text:
miscarriage and abortion
3 years back i had to face with an relationships Problem with my ex boy friend and at that time i was pregnant. I had to abort my child at that time as a result of those problems.
Now i am married for 10 months and got pregnant 5 Months back. i was okay till to the 11th August and i was 25th week of my pregnancy then i got to know that my child's Heartbeat has stopped and he is no more live. This was unexpected and we cannot bear this pain.
I had that fear whether that bad karma of  previous abortion will be affect to this time.But according to the doctor everything was okay until baby's 25th week.
We are suffering lot with this and have a fear that i will have to face the same situation in the future as well.
I love kids so much. But once i had to done such a horrible thing due to the horrible situation with my ex.
Please advice me how can i prevent from this bad karma and what should i do to survive from this.

Related: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1436/471

3 years back i had to face with an relationships Problem with my ex boy friend and at that time i was pregnant. I had to abort my child at
  that time as a result of those problems.

If necessary, please practise loving-kindness meditation to forgive yourself for this.
The ideal conditions for bringing a child into the world is a strong relationship & family support, including financially. There are many challenges in the modern world that put pressure on women to have abortions. Please grow in understanding & forgiveness.

Now i am married for 10 months and got pregnant 5 Months back. i was okay till to the 11th August and i was 25th week of my pregnancy then
  i got to know that my child's Heartbeat has stopped and he is no more
  live. This was unexpected and we cannot bear this pain.

I am very sorry to hear this. I do not wish to ignore your personal pain & sorrow however I wish to say such pregnancy problems are common due to the fragile nature of the physical body. In the ancient Buddhist scriptures, we can read how many women & children perished during child birth. Fortunately, having children today is infinitely safer than in ancient times however loss of child still occurs today due to the nature of the physical body, which is fragile & can be abnormal.

I had that fear whether that bad karma of previous abortion will be affect to this time. But according to the doctor everything was okay
  until baby's 25th week. We are suffering lot with this and have a fear
  that i will have to face the same situation in the future as well.

It is normal for a person to have the fears you have. It is normal to ask yourself: "Why did this happen?" & turn to religion for answers. However, I think it is the most wise & realistic action is to take the doctor's advice. I recommend to look to the modern medical profession for answers or assurances (rather than religion).
This said, about karma, the Buddha taught: "Kamma is intention". Since you did not have the intention to miscarry your baby, the miscarriage is not related to karma. An abortion is kamma but miscarriage is not kamma (unless there is direct action that leads to miscarriage, such as taking drugs, heavily drinking alcohol, playing violent sports or other carelessness).

I love kids so much. But once i had to done such a horrible thing due to the horrible situation with my ex.

The Buddha taught in the scriptures if we see clearly we made a mistake in life, this is a positive step in our growth as a spiritual person. The Buddha had 100% understanding & forgiveness. It is good you have remorse because, as you know for yourself, abortion can make a woman unhappy. You must reflect (think) thoroughly about those good intentions for having the abortion & forgive yourself, with the understanding you have learned a lesson and you are now much more careful, wise, compassionate & loving in the future. Often in life, our real love for people & life grows from the mistakes & hurt we previously did. The Buddha taught it is from suffering the real spiritual path & development begins.

Please advice me how can i prevent from this bad karma and what should i do to survive from this.

My advice is:

Attend grief counselling for your loss. This is very important.
Let go of the idea your abortion caused your baby's heart to stop beating. Generally, the reasons for such miscarriages are related to the body of the child. This webpage has explanations: Why Does The Fetal Heartbeat Stop?.
Realise miscarriage is common in women who have not had abortions.
Realise women who have had abortions & miscarriages have later successfully had children.
Respect yourself for the genuine remorse, love & future commitment you have towards children.
Wisely reflect the Buddha taught our sorrow is a measure of our love; the physical body is fragile; patient endurance overcomes sorrow & suffering; peace comes with goodness, compassion, wisdom & love.

We all do things that are bad until we don't. You want kids but your worried about your previous karma effecting your current life.
If your worried about it then here's what might work:
Do selfless work for other babies and parents. This might help. Helping other people helps you. Practice Metta and compassion for all including yourself. There is also forgiveness meditation:

Abortion is very bad Karma which will bring suffering to you. But it's hard to say if the miscarriage is a result of that bad Karma.
There are things you can do to come out of this situation.

Mentally apologize to the being you killed, apologize to the Triple Gem and promise never to do it again.
Take refuge in the Triple Gem and take the Five precepts
Do good deeds like freeing animals in slaughter houses, giving alms to monks, offering flowers to the Buddha etc. and wishing for a healthy baby in the future.
Try to see impermanence, suffering and non-self nature of the thoughts of regret and sadness. In other words do Satipattana meditation as a daily practice.

thinu, Do not spend much time worrying about karma in this life.  You haven't committed 5 heinous crimes in Buddhism so there is not that bad. To put things in perspective, in this long samsasa , Buddha said lives of what we were thieve got caught and were executed.  If put all blood together it would amass to more than water in the ocean.  So you cant be worrying about karma in the past.
To prevent Bad Karma, Buddha said those who have these 5 qualities will only go up in a fortunate path only

Saddha,have confidence in Buddha
Sila,5 precepts
sutta, study his teaching, remember them.
Caga, donation/charity
punna, wisdom.  Buddha divided wisdom into two major categories; tranquality (cetovimutti), and seeing the truth of raising and falling (panna vimutti) .

Tho Buddha didnt say explicity, above 5 qualities seem to me a stream enterer already.

First, let me extend my sympathies.  To go through either of those two life events is traumatic.  To have gone through both is almost unspeakably painful.  I can only imagine what it must feel like for you.
Ultimately, only a Buddha can tell how the events of our past influence our present circumstances.  That being said, it's important to understand that karma is not a universal justice system.  It does not dole out punishment and reward based on our actions.  Instead, karma simply predisposes you to similar future actions and conditions.  It is these future actions and associations that often bring negative or positive consequences.  For instance, the first time we steal, it might have been a moral struggle.  Subsequent theft becomes easier.  Eventually we might not even question the ethics of the act; our thievery might even become habituated.  As we continue to steal, we might find ourselves hanging around negative people.  Maybe we get bitten by a guard dog.  Ultimately, we might find ourselves imprisoned.  The initial action did not give rise to our ultimate end - that action only put us on a negative trajectory.  That trajectory could have been disrupted by right action, but our increasingly negative circumstances incrementally make those moral choices more difficult to make.
You are just setting yourself up for more misery by speculating how your past actions might have given rise to your miscarriage.  I'd go so far as to say that you blaming yourself for your miscarriage is the fruit of your abortion, not the miscarriage itself.  But such guilt is only going to bring suffering to you and those you love.  Right now, that self blame is the karma you need to be working through.  If I had to offer any advice, I would recommend seeing a therapist to help you work through some of those negative emotions.  I would also suggest volunteering with children.  If you truly love them, doing work that fosters that love will put you in a much better place.

I will not comment on whether your past actions were bad or not.
But if you are concerned about your past actions, please see this advice from the Lonaphala Sutta:

"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
  water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
  the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
  to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
  Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
  Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
  to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
  one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
  where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
  is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual takes him to
  hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped in
  the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in mind [i.e., painful
  feelings can invade the mind and stay there], undeveloped in
  discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering.   A
  trifling evil act done by this sort of individual takes him to hell.
'Now, a trifling evil act done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind [i.e.,
  painful feelings cannot invade the mind and stay there], developed in
  discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the
  immeasurable. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment.

Although it is possible, I doubt you are experiencing bad karma in this life from actions taken in this life. Bad karma can be purified. The fact that you already have remorse is part of the purification. You may want to consult with someone who is more familiar with purification practices than I. And do not fear having another child. Any child you have will be very fortunate.

