable future suffering. This is knowing how anything in this world (pancakkhanadha) arises due to causes. And whatever arises, it matures with time, gets altered in unexpected ways, and then inevitably gets destroyed. A living being arises due to causes, and when the underlying cause or the fuel is spent, the living being dies. But the process does not stop, because the being had acquired new causes (new kamma) during that life or in the previous lives.
Thus samsara or “transmigration”, can be said as this incessant journey of thoughts based on birth and death. Every moment a countless number of thoughts arise and cease in the mind. This countless volume of thoughts is referred to as “ogha” (flow) in the Buddhist literature. Everything that gets caught in the ogha (flow) gets carried away with the current of the water flow. Once caught in the current of the water flow, there would be no escape from it. It would be very difficult to cross over to a shore. In accordance with Buddha’s analysis, a birth of a thought goes through five stages; i.e. rupa (forms), vedana (feelings), sanna (perceptions), sankara(formations) and viññana (consciousness).
Vinnana is how one sees the world at any given time. It is awareness, but it gets coloured by our feelings, perceptions and intentions (sankhara). You and I are at different levels of Vinnana depending on the level of our knowledge of dhamma and its application. The difference is in seeing the world thru dhamma. Normal humans’ Vinnana is conditioned by our accumulated sankhāra with ignorance as condition. When we die, our kamma seed has our habits (gati) and cravings (āsavas) embedded in it. When the next life arises, with sankhāra as condition, another viññāna arises in the new life. Thus it can be said that this very life will not be the end or the start. It’s a circle. Until one eradicates the reasons to be-come, which is the thirst, s/he will live, die and come back and die again, so and so forth. This whole process or the journey is called Samsara.

According to Mahayana, the meaning of Dharma is metaphorical or expedient ("upaya") - and you are taking it literally.
In my understanding of Mahayana, -- and it is very clear to me that this is how the original Buddha meant it as well -- things like reincarnation, liberation, karma etc. all refer to informational, psychological, and ethical aspects of reality - and not to some fairy-tale fantasies.
According to this interpretation, there is no literal "afterlife" (it's not even a concept that ever occurs in Buddhist texts!), there is cycling of forms - generation after generation, carrying same patterns along in a self-perpetuating way. There is no "cosmic law that liberates" and "is eager" - there is natural evolution towards greater awareness. (In the modern science these natural laws are beginning to get described in the emerging discipline of "biosemiotics")
So if we look at it from this perspective, why would the natural laws care about "beings be given ability to observe and realize the truth about samsaric worlds"?
Regarding the chicken and egg problem you are describing (that, for the sentient beings to get serious about Liberation, they'd need to clearly understand the problem, but according to Buddhism a clear understanding of the problem is only possible at the very end - almost at the time of Enlightenment itself, which makes it a vicious circle) - this has unfortunately been an issue with Buddhism all along throughout its history. Because the root cause of the Problem is Ignorance, there is no easy way to approach this issue.
Over the centuries of experimenting, different schools developed different methods, ranging from trying to explain everything with the hard logic upfront - to using informal hints to carry the gist of the Vision across - to asking the student to take it on faith and focus on practice until they get clear enough to start seeing it for themselves - to feeding the student with expedient fairy-tales as a child-friendly carrot effective as a temporary surrogate for the actual understanding.
So your concern and confusion is completely appropriate and well-based. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to this (outside of the tongue-in-cheek "trust Andrei he knows what he's talking about") - or else you are on your own in this sea of doubts, trying to figure out what is what from the all the million voices screaming at once.
Fortunately, Buddhism does not require you to understand all this in order to get the basic ground under your feet and start making meaningful progress. All you need to do is understand the following basic framework:
Pain feels bad, peace feels good - at the end of the day this is what really matters. Stupid actions lead to inner pain, smart actions lead to inner peace (long-term; short-term there could be temporary roundabouts). Stupid/painful is by its nature is polarized, black-and-white, selfish, greedy, and leads to conflict. Smart/peaceful by its nature is all-encompassing, sees things from all sides, altruistic, and leads to reconciliation of positions. Start acting smart and don't act stupid and soon enough you will see the benefits for yourself. There is no need to be Enlightened to understand that if you create peace, you will get peace and if you create pain you will get pain. - this is sort of self-evident and is all you need to practice Buddhism.
Basically, the above was the gist of the answer Buddha gave to the confused folks as depicted in the Kalama Sutta. Don't worry about "Samsara" and other metaphors.

To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
- The Dhammapada: Chapter 14

'Samsara' is described in SN 22.99 as continuously attaching to the aggregates as "self".
'Recollecting past abodes' (not "lives") is described in SN 22.79 as recollecting how in the past the mind misunderstood aggregates to be "self".
When Buddha used 4th jhana recollect past abodes ("pubbe nivasa"), the Pali used translated as "birth" is jātiyo, which means social or self identity; or, simply "self".
That your mind continues to attach to the five aggregates as "self" shows samsara is real.
That you think 'samsara' means 'reincarnations' ('transmigrations') rather than attaching to the five aggregates as "self" in the here-&-now shows samsara is real.
That you 'wander' ('samsara') to this chatsite asking questions about things you wish to understand shows this samsara (wandering) is real.


text:
How important is constancy in meditation practice?
I'm going through a period of meditating every day which is not how I usually practice. Before I would meditate 5-6 times a week then deliberately not do more as I would seem to 'run dry' and lose my feeling for it and felt like a needed a gap. So I'm trying just to keep going and see how that works.
But how important is constancy in meditation? - is it better just to ease off for a day if you feel depleted with it or would the thing be to keep with it even if the practice feels dry and barren.
Many thanks as always

Your question is concerned about motivation and constancy, right?
Answering the latter briefly: Yes, constancy is important & also the quality of it. This can be compared to every skill really. This is why meditation should be practised also in daily life (which would be sila really).
Moving on with motivation: I believe that a novice needs to start slowly. Once you reap the benefits, i.e., calmness & tranquility, you want to do it more often because of its pleasant nature.
Personally, I use certain "tricks" to make it easier to start meditating:

Depending on your level of motivation set yourself a small goal, say 5 to 10 minutes & try to achieve that. The idea here is thar usually motivation comes by actively doing the very thing you want to do. Setting small goals in your mind will facilitate action.
Oppose in written form and/or in your mind both options, that is, slacking off & meditating. Write for each option the pros and cons, both short-term and long-term. Imagine how farther you could be in, say, a month from now if you'd meditate regularly (both formally and informally). Then, imagine how you'll end up if you slack off/procrastinate. Keep the costs of procrastinating and the short & long term benefits of meditating well in your mind and really focus on them several times a day.
Know your WHY. What is the reason you want to meditate? What's in for you? This is strongly connected to number 2.
If you, for example are usually practising mindfulness with breathing, I'd suggest to maybe change the meditation (at least in the beginning of the meditation)

Discursive meditations can be easier at the beginning than breath awareness because the breath is a rather neutral object, whereas loving-kindness (or any other thinking meditation) is more stimulating because you don't force the unruly & stubborn mind to be quite; instead you let the mind think, but in a disciplined and organized way.

Realise that conditions must not be the way you want them to, meaning: You can still take actions even if you feel no motivation. This is uncomfortable, but remind yourself that you can stand the uncomfort & that it's worth standing it (because you have a goal in mind).

With that said, there is feeling-based motivation and value-based motivation. The former can be quite strong, but it's dependent on you being motivated. Unfortunately, motivation often comes by doing something. If you can accept this grim reality, you will be better off, and not fall prey to your current frame of mind.

+1 for this. The way I was instructed, consistency is important (duh!) - however, the trick is to not develop a secret subconscious resistance to meditation by making it into a grunt. So starting small and finding all kinds of tricks to keep oneself motivated is the way to go.

True. Personally, I believe that flexibility is very important. Setting smaller goals, tolerating short term uncomfort & viewing the pro's and cons of procrastination can facilitate the process. If all these methods fail (because we are fallible and sometimes life throws a lot of stuff we can't handle at the moment) it is again important to remain flexible, that is, showing acceptance and compassion towards one self and trying to learn from the mistakes.