A few things Thinu:

We do not know when consciousness attaches to a vessel. Before that time any damage done would be like kicking the tire of a car. You might be damaging a vessel but there is no effect on a rider.
Since we do not know we merely ASSUME it is at conception. This is because making such an assumption errs on the side of safety for the infant - but fails to consider the effects of such an assumption on you. Such was the patriarchal approach to many thoughts in the past as women were relegated to secondary status ... which we now see as wrong.
Much of the bad karma you discuss is the effect that such an action has upon yourself and those around you. If it has made you sorrowful and sad then that is the suffering you bring and cause upon others.
EVEN IF attachment had occurred you are speaking of a unique situation where such an individual had yet to effect karma and, thus, would be easily able to drift back to the ether (as neutral) or encounter it's rebirth elsewhere with no added causation to overcome. Depending on which side you believe. So as heartless as it may sound this is the one time in our physical existence when such a death would have nary any karmic effect and actual suffering - except to you and your family.

Thus, you must work out problems with your own guilt and despair first. Then you will be able to do the same for your family and loved ones and friends. Bring them happiness and comfort as you will instead of sadness. And do the same with other infants and children you encounter. This will overcome any bad karma you may have created as well as helping you avoid such bad relationships and attachments in the future that caused you and yours such pain. namaste. damyata datta dayadhvam.

(note: when I say "most" and "some" or "many" in this post I am referring to statistics that are gathered in countries where abortions are legal, and safe. It is not an assumption I am making and I am not projecting personal beliefs)
with great respect... there are several assumption by those who look at abortion as causing pain or death with intention to (or disregard for) causing pain.
In most cases, when a woman chooses to terminate a pregnancy she is doing it out of love either for the child she carries, or her other children. Most often a woman knows she cannot keep the unborn child safe and give him or her a good life. Sometimes she has other children, or hopes one day to have a safe environment in which to have her children, but having this child puts all of them at risk.
there is also an assumption that she walks away from that choice unchanged and unbothered. In truth she will make and re-make that decision every day for the rest of her life.
The child does not suffer, it knew only the perfect life in the womb. But the mother suffers every day the pain of not having the child to love.  There is loss but not comfort from that loss. There is no end to the mourning because the woman sees herself as the agent of the child's death, and never as the grieving mother to be comforted.
most abortions are had by women who already have children and cannot feed one more without taking food from those she has. most women if they could find a way to feed and care for all of them would be willing to take food from her own mouth if she could keep this one too.
In this case, I see a woman who made a very brave choice to not bring a child into an unsafe environment. The child will be born into a different life, and did not suffer in this one. This child lived a perfect safe life in a blissful place. The second child also did not suffer, they both lived lovely experiences of floating warm and safe, never knowing hunger or pain.
You were trusted to bring a perfect experience of being carried in great love to two small beings who only had a tiny spark of life to live. You lovingly nurtured these children for every moment they had, and now they have returned. Perhaps they will be born at another time, perhaps this is all the consciousness they required. We are not made to understand all things, but we are here to understand love and how to protect a child. In both cases you did that.
You will be a wonderful mother. You sacrificed your own piece of mind to protect the first child from a dangerous life where he or she would not have been safe.
You did not hurt either child, you are the only being who suffered. But now you need to put away the pain and think only of the love. Your next child, whether it is born of your body or it arrives in your life from another womb, will need all of your love and attention. You cannot be consumed by the pain of the grief, it distracts you from bringing love.
whenever you feel the grief rising, think instead of the love you have for all of the children in the world.


text:
How many nana stages?
What is the difference between the 16 stage insight meditation vs. 10 stage insight meditation? What about 0 stages any teacher teach 0 nanas?
What is the basis for "nanas" is the suttas?

How is "0 stages" defined? The time before one achieves any insight? First meditation session? Please clarify.

Hey Lanka :) -- I just mean teachers who don't use  10,16 or whatever number of insight stages. They might have other ways to progress insight, IDK.

Bhante Ñāṇadassana made a work about all/the ñāṇas as they are found in the skripts:

Wisdom and the seventy-three Kinds of mundane and supramundane Knowledge

Introduction
The `Seventy Three Kinds of Knowledge' appear as a
Summary or Table of Contents (màtikà) in the first Treatise
on Knowledge (¥àõa-kathà) of the Canonical book Pañisambhidà-magga (translated by Bhikkhu ¥àõamoëi as The
Path of Discrimination, PTS ed. 1982), and then explained
in detail.
Expounded by The Buddha in His discourses (suttas) to
audiences according to their level of progress in the path to
deliverance (and found now scattered throughout the Pàëi
Canon1
), these knowledges were, as it is traditionally accepted, compiled and grouped in their sequential order, dealt
with under special headings and amplified (in the Pañisambhidà-magga) by The Buddha's chief disciple, Venerable Sàriputta, the one declared by Him foremost amongst His disciples that possess great wisdom (mahà-pa¤¤à: A i.23), and thus second in wisdom only to Himself. (SA ii.45)...

(Not put on accesstoinsight.eu, as htlm, for now, so letters are here not proper displayed, open work, but fine in the pdf)

An approach in teaching with pictures, in accordiance with the Visudhimagga can be found here:

Teaching Dhamma by pictures: Explanation of a Siamese Traditional Buddhist Manuscript

A current ongoing discussion "Suttas vs. (modern) Vipassana"- Discussion can be found here:

What are khanika, Upacara and Appana Samadhi?, on D&D

It might help @SarathW in his current research as well, over there.

Thank you :)  73 nanas?  Does this include certain special relative insights or knowledge?

What ever @UUU likes to see as special, it might be needed to sacrify so times and simply read.

Maybe I was just trying to be friendly. I think that you need to contemplate on your transgressions, not mine. That's kinda egotistical to hold oneself as an expert over other experts so I better cut it out.  UUU has never understood one post Mr. Johann wrote because the grammar is alien to UUU. There, now I'm enlightened.

No problem @uuu and may he pardon that my person can not understand for him. What ever might be fine for him, is, like else, kindly given.

There is technically no difference regarding the stages of insight meditation. If one work hard through insight meditation, he/she has to pass through all these stages no matter which methods is. Only thing is maybe so fast that no time to notice the changes. If one really wish to see, they will see it. What matter most is to achieve nibanna. Just to know "seeing the come and go of nama and rupa, no more wish for that come and go, and finally no more come and go" is enough. Sometimes higher nana stages are faster and more subtle. Sometimes just like suddenly pulling out the four delicate cotton strings covered under pile of sand, is so short in a matter of time as an example of Venerable Ananda.
So please focus on meditation, dhamma show it by itself. No dispute.

Does the 10 stage system skip stages that the 16 stage system has or are some of the 10 stages representing more than 1 stage of the 16 stage system? So certain question mean I don't focus on meditation? We're you meditating when you answered this?

The 10 stage cover the 16 stages. Actually no skipping. If one cannot know all 16 stages is not because one is not focusing, but because closely guided meditation master has sometimes no chance to explain detail as the yogi cannot narrate the changes exactly. Also some yogi will have more distinct nana stage compared with other, e.g Bhaya nana according to his/her karma. The same applies to Adinava and Nibbida nana some yogi will not have clear experience as if skipping those stages but actually not.