Thank you for the answer +1. It's hard to explain but I generally don't have issues with low motivation. It's the other way around - I have issues with excessive internal demands tightening my experience. The gaps are to do with doubt, I struggle with your comment 'What is the reason you want to meditate? '. I sometimes think it would be better to give up the entire shooting match and just be kind to people. I gave up for approx a year recently and that's not the answer either. Anyway thanks for the answer

What do you mean by 'I gave up for approx a year'? Meaning, you left Buddhism?

OK - so for me I only identify as a Buddhist for as long as I am practising. So I stopped meditation practise for that length of time and didn't concern myself with Buddhism. So I guess that is leaving Buddhism.

I'd suggest not to identify with labels as best as you can. The more you are identified with something, the
more unwholesome states you have. You can practise morality and loving-kindness without calling yourself a Buddhist.  'Buddhism' hasn't a monopoly in kindness, compassion, morality and so on. It emphasizes them in an holistic way, but by no means are only 'Buddhists' people who care for kindness etc. It is just that in Buddhism, again, you have structure and you're asked to cultivate wholesome states of mind regularly.

I'm just wondering - if you were to take an antibiotic and not feel the effects, would you lay off the medication for a couple of days?  Meditation is really no different.  Nothing is more important than the consistency of the dosage.  Some days you'll have sits where the heavens open up and angels start singing.  Other days it's a slog.  Your legs hurt, your breathing is shallow, and nothing appears to be happening.  Rest assured, however, that something always is happening.  Tectonic karmic plates are shifting slow deep underground.  Keep applying the pressure of practice and the tremors of insight will eventually rise to the surface.  If anything, those sits where you feel like you're "running dry" are the most important.  The effort that it takes to actually get your butt onto the cushion is exponentially more important than the focused bliss you feel during a good sit.  The selfless offering that you make of yourself to your practice is what makes change happen.

is it better just to ease off for a day if you feel depleted with it or would the thing be to keep with it even if the practice feels dry and barren.

Might want to investigate why your meditation feels dry and barrent first? Afterall, among the 3 trainings of Sila/Samadhi/Panna, the purpose of Samadhi's supposed to bring about Piti/Sukha/Upekkha sufficient enough to propel one to the next stage of Panna.

Meditation is life. You have ups and downs, happy, unhappy, stucked, fastmoving periods in life. So meditation would be like that too. Having aversion to meditation, feeling disconnected or not doing meditation for some period of time can be part of meditation too. But I think the important thing is the effort. Effort will not be the primary thing when the mindfulness becomes spontaneous for the meditators, but until the meditator reaches that stage, effort will be a very helpful tool to keep you meditating.
So when you have free time and you feel ready to meditate for 8 or more hours, that's fine. If you want to meditate for an hour or few hours a day that's fine. If you feel like you want to take a break in meditation that's fine. If you want to practise mindfulness in your free times and not do formal meditation, that's also fine. As long as you have the effort these things doesn't matter much. But I think that practising mindfulness in daily life(when you meditate or not doesn't matter) is important because that is the only thing that keep you connected to spirituality. So just be mindful when you walk, sit, wash your hands etc.. and that will be a very effective meditation and will help you to return to formal meditation sooner or later.


text:
Recommendation for Suttas
I have been practising Vipassana for quite a while (2 and half years). Now, I want to also dwell into the teachings of Buddha as presented in Suttas and apply those teaching in my everday life. I have read a bit about Majjhima Nikaya and Samyutta Nikaya but bit I'm in dilemma and not sure whether other Nikayas are suitable for a beginner or not.
With which Sutta (Nikaya) should I start with?