There is nothing conflict between this 3 canons. There is just the regroup the ñāṇa for easier to teach, not for debate. They have the same view and describing the same contents but difference grouping of ñāṇa. The content of each ñāṇa still being the same to paṭīsambhidāmagga and the other tipitaka conon.
Suttanta-pitaka Paṭisambhidāmagga is the conclusion of tipitaka for every type of practitioners to enlighten nibbāna follow to their enlightening type inspirations such as sukkhavipassaka, chaḷabhiññā, sammāsambuddha, etc. Every ariya must has 4 paṭisambhidā (cause-discrimination, effect-discrimination, language-discrimination, sagacity-discrimination) on their enlightened vipassanā-object.
In paṭisambhidāmagga 73 ñāṇā, there are 14 first ñāṇa, that are arranged by wisdom-praction-sequence. Also, these 14 steps are grouped by 7 successful purification of ñāṇa (7 visuddhi) in rathavinītasutta, too.
Path of purification (visuddhimagga) was arranged index sequence by 7 visuddhi  in rathavinītasutta and 14 ñāṇa in paṭisambhidāmagga, together. So there are 18 ñāṇā appear in this canon (except sutamayañāṇa, because the student must recite & memorize 14 ñāṇā of paṭisambhidāmagga, while he studying visuddhimagga). The last 11 ñāṇā is putted in understanding section (wisdom for enlighten) and separate more part to 16 ñāṇa for easier to study. So, the vipassanā-teacher maybe often talk about this 16 ñāṇa.
Abhidhammathasaṇgaha is the conclusion of path of purification. But it was arranged index sequence by 5 khandha+1 nibbāna in 1st-6th chapter, their categorizing-name in 7th chapter, their relation (causes and effects)+ their imagination (paññatti) in 8th chapter, and their meditation in 9th chapter.
In the ninth chapter of Abhidhammathasaṇgaha called the middle 10 ñāṇa (except the first 2 ñāṇa and the last 3 ñāṇa) of 16 ñāṇa, in visuddhimagga-understanding-section, as 10 vipassanāñāṇa (10 ñāṇa that contemplating 5 aggregates by 3 characterizes contemplation). However, in paṭisambhidāmagga called vipassanā just for bhaṅgañāṇā because this ñāṇa has increased level to balavavipassanā-samādhi.
Thai version: http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/dic/d_item.php?i=345

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What does "ending karma" mean?
I tried to read Kamma & the Ending of Kamma but I don't wholly understand it, perhaps especially:

The paragraph which begins with "The truth of the Buddha's understanding of the processes of kamma" (which tries to connect kamma with fabrications).
The last 7 paragraphs, including "Only a person who has mastered the skill of release has the mental skills needed to comprehend such matters"; and, "This is why the Buddha insisted repeatedly ... that conviction in the fact of his Awakening necessarily involves conviction in the principle of kamma".

I'd like to ask, what is meant by "ending kamma"?
My understanding is that the doctrine says that

Kamma is intention (cetanā)
An arhat generates no new kamma
"No new kamma" implies "no rebirth" and is an essential feature of enlightenment

So what is kamma and how can it be ended?
Here were some of my theories (which may be wrong or unsatisfactory), for what they're worth, in case reading these help to correct my views:

An arhat has eliminated identity-view. Kamma is associated with identity-view ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator"). An enlightened person acts, but unselfishly, and so etc. (?).
Like it is possible to have a "desire to end desire", it's possible to have an "intention to end kamma". If the only "intention" you permit yourself is the intention to end karma, then etc. (?).
Maybe this answer implies that all cetanā arise, by definition, only with ignoble mental factors (e.g. ignorance, restlessness, greed, etc.); so action without ignoble mental factors is (by definition) without "intention", and is therefore not new kamma (?).
Contradicting this, this answer says that cetanā are responsible for Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Thought. Do Right Speech and Right Action create new kamma, if not why not? The Ariyamagga Sutta (AN 4.235) says they result in kamma which leads to the ending of kamma.
"From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma" (AN 6.63), so kamma is ended only when/while there's no contact ... does "no contact" imply "Jhanas"? But for example sukha (happiness) is associated with the first jhana, which is a form of contact (mind-contact)? So anyway, maybe it's something to do with attaining mastery of the jhanas ... I think someone wrote that the Buddha moved back into some kind of jhana state between each word he spoke?
This says, "In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes." So apart from not paying attention to "who", it also focuses on "the immediate present" -- maybe kamma only happens when you intend/want something to happen in the future? But I think the Buddha still acted on (present) cause and (future) effect -- e.g. decide to go somewhere in order to spend the afternoon there, or to go to Sarnath in order to find the people to give his first sermon to. I guess that deciding to act (deciding to go to Sarnath) would cause the stress (e.g. knowledge of people's need to be taught) to cease, and so the action itself (actually going to Sarnath) would be relatively stress-free and without attachment (except perhaps attachment to continuing to do the right thing) ... but even if that's so, I don't see how to relate that to "not creating new kamma".
It also says, "when there is ignorance of the four noble truths ... the feeling that results from kamma gives rise to craving ..., clinging, and becoming; and these, in turn, form the conditions for further kamma". Is that saying that any Right Intention, which is not motivated by sensuality, doesn't create new kamma? If so, if this is the answer, is the difference between sankappa and cetanā significant, somehow?
It also says "because good and bad kamma, consisting of good and bad intentions, simply perpetuate the ups and downs of experience in the cosmos, a way must be found out of the mechanism of kamma by mastering it in a way that allows it to disband in an attentive state of non-intention". There's a joke in English (actually an American Blues song) which says, "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all". Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu saying "if it weren't for 'good' and 'bad' kamma I would have no kamma at all", i.e. that kamma disappears when desire and aversion disappear?

The main topic which I misunderstand is what it might mean to "have no intention" or to "live without intention". It seems to me (using some ordinary English-language meaning of "intention") that "be or become enlightened" and "be harmless" and "keep vinaya" and "go on alms round when hungry" and so on are all examples of "intention" ... if that's so then how can even an arhat live without intention?
What the appearance of someone who is "without intention" or "not generating new kamma": are there visible characteristics, it it possible to recognize that state when you see it (or conversely to recognize the absence of that state, to recognize when someone is generating new kamma)?
Is kamma closely related to fabrications, somehow?
I guess that a pathological example of "lack of intention" might look something like catatonia ... but descriptions of arhats in the suttas don't portray them as incapable -- capable of Right Speech etc.

Very good question. I'm confused about this topic myself. My current theory is, it's your first hypothesis, that agent-less, self-less karma isn't considered (personal) karma. See also, "wu-wei". Another clue might be that in some schools the word Zen/Chan means not only "Jhana", but also "spontaneous action", as in "show me your Zen" - as evidence of realization. Regarding your last bullet point, I think it's not about having no idea of future but rather, no idea of self in the future to reap the fruits of action. Can't say I'm really clear on this though, hence the comment, not answer.

The conjecture in that last bullet point was influenced by this Zen aphorism, "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe".

@AndreiVolkov Also you may have answered it in this answer: not exactly "cessation" but rather control, containment, suppression.

Ending self-view (atta) or the idea of 'a being' (satta) ends kamma. This is why AN 6.63 states the noble eightfold path ends kamma.
Please consider those mundane suttas about kamma always refer to 'a being' ('satta') or 'person' ('puggala') that inherits good & bad results of kamma.
MN 117 clearly states views of good & bad kamma side with merit but are polluted with asava (defilements) & burdensome self-views (upadhi).
Good & bad kamma are mundane matters, which are only sustained by self-views.
For example, think about the most evil or harmful action you have done in your life. Then change this self-view to the view it was not 'me' that performed that action but only the element of ignorance that performed that action. Notice the weight of kamma falls away & the liberation.

The fourth paragraph of Kamma & the Ending of Kamma says, "Most descriptions of the Buddha's teachings on kamma tend to stop here ... The third insight explored the possibility of a fourth kind of kamma — in addition to good, bad, and a mixture of the two — that was skillful enough to bring about the ending of kamma". I think your answer is about good and bad karma ... I'm asking about "ending kamma". I'm asking in case "ending kamma" is a goal, or a method; I think you're saying kamma a side-effect of self-view.

Ending karma is in AN 6.63, you mentioned in your post. The word 'nirodha' does not mean 'cessation'. It means 'cooling' or 'extinguishing'. When contact is void of the fires of greed, hatred & delusion, kamma ends. Contact is specifically mentioned because in many suttas Buddha says without contact there is no kamma.

Thank you, I think that "nirodha does not mean cessation" is on the right track and that I was taking "cessation" too literally. How or where do you get that it means "cooling or extinguishing"? Why not "liberation or unbinding"?

Liberation is another meaning of nirodha; what the Visiddhimagga translates as "non-confinement". You might browse this post https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/nirodha-etymology/3515/2 to "A problem with the word "nirodha"" by Payutto (since the original link is gone from the internet). The important matter about "nirodha" in most (but not all) contexts is it refers to the cessation of defilements rather than cessation of the aggregates.

The paragraph which begins with "The truth of the Buddha's understanding of the processes of kamma" (which tries to connect kamma with fabrications).

Yes, kamma is volition. It is thinking. It is part of sankhara aggregate.

An arhat generates no new kamma

Yes. No new kamma that can bring vipaka. No kamma-vipaka.

Kamma is associated with identity-view ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my
  actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my
  actions as my arbitrator").

The above is a mundane or conventional view.

An enlightened person acts, but unselfishly, and so etc. (?).

Yes.

Like it is possible to have a "desire to end desire", it's possible to have an "intention to end kamma". If the only "intention" you
  permit yourself is the intention to end karma, then etc. (?).

Yes. But when that intention is not clung to; it is not "kamma".
When AN 6.63 refers to "kamma", it refers to kamma that leads to five destinations, none of which are enlightenment. To quote:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.
"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.
"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma
  to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be
  experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world
  of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.

Maybe this answer implies that all cetanā arise, by definition, only with ignoble mental factors (e.g. ignorance, restlessness, greed,
  etc.); so action without ignoble mental factors is (by definition)
  without "intention", and is therefore not new kamma (?).

Not really. Buddhas have noble intention rather than ordinary intention.

Contradicting this, this answer says that cetanā are responsible for Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Thought. Do Right Speech and
  Right Action create new kamma, if not why not? The Ariyamagga Sutta
  (AN 4.235) says they result in kamma which leads to the ending of
  kamma.

Yes. This is noble kamma, which ends kamma. It is not really kamma.

"From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma" (AN 6.63), so kamma is ended only when/while there's no contact ... does "no
  contact" imply "Jhanas"?

The Pali word "nirodha" does not mean "cessation". It means the "extinguishing" of the fires of greed, hatred & delusion. It means "quenching".

But for example sukha (happiness) is associated with the first jhana, which is a form of contact (mind-contact)?

Yes.

So anyway, maybe it's something to do with attaining mastery of the jhanas ... I think someone wrote that the Buddha moved back into some
  kind of jhana state between each word he spoke?

No. You are stuck on this mistranslation "cessation".

This says, "In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate
  present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind,
  without reference to who or what lay behind those processes."

The Buddha was not concerned with kamma. It has nothing to do with enlightenment. Kamma is only a foundation. The Buddha was concerned with suffering & ending suffering. The idea of kamma causes suffering.

So apart from not paying attention to "who", it also focuses on "the immediate present" --

I would speculate Thanissaro is teaching some kind of skilful means here for American students rather than the truth.
The fact that Thanissaro denied Buddha taught "what lay behind kamma" shows how wrong Thanissaro is.

maybe kamma only happens when you intend/want something to happen
  in the future?

No. Longing for the past is kamma. Merely hating a thought with attachment is kamma.

But I think the Buddha still acted on (present) cause and (future) effect -- e.g. decide to go somewhere in order to spend the afternoon
  there, or to go to Sarnath in order to find the people to give his
  first sermon to.

Sure. But this was unrelated to himself. It was for the benefit of teaching others anatta.

I guess that deciding to act (deciding to go to Sarnath) would cause the stress (e.g. knowledge of people's need to be taught) to cease,
  and so the action itself (actually going to Sarnath) would be
  relatively stress-free and without attachment (except perhaps
  attachment to continuing to do the right thing) ... but even if that's
  so, I don't see how to relate that to "not creating new kamma".

The Buddha wasn't concerned with kamma. Kamma is like a teaching given to children. For example, in the dependent cessation, dependent origination, three characteristics & four noble truths, the word kamma is never mentioned, apart from one factor of the noble path. Buddhism is not about kamma. Kamma is only something in Buddhism taught for the laypeople who feed the monks.

It also says, "when there is ignorance of the four noble truths ... the feeling that results from kamma gives rise to craving ...,
  clinging, and becoming; and these, in turn, form the conditions for
  further kamma".

This is wrong. Kamma does not create feelings. Kamma starts to manifest at craving & attachment and consolidates at becoming. Kamma is essentially becoming rather than a distant cause of becoming. Please refer to AN 3.76. The 2nd link of D.O. is unrelated to kamma or intention. In D.O., intention, in relation to internal phenomena, first appears at the 4th link. The translation of kammic formations for the 2nd link of D.O. is non-sense.

Is that saying that any Right Intention, which is not motivated by
  sensuality, doesn't create new kamma? If so, if this is the answer, is
  the difference between sankappa and cetanā significant, somehow?

I doubt it. I think sankappa & cetana are synonymous and both probably can be unwholesome, wholesome & noble. MN 117 refers to unwholesome & ignoble sankappa.

It also says "because good and bad kamma, consisting of good and bad intentions, simply perpetuate the ups and downs of experience in the
  cosmos, a way must be found out of the mechanism of kamma by mastering
  it in a way that allows it to disband in an attentive state of
  non-intention".

This is just Thanissaro's opinion. You are taking Thanissaro too seriously. I lived around Western monks for many years and found few to be inspiring, Most of them, particularly translators, are heavily distracted. It is a open fact that Bhikkhu Bodhi has always struggled with meditation. These people are merely people.

There's a joke in English (actually an American Blues song) which says, "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all". Is
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu saying "if it weren't for 'good' and 'bad' kamma I
  would have no kamma at all", i.e. that kamma disappears when desire
  and aversion disappear?

I think Thani was trying to be a bit Zen with his non-intention.
Kamma is common word in Indian culture. It is always personal. This is why the Buddha used it but also depersonalised it.

The main topic which I misunderstand is what it might mean to "have no intention" or to "live without intention". It seems to me (using
  some ordinary English-language meaning of "intention") that "be or
  become enlightened" and "be harmless" and "keep vinaya" and "go on
  alms round when hungry" and so on are all examples of "intention" ...
  if that's so then how can even an arhat live without intention?

Thanissaro was wrong or otherwise just trying to behave Zenny for the benefit of his students.

What the appearance of someone who is "without intention" or "not generating new kamma": are there visible characteristics, it it
  possible to recognize that state when you see it (or conversely to
  recognize the absence of that state, to recognize when someone is
  generating new kamma)?

It is best to simply define kamma as self-invested or self-identified action. That makes it easy.

Is kamma closely related to fabrications, somehow?

No. While kamma is certainly a fabrication (sankhara), the word sankhara is extremely broad. Buddhas have sankhara aggregate functioning.

I guess that a pathological example of "lack of intention" might look something like catatonia ... but descriptions of arhats in the
  suttas don't portray them as incapable -- capable of Right Speech
  etc.