Well DN and Mn are long copies of suttas from AN and SN. The problem with AN and SN is their size.
Since people today say that the suttanipata [=Snp] chapter 4 and 5 are the oldest texts, and that They are read in a few hours tops, you can start here:
http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN391.pdf
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/index.html
So the order would be about starting with short texts and collections, then the big collections, then go back to DN for a summary: sutta nipata chapter 4, 5, then 1, 2, 3, then MN, people like the dhammapada too so why not,  Then SN and AN in no order, Then DN,  then all the little added stuff in KN. Of course, there is the vinaya and the abidhamma too....
Here is a picture of all the catalog

The famous Bikkhu Sujato has written a few guides about all those Nikayas
A Reader’s Introduction to the Pali Nikāyas
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/a-reader-s-introduction-to-the-pali-nikayas/11507
more guides here https://discourse.suttacentral.net/c/reading-guides
Instead of reading, There are also records of MN, AN, Snp, KN, SN, DN
https://bodhimonastery.org/online-dharma-lectures
https://www.youtube.com/user/venbodhi/videos
http://www.suttavinaya.com/list-of-topics/
https://www.youtube.com/user/vbgnet98/videos
It will take a while to read or hear all that, especially if you do not spend the whole day doing that, so it is even better to begin with the short texts.

IMHO, this is my recommendation:-
Start with Digha Nikaya. It is more suited for "beginners" because the Suttas take the trouble to explain the fundamentals and the little-but-later-on-important items.
In the Majjhima Nikaya, the reader is expected to already know many of the fundamentals and the Suttas start to get "terse".
And finally, the Samyutta Suttas, which is even terser.
Many people also took up Abbidhammas at some point, but personally, I found that many of the items described in there could only be properly understood by a Samatha meditation practitioner.

The proper way to follow gradual instruction/progressive teaching (Ānupubbī-kathā) given by the Lord Buddha when it was necessary to first prepare the listener's mind before speaking to him on the advanced teaching of the Four Noble Truths.

Generosity (dāna)
morality (sīla)
Heaven (sagga)
Danger of sensual pleasure (kāmānaṃ ādīnava)
Renunciation (nekkhamma)
The Four Noble Truths (cattāri ariya-saccāni)

The last one is called Sāmukkamsika desanā which describes suffering, its cause, its ceasing, and the path.
The purpose of this gradual instruction is to ensure that the listener's mind was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and lucid enough to understand the four noble truths.
~ Reference: Ānupubbī-kathā
Suttas about Generosity

Siha Sutta: To General Siha (AN 5.34)
Dana Sutta: Giving (AN 7.49)
Sangaha Sutta: The Bonds of Fellowship (AN 4.32)

Suttas about Morality
Suttas about Heaven
Suttas about danger of sensual pleasure
Suttas about Renunciation
Suttas about the Four Noble Truths
Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

In the Buddha's words by  Bhikkhu Bodhi is great. He picks suttas from all the Nikayas so you don't have to. They are arranged by themes to aid dipping into.


text:
Does Nibbana lie within The All or not?
The Sabba Sutta (SN 35.23) (trans. Thanissaro) states:

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

The commentary on this sutta by Thanissaro Bhikkhu states:

Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is
  to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be
  abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be
  realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be
  done.
Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to
  limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to
  the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse
  shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and
  feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana
  would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another
  point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest
  of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even
  dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10).
This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana,
  does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena
  are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174
  states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining
  (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is
  to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to objectify
  the unobjectified — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of
  differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or
  not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond
  the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all
  differentiation is allayed.

On the other hand, Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in the book The Connected Discourses of the Buddha Vol II:

On first consideration, it would seem that the six internal and
  external sense bases should be understood simply as the six sense
  faculties and their objects, with the term āyatana, base, having the
  sense of origin or source. Though many suttas lend support to this
  supposition, the Theravada exegetical tradition, beginning already
  from the Abhidhamma period, understands the six pairs of  bases as a
  complete scheme of  classification capable of  accommodating all the
  factors of existence mentioned in the Nikayas. This conception of the
  six bases probably originated from the Sabba Sutta (35:23), in which
  the Buddha says that the six pairs of bases are "the all" apart from
  which nothing at all exists. To make the six bases capable of
  literally incorporating everything, the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma
  Pitaka defines the mind  base (manāyatana) as  including all classes
  of consciousness, and the mental phenomena  base (dhammāyatana) as
  including the other three mental aggregates, subtle nonsensuous types
  of form, and even the unconditioned element, Nibbāna (see Vibh 70-73).

So, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says that Nibbana is not included in The All. Bhikkhu Bodhi says Nibbana is included in The All. Who is right? And why?
What is also interesting is that Bhikkhu Bodhi's interpretation would put all types of consciousness within the classification of the six sense bases.

I have never heard nor read that throughout all the 45 years after the enlightenment Lord Buddha told something like, "I have mistakenly preached that ...", "Please correct what I have preached ...", "I forgot to tell you ...". So I agree with Bhikku Bodhi because in Sabba sutta it's emphasized that, "Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief."

I didn't read the question but Thanissaro says as a footnote:

To abandon the eye, etc., here means to abandon passion and desire for these things.

Nibbana is the same. Nibbana is not experienced due to passion & desire for Nibbana. Therefore, passion & desire for Nibbana is also abandoned.
Nibbana is included within The All, i.e., included as a sense object (per Ud 8.1) experienced by the mind sense organ. Thanissaro is wrong translating 'dhamme' as 'ideas'. 'Dhamme' is 'mind objects'. Nibbana, per Ud 8.1, is a mind object or 'ayatana'.

Not sure there's any conflict between Ven. T and Ven. B. Notice that Ven. B's SN 35.23 footnote on defining the scope of the All, his first footnote citing the Comy. says this:

Spk: The all (sabba) is fourfold:
  (i) the all-inclusive all (sabbasabba ), i.e., everything knowable, all of which comes into range of the Buddhas knowledge of omniscience;
  (ii) the all of the sense bases (aatanasabba), i.e., the phenomena of the four planes;
  (iii) the all of personal identity (sakkyasabba ), i.e., the phenomena of the three planes; and
  (iv) the partial all (padesasabba), i.e., the five physical sense objects.
Each of these, from (i) to (iv), has a successively narrower range than its predecessor. In this sutta the All of the sense bases is intended.

Now that sounds like Ven. T's idea too! Also notice the last paragraph in Ven. B's intro. to SalayatanaSamyutta:

To make the six bases capable of literally incorporating everything, the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma Pitaka defines the mind base (manayatana) as including all classes of consciousness, and the mental phenomena base (dhammayatana) as including the other three mental aggregates(feeling/perception/volitionalFormations), subtle nonsensuous types of form, and even the unconditioned element, Nibbana (see Vibh 70-73)

So basically Ven. B simply cited the positions of the SN Comy. (at SN 35.23, which Ven. T also shares) and the Vibhanga (at intro. to Samyutta 35), both just seems to define the scope differently. The SN Comy. limited the scope, hence leaving the extra "stuff" outside, while the Vibhanga extended the scope, hence including everything.

Does Nibbana lie within The All or not?
The, or what ever peception of Nibbana, nibbana-sanna, or nimitta, yes, is part of "the all". Nibbana, in and of itself, no. That's why the Buddha told his monks to let go even of the perceptiin of Nibbana and they didn't rejoiced after the approach.
[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or Buddh-ism but purposed for liberation of that]

Nibbana is ultimate stoping of senses. Completely detacheded state. But The liberated one still use it, but never ever attached to it. The state is like lotus, where the drop of water ultimately drop. Nothing doing, mere natural.
But who don't reached this state are still clinging to sense, they are attached. They call their individuality as their own, do deeds as their own and eat the fruits thereoff as their own. Hence Nibbana is not included those who are not detached. Nibbana is not all as related to blind but at the same time it is all for the realised one as one uniformity.
Buddha just said, in one statement, the Truth. "Yam kinki samudayadhamna, sabbam tam nirodhadhamma". The real meaning of the statement is, "Whatever light has com burning inside, verily, is the path to relieve your suffering".
In another word, "Atta Dip Bhavo". Be one with that lamp of wisdom.Keep it burning, so that all your deeds burn, to find the release.
In my word, it's the inner Teacher which is the real lamp burning inside. When you are, he isn't, when you are not, he is.
If you like to know how the person who reached that state live, I would recommend to see U. G Krishnamurti.
......May all being be awaken.