As I mentioned, when AN 6.63 states kamma is intention, it is highlighting mental kamma (per MN 56) & goes on to describe the five unenlightened realms of kamma. Since it mentions the realms, we must assume the phrase: "kamma is intention" is mundane and does not include Noble Intention. AN 6.63 is probably pointing out, similar to AN 3.61, that kamma is not something mysterious from a past life. AN 6.63, SN 12.25 and other suttas say kamma can only arise from sense contact (thus cannot be from a past life). Saying "kamma is intention" brings it into the present reality  & stops people speculating about unknowable causes.

“Paticca samuppada” (PS) explains how and under what conditions kamma vipaka produces results, but it never gets discussed in greater detail in this forum. But what is important to know is that Kamma is not deterministic, other than for anantariya kamma (killing of parents or an Arahant or harming a Buddha etc.).  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. It is because the result of a kamma can bear fruits in this life or in future lives.
All things in the world (sankata) operate on the basis of kamma vipaka and will also eventually go away (viparinäma). At Sotapanna stage (which is within reach of anyone of us in this forum if we can break away from set notions on dhamma that we are not prepared to question) all of the kamma seeds that make it possible to have births in the four lower planes, is made ineffective. We are yet to become stream entrants because we have wrongly interpreted the three characteristics of anicca, dukkha, anatta.
To put a stop to the generation of negative kamma, it is important that we accept the true meaning of these three words, and through this to learn to see the true nature of this world (that it is anicca, dukkha, & anatta), not just intellectually but truly. Then we will never be born in the four lower planes. It happens when we start to comprehend that it is not possible to achieve and maintain anything to one’s satisfaction. Here it is important to note that we do not have to remove any attachments by force. When one comprehends Dhamma to the level to see not only the unfruitfulness but the dangers of our ‘normal way’ of going about things, we start becoming more and more detached from things. Then our attachment to sense pleasures lessen, by seeing that temporary enjoyment (assada) is bound to bring about negative consequences (adeenava).
Kamma vipaka are the root causes for all that happen in this world, but their effects can be altered and be even stopped by this above mentioned way of seeing. If we do not have the humility to consider this other way of seeing things, we will continue to acquire kamma seeds (good or bad) that can lay dormant for a long time until conditions becomes right for it to germinate, in this never ending samsara. The only solution for this predicament is to come to Sotapanna stage. It can also be done by developing an insight called “Udayabbaya ñāna”.
With Udayabbaya ñāna (udayavaya nana) one comprehends how suffering arises and how one can eliminate future suffering.  When one gains the udayavaya nana, one can see the causes that need to be eliminated to overcome otherwise inevitable future suffering. So what is this udayavaya ? It is the arising and destruction of a sankata; Udayavaya describes how anything in this world (pancakkhanadha) arises due to causes. And whatever arises (udaya), it matures with time while changing in unexpected ways, and then inevitably gets destroyed (vaya).
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.
In PS, there are two types of Bhava. The first type can bring about “experiences” during the current life (kamma bhava) and those that become strong enough to power a whole new existence (uppatti bhava). The more one does acts suitable for a certain “bhava“,  the vinnana for similar behavior grows, and it is easier for one to be “born” in a corresponding state; this is “pati+ichcha” leading to “sama+uppada”. This is what is meant by PS.  Repeated ‘abhi’sankhara that one does, leads to strengthening the corresponding mindset or vinnana, and it propagates down the paticca samuppada series to make “kamma bhava“.  “Kamma bhava” then gives rise to a “jati”.
The laws of kammā are not just based on causes and effects, they depend on conditions. If suitable conditions do not materialize for long times, then that kamma beeja will lose its energy. A seed cannot germinate unless it is placed in the ground and water, sunlight, and nutrients are provided. Similarly the role of conditions in the laws of kamma are inherent in the PS systems.
In PS, “avijja paccaya sankhara” does NOT mean “avijja causes sankhara”. Similarly “sankhara paccaya vinnana” does NOT mean “sankhara causes vinnana”. In order for causes to bring about corresponding effects, suitable conditions must be present. That is what “paccaya” means. When such suitable conditions are present, causes will bring about corresponding effects. Thus when some effect is brought about, it is called “paccuppanna“, i.e., born (“uppanna“) via suitable conditions (“paccaya“). In many cases, such critical conditions are not satisfied long after the causes were generated, so there is normally a time delay between causes and effects, i.e., between kamma and kamma vipaka.’
In the Patthäna Dhamma (book on “Conditional Relations” in Abhidhamma), the subject of Kamma is discussed in greater detail, if one needs to find out more. Pattana Dhamma describies that conditions are as important as root causes, which are lobha, dosa, and, moha (for akusala kamma), and alobha, adosa, and amoha (for kusala kamma). Further reading will tell you that Kamma vipaka do not take place via PS cycles, even though the seeds were generated with PS cycles. They appear when suitable conditions are available.
What is most important for you and I, is to realize that unless one has at least attained the Sotapanna stage, one could act with avijja at the level of moha, and generate kamma (sankhara) that could generate kamma bhava corresponding to possible birth in the four lowest realms.  Thus realizing the importance of comprehending the true meaning of anicca, dukkha, & anatta is a must, whether we like it or not.

Kamma means merits of one's actions. Good action/behaviour/intention results in good kamma, bad/immoral actions result in bad kamma. i.e., good action generates good kamma which influences your this life or the next in a positive manner, bad kamma will affect it negatively.
Since an Arahat has ended all effluents and has no future lives, kamma has no impact on him/her, so he/she has ended the kamma effectively. So an Arahat generates no positive or negative kamma, while for others kamma will shape their future positively or negatively, based on their current actions.

1 "Kamma is intention (cetanā)."

Correct

2 "An arhat generates no new kamma."

Correct, but it needs explanation: while the arhat is still alive (in Samsara), he generates kamma, but only wholesome or neutral kamma. No unwholesome kamma is generated by the arahat. Still, he must bear the bad fruits of extinguishing of his kamma (diseases, aging, bad events, death), but free from suffering. Once the arahat dies, all his remaining kamma gets extinguished, thus he enters Nibanna. In essence, because he does not generate unwholesome kamma and he does not suffer from his unwholesome kamma extinguishing, it can be said that he generates no kamma, because only unwholesome kamma gives fuel to future rebirths.

3 "No new kamma" implies "no rebirth" and is an essential feature of
  enlightenment."

Correct, but it needs explanation. "No new kamma" implies that a being reached Nirvana and is free from his kamma, thus no rebirth. But it does not mean that before death an enlightened being is not producing new kamma. (read my explanation above about the arahats)

4 "So what is kamma and how can it be ended?"

Kamma is intention.
When intention arises, kamma is accumulated.
When intention ceases, kamma is not accumulated.
Due to the nature of things, kamma is extinguishing.
The nature of things is that all things are impermanent. Thus, the natural process of your kamma is that kamma is naturally extinguishing.
If while your kamma is extinguishing, no intention arises in you, then your kamma will not accumulate and will be extinguished.
Once kamma is extinguished, Nibanna is entered.

5 "An arhat has eliminated identity-view. Kamma is associated with
  identity-view ("I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my
  actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my
  actions as my arbitrator"). An enlightened person acts, but
  unselfishly, and so etc. (?)."

Correct.

6 "Like it is possible to have a "desire to end desire", it's possible
  to have an "intention to end kamma". If the only "intention" you
  permit yourself is the intention to end karma, then etc. (?)."

Incorrect. Any intention, even if the intention is an intention to end kamma, accumulates kamma.
If you have the "intention to end kamma" it will not end kamma, because the "intention to end kamma" comes from ignorance.
Whoever thinks that with the sole "intention to end kamma", kamma will end, is not free from ignorance and is bound to suffering in the future.

7 "Maybe this answer implies that all cetanā arise, by definition, only
  with ignoble mental factors (e.g. ignorance, restlessness, greed,
  etc.); so action without ignoble mental factors is (by definition)
  without "intention", and is therefore not new kamma (?)."

Incorrect. Any action which is done, ALWAYS arises out of intention, even if all the other mental factors are removed (restlessness, greed, etc.), thus it creates kamma. This is why arahats who are still in their physical bodies (not in Nibanna) still accumulate kamma, but are free from this accumulated kamma. They do not act out of their ignorance, but because they choose to be part of this ignorance (Samsara). They know the truth, they know what is kamma and what is its cessation. Unlike not liberated beings, arahats have a free choice, thus their actions are free from kamma, are not dependent on kamma.

8 "Contradicting this, this answer says that cetanā are responsible for
  Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Thought. Do Right Speech and
  Right Action create new kamma, if not why not?"

Correct, cetana are responsible for Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Thought. Cetana is responsible for all actions, wholesome, unwholesome or neutral.
Any action creates new kamma.
A liberated being, until he enters Nibanna, creates only wholesome and/or neutral kamma.

9 ""From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma" (AN 6.63),
  so kamma is ended only when/while there's no contact ... does "no
  contact" imply "Jhanas"? But for example sukha (happiness) is
  associated with the first jhana, which is a form of contact
  (mind-contact)? So anyway, maybe it's something to do with attaining
  mastery of the jhanas ... I think someone wrote that the Buddha moved
  back into some kind of jhana state between each word he spoke?"

Yes. Kamma is ended only when/while there's no contact.
And when does contact cease completely? In Nibanna.
Going into the deepest Jhana, does not cease contact completely. Think about it ... what if somebody punches you in the face while being in Jhana? What if your body develops a disease while being in Jhana? As you can see, due to your kamma not being completely extinguished, you bear fruits of this kamma, even if being in perfect Jhana. The only way to extinguish your kamma is by ending ignorance and "dying" one last more time, thus entering Nibanna.

10 "This says, "In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of
  kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate
  present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind,
  without reference to who or what lay behind those processes." So apart
  from not paying attention to "who", it also focuses on "the immediate
  present" -- maybe kamma only happens when you intend/want something to
  happen in the future? But I think the Buddha still acted on (present)
  cause and (future) effect -- e.g. decide to go somewhere in order to
  spend the afternoon there, or to go to Sarnath in order to find the
  people to give his first sermon to. I guess that deciding to act
  (deciding to go to Sarnath) would cause the stress (e.g. knowledge of
  people's need to be taught) to cease, and so the action itself
  (actually going to Sarnath) would be relatively stress-free and
  without attachment (except perhaps attachment to continuing to do the
  right thing) ... but even if that's so, I don't see how to relate that
  to "not creating new kamma"."

When I read the passage you quoted, I understood that the Buddha meditated and reached Nirvana:
"On the most basic level of this mode of awareness, there was no sense even of "existence" or "non-existence" [§186], but simply the events of stress, its origination, its cessation, and the path to its cessation, arising and passing away. Through this mode he was able to pursue the fourth type of kamma to its end"
So he went into meditation and gained insight on kamma and realized its workings, thus he ended kamma just like an arahat would end his kamma when reaching Nirvana. (read my explanation above about arahats still generating kamma even after reaching Nirvana).
After reaching Nirvana, the Buddha was still accumulating kamma, but he was free of it completely because his ignorance was removed. He knew kamma, he knew its workings, he knew its cause and its cessation. But out of compassion for other beings he choose to continue generating only wholesome and/or neutral kamma until his kamma completely exhausted due to the real nature of things and entered Nibanna.

11 "It also says, "when there is ignorance of the four noble truths ...
  the feeling that results from kamma gives rise to craving ...,
  clinging, and becoming; and these, in turn, form the conditions for
  further kamma". Is that saying that any Right Intention, which is not
  motivated by sensuality, doesn't create new kamma? If so, if this is
  the answer, is the difference between sankappa and cetanā significant,
  somehow?"

Yes the quote says correctly: when there is ignorance, there is potential for unwholesome kamma to be accumulated, thus giving rise to craving, clinging and becoming, which in turn conditions the accumulation of kamma in the future.

12 "Is that saying that any Right Intention, which is not motivated by
  sensuality, doesn't create new kamma?"

Yes, but it needs explanation:
Any Right Intention, which is not motivated by sensuality, DOES create new kamma. But the newly created kamma, because it is not motivated by sensuality, is wholesome and/or neutral kamma, thus the fruits of this kamma will not create suffering, but will aid the owner of this kamma to more easily remove his ignorance and attain Nibanna. Thus, this kamma helps you in extinguishing your kamma.
So correct would be to say: any Right Intention, which is not motivated by sensuality, creates a potential of entering Nibanna, thus ending kamma. So in a way the statement "any Right Intention, which is not motivated by sensuality, doesn't create new kamma" is correct, but it needs to be understood correctly, as I explained.

13 "It also says "because good and bad kamma, consisting of good and bad
  intentions, simply perpetuate the ups and downs of experience in the
  cosmos, a way must be found out of the mechanism of kamma by mastering
  it in a way that allows it to disband in an attentive state of
  non-intention". There's a joke in English (actually an American Blues
  song) which says, "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck
  at all". Is Thanissaro Bhikkhu saying "if it weren't for 'good' and
  'bad' kamma I would have no kamma at all", i.e. that kamma disappears
  when desire and aversion disappear?"

He is saying that the ups and downs produced by kamma actually help you in removing your ignorance and entering Nibanna. Without these ups and downs produced by kamma, you would never need to enter Nibanna because it would be as if you are already in Nibanna (no ups and downs, thus no suffering, thus everything is fine).
This "attentive state of non-intention" is knowledge of the truth. Knowledge of what the truth is, is knowledge about kamma: is knowing kamma, its workings, its cause and its cessation.

14 "The main topic which I misunderstand is what it might mean to "have
  no intention" or to "live without intention". It seems to me (using
  some ordinary English-language meaning of "intention") that "be or
  become enlightened" and "be harmless" and "keep vinaya" and "go on
  alms round when hungry" and so on are all examples of "intention" ...
  if that's so then how can even an arhat live without intention?"

Becoming enlightened does not mean that intention in you stops. I remember a quote from somewhere that goes like this: "Before enlightenment chop wood and bring water, after enlightenment chop wood and bring water."
Becoming enlightened means that if after enlightenment you decide to stay in Samsara, you will only do wholesome and/or neutral intentions, and always for the greater good of other beings still not liberated.
Becoming enlightened means that you know what intention is, what is its cause and what is the way to its cessation. It does not mean that after enlightenment you stop completely your "intentions", it just means that you know what "intention" is, what is its cause and what its ending.

15 "What the appearance of someone who is "without intention" or "not
  generating new kamma": are there visible characteristics, it it
  possible to recognize that state when you see it (or conversely to
  recognize the absence of that state, to recognize when someone is
  generating new kamma)?"

Someone "without intention" or "not generating new kamma" is an arahat or an enlightened being. It is possible to recognize such being by how he behaves in different situations.

16 "Is kamma closely related to fabrications, somehow?"

Yes.
Because of ignorance fabrications arise.
Fabrications that arose is your kamma.
You respond to these fabrications with different intentions.
With every intention, you fabricate a fabricated thing, which can aid you in reaching Nirvana, deter you from reaching Nirvana or neither aid you nor deter you. In this way you are accumulating fabricated fabrications, which is in essence your kamma.
While fabricating fabrications, due to suffering, you learn what is "good fabrication" and what is "wrong fabrication". You basically learn what is a "wholesome action" and what is an "unwholesome action".
You're learning. Adding, subtracting or modifying your fabricated fabrications depending on already fabricated fabrications. This is you doing actions based on your accumulated kamma.
Until one day you learn enough and realize the truth. You stop fabricating fabrications. You know the end of kamma and enter Nibanna.

only unwholesome kamma gives fuel to future rebirths But isn't "good" kamma fuel for higher rebirths, in a higher realm (e.g. rebirth as a human, or in heaven, etc.)?

Unwholesome kamma gives fuel to "future rebirths". Neutral kamma neither increases nor decreases fuel to "future rebirths". Wholesome kamma decreases fuel to "future rebirths". Thus, the less fuel, the less future rebirths needed until liberation. The less fuel, the more potential for a birth in a higher realm where liberation is easier to be achieved.

I'm going to give you the Westerner's lens for karma:
Karma is your debt to the universe.  Without serving your karma, you will be lost in endless cycles of dualism, ego, and suffering (whether it's your or another`s).  If it is another's, it will leave it's mark in the world and will find you in the next.
The world had to go through a lot of suffering to get here.  Some of that your own soul has made.  Some of that is documented, some is not.  Some of it is Biblical in scope.  Without attention to karma, the world creates physical and psychic entropy.  The soul goes into depression, rage, and ennui.  Dark Ages are caused by such.  Hence, karma is a vital topic.
The necessary practices are:

attentiveness -- you must stay aware as you are about the world,
compassion -- you have to be willing to learn about and empathize with the suffering of the world,
effort -- one can't rest in one's mini paradise,
contrition -- you have to be willing to admit that you were wrong.

One can't make the Enlightened Age or enter the future without dealing with the past.  The more you deal with your karma, the more other's karmas are assisted also.  It helps end suffering.   So hop to it.

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


text:
Incorporeal entities in buddhism
I don't know anything in depth about Buddhism but as I figure there are three possibilities in life at it's end, either:

the soul is released from the physical world and returns to where it originated from;
the soul remains in the physical world and is then passed on and contained within another living entity; or
the soul remains in the physical world and is not contained within any physical body.

The latter I believe I would not favour.
If I am correct about my deduction then the latter entity would be incorporeal.
Buddhism as much as I know is based upon transference of souls to other living entities so how does it deal with the possible existence of incorporeal entities or does it refute the idea?
There is one possibility at the expense of the humanity of things there could be no soul god forbid.

According to Milindapanha 3.5.5, one is reborn without the need for a transmigrating soul:

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not
  transmigrate (saṅkamati) and one is reborn (paṭisandahati)?"
"Yes, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."
"How, venerable Nagasena, is it that one does not transmigrate and one
  is reborn? Give me an analogy."
"Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is
  it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the
  other lamp?"
"Certainly not, venerable sir."
"Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is
  reborn."
"Give me another analogy."
"Do you remember, your majesty, when you were a boy learning some
  verse from a teacher?"
"Yes, venerable sir."
"Your majesty, did this verse transmigrate from the teacher?"
"Certainly not, venerable sir."
"Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is
  reborn."
"You are clever, venerable Nagasena."

Ven. Narada Mahathera wrote here about hungry ghosts:

Peta-yoni (pa + ita) lit., departed beings, or those absolutely devoid
  of happiness. They are not disembodied spirits of ghosts. They
  possess deformed physical forms of varying magnitude, generally
  invisible to the naked eye. They have no planes of their own, but live
  in forests, dirty surroundings, etc.

Milindapanha 3.5.6 states:

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is a soul to be found?"
The elder replied: "According to ultimate reality, your majesty, a
  soul is not to be found."
"You are clever, venerable Nagasena."

As a westerner and former southern baptist perhaps I can shed a little light on what Buddhism has taught me. Keep in mind my views aren't necessarily the same as everyone else's with regards to Buddhist dharma (teachings).
First, the concept of a "soul" is tricky. You're not going to find it called a "soul" in most Buddhist teachings. And this is not just because of the name, but also the difference between individuality and commonality. In general the western view of a "soul" implies a self. A distinct individual that will go on after the demise of its' physical form. That is a concept foreign to most all Buddhist thought. But the delineation does become clouded when we reach the idea of rebirth because rebirth implies individuality. How do we distinguish?
The Isha upanishad tells us that the self is one and everywhere. Instead of calling it the "self" let's call it "awareness". Awareness exists inside us as the chariot driver (Katha upanishad) and the perceptions and sensations and experiences are all part of the 5 aggregates of existence (as taught by the Buddha). Think of it as a balloon being filled from the air around us and then tied off. The air is awareness and the balloon in whole is the person. Whereas before the awareness was boundless and timeless now it can only experience thru limited perceptions and is affected by the ravages of time.
Ideally the air would just remerge into the whole when the body dies. BUT ... there is the issue of karma. Things we do have effects to the world around us and to the quantum world we live within. The double-slit experiment in physics double slit experiment explanation shows us that those very perceptions alter the reality around us, not just now but into the future (and perhaps even the past). This means we changed something and there are ongoing changes or effects that would bear weight upon and potentially alter us but for our physical death. This isnt just some hocus-pocus hogwash either - we are starting to discover it has a physical component in this world and alters our awareness' ability to merge back into the neutral ether. quantum change causes alterations in our cells Here I interject "black box theory" to signify I understand the effects but not the mechanism.
So, in short, we are awareness temporarily limited to residing in this human vessel and when it passes that awareness goes elsewhere. I believe we will eventually find that meditation allows us to clear these micro-tubules in the brain and clear the karmic effects we have initiated and living a simple life while walking the median path brings us closer to preventing rebirth and peacefully going back to the whole. I have found peace in Buddhism that I never had as a Christian just for this reason. I hope this helps you understand. namaste. damayata datta dayadhvam.

Hi thanks for your answer your analogy to our " awareness " being air contained within a balloon that is separated by the physical boundary of the balloon, or as I think your saying the physical presence of the body containing the "awareness" separated  from the awareness whence it came from then, isn't the source of the awareness then similar to the source of other "religious" beliefs. I've been thinking couldn't the truth be that our awareness or soul be a migration that encompasses all the possible states I've stated. And there be a commonality within all the faiths? Or is it distinguished?

I think it is. soul, consciousness, awareness ... so many different names trying to describe the same stuff. I like the story of the 5 blind men examining the elephant. each was given a different part to examine and each came up with a different answer. a tree, a snake, a wall, a horse, and a plant. point is they were all blindly discussing the same thing with different clues. I see the same here.

I guess from that story the meaning is that the whole of something is only described and reflected in a single awareness and perception of the part and the whole is picture of each individuals perception and perhaps the whole is therefore imperceptible by an individual but with communication a whole will be able to known as a sum of each person's own observation and there ability to transfer that picture to another. So maybe our limitations will be a determining factor in our possible personal enlightenment of our ultimate goal but we will be able through congress and our faith in others.

"I don't know anything in depth about Buddhism but as I figure there
  are three possibilities in life at it's end, either:

the soul is released from the physical world and returns to where it originated from;
the soul remains in the physical world and is then passed on and contained within another living entity; or
the soul remains in the physical world and is not contained within any physical body."

There is no soul.
There are only fabrications due to ignorance.
When life ends, fabrications continue to arise due to ignorance.
What is fabricated has no connection with previous life. It is entirely new.
As long as fabrications are present, the "body" (5 skandhas) is present. The "body" which is present is destined to suffering and death.
Suffering and death continue until ignorance is ended.
Thus, there is no soul nor any incorporeal entities nor body. There is just this cycle of arising and ceasing of "body" (5 skandhas) which is subject to suffering.

I have updated my question to include the possibility of no soul in my determination it occurred to me shortly after posting but thank you for your answer though your right in that. But doesn't your answer mean that the negation of the existence of the soul by enlightenment of ignorance an assumption how can you say that will happen until you have that personal enlightenment and then be able to assert that statement judged personaly from your experience.

Very good. You made a very good update. If there is any doubt about what I said in my answer, I suggest to investigate it with your own personal experience of enlightenment of ignorance regarding this matter. Then everything will be clear to you.

Buddhism as much as I know is based upon transference of souls to other living entities
Birth or rebirth yes, but maybe no "soul".
See existing topics tagged rebirth and anatta for more on this topic (perhaps including this one).
I guess that part of the doctrine is that consciousness is conditioned by contact (e.g. conscious of a sight when seen), and so there's no kind of separate, independent soul; but once you get into trying to describe it, it's hard to stop -- it's a thicket of views:

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

how does it deal with the possible existence of incorporeal entities or does it refute the idea?
I think that traditional Buddhist cosmology teaches that there is one category of formless being, i.e. "gods" -- see Formless Realm (Ārūpyadhātu), or Six classes of beings.
Some people say that these descriptions (of beings) represent states of mind.
Anyway, gods live in a formless realm (so, not the "physical world" you wee asking about).
Or there are "ghosts", which may be what you were asking about. Wikipedia says,

Pretas are invisible to the human eye, but some believe they can be discerned by humans in certain mental states.

I assume they have a body (i.e. a form) but whether it's a "physical" body I can't tell you.
It might be hard to distinguish between "Buddhism" and local folk beliefs or traditions -- whether ghosts are "real". I think that Buddhism doesn't say very much about them ... and says that they characterize excessive greed, deceit and so on ... that they arise from being insatiably greedy.

What do you think of entities spirits souls awareness's that occur in lucid dreams not dreams you remember but the dreams you remember because you had a consious interaction with and response similar to the physical reaction we encounter from day to day how can that be simply experienced and down to physics wheres The information in those dreams that personal choice determines the outcome of events in that dream. Those entities are real as real as any encounter in the physical real I know because I've had to pull myself out of those dreams back to natural consiousness.


text:
How can I direct attention on an breath without consciously breathing?
In every guided meditation or in the books I've read on meditation, I've been told to observe and hold sustained awareness towards the the 'meditation object', that is my breathing. When I do that, though, I stop breathing automatically and instead have to control my breaths. Can someone explain to me what's going on? Is this okay? Or is there a way I can observe my breath whilst automatically breathing?

These books are wrong, which is why relatively few Buddhists are stream-enterers or reach jhana.
To observe the computer screen in front of you, you do not have to do anything with your eyes. The seeing of the computer screen happens automatically, as long as your head is pointed in the direction of the computer screen & your mind is not asleep.
Similarly, in meditation, feeling & knowing the breathing happens automatically, as long as the mind is quiet, still & gentle. All that is really needed is to sit upright with a still, quiet, gentle, awake mind.
The difficult part is the quiet clear mind. If this can be done, the breathing part is easy because the body breathes automatically & the mind knows breathing automatically when the mind is quiet.
The path of the Buddha is the giving up of craving, which includes not craving when meditating.
The Zen masters say: 'The silent mind can listen to grass'.

(Ānāpānas)sati-kammaṭṭhāna=mindfulness, on breath, meditation. It is not breath meditation.
There for, the practitioner training mindfulness, not breath.
The breathing is always automatic. The practitioner doesn't have to control it.
The problem is that the natural of breath is soft and little, so people who never train mindfulness on breath have not enough mindfulness power to notice it.
To fix this problem, return your focus back to point at nose tip, when you find their, without worry, your mindfulness will meditate up to see your breath.
Trust the buddha that breath is automatic. Don't worry about breath. It is certainly automatic. So just find it only at nose tip. Shortly after that, a breath will appear to your mindfulness.
Summary each step of meditation:
http://122.155.190.19/revata/download/Books/Pa-Auk_Eng_Books/Mindfulness%20of%20Breathing.pdf
Ᾱnāpānassati (Mindfulness-of-breathing) - An Introduction:
http://www.pamc.org.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=32
The Meditation Practice of Pa Auk Forest Monastery 1-3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMQBXmaSFTM

You can't not breathe, it's automatic. All you have to do is be aware that you're doing it and keep  bringing the mind back to it. You're only controlling it if you feel you try to change the breaths for example making them longer or shorter which by the way is useful in some circumstances. Don't over think it. Just sit and breathe

Only mindfulness will bring everything in order. Just focus on breathing. Knowing out-breath, knowing in-breath is enough. Whenever the mind wander, just pay attention on out-breath, in-breath. In the early moment, one cannot focus on it as mind wander outside. As time goes by, concentration arise and it is very clear. Dhamma will show by itself. Some people may think, it is the beginning of meditation. But later he/she will know this out-breath in-breath noticing is all the way from beginning, middle and the end, the only way to nibbana, no two.


text:
The Story of Buddha
Recently I am fascinated by the accounts of Gautama Buddha and of Buddhism, after having read The Story of Buddha within the book The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck by Mark Manson. I am led to want to ask this question as I am unsure whether this is an adaptation made original by Manson, further I wish to know the true original source of The Story of Buddha as it relates to Buddhism and without interpretation. Is anyone able to provide me with additional insight?

The story of the Buddha's life from the Pali Canon can be found here: A Sketch of the Buddha's Life: Readings from the Pali Canon.
It contains these sections:

The Bodhisatta (Buddha-to-be)
The Awakening
After the Awakening
Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion
Forty-five years of teaching
The Buddha's last days

What's in that retelling is a gross misinterpretation of Buddhism.  You could write volumes on how wildly off that story is.  While many of the "facts" are basically correct, I think it loses the essence of the Buddha's search and eventual enlightenment.
The Buddha didn't just run away and embrace suffering.  He actually left his home to study with the great spiritual teachers of his day in hopes of finding liberation from suffering.  Ultimately, after a six years of practice, the Buddha-to-be arrived at an understanding of the nature of suffering, its causes, and its cessation.   What the Buddha laid down in his teaching aren't ideas or concepts but rather the practices and guiding principles governing that practice which leads to the end of suffering.
Manson also seems to confuse the idea of suffering with pain.  Pain is a necessary part of the human existence.  Suffering (the world the Buddha used is dukkha - better translated as anguish) is not inevitable.  By following the path laid down by the Buddha, we can change our relationship with the world.  While we always still experience pain and negative states, our relationship with them vastly alters and become progressively less characterized by anguish.  It doesn't seem like Manson quite grasps what really amounts to a basic Buddhist idea.
Regarding the full story, the gloss given in Ruben's answer is pretty good.  If you are interested in reading more, I would also suggest MN 26.

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


text:
Are the clinging aggregates the cause of clinging after death?
There are five clinging aggregates.
Here it states that one's self clings to the five aggregates. To quote:

"It's just as when a dog is tied by a leash to a post or stake: If it
  walks, it walks right around that post or stake. If it stands, it
  stands right next to that post or stake. If it sits, it sits right
  next to that post or stake. If it lies down, it lies down right next
  to that post or stake.
"In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person regards form
  as: 'This is mine, this is my self, this is what I am.' He regards
  feeling… perception… fabrications… consciousness as: 'This is mine,
  this is my self, this is what I am.' If he walks, he walks right
  around these five clinging-aggregates. If he stands, he stands right
  next to these five clinging-aggregates. If he sits, he sits right next
  to these five clinging-aggregates. If he lies down, he lies down right
  next to these five clinging-aggregates. Thus one should reflect on
  one's mind with every moment: 'For a long time has this mind been
  defiled by passion, aversion, & delusion.' From the defilement of the
  mind are beings defiled. From the purification of the mind are beings
  purified.

It is clear that one clings to the five aggregates during his or her life time.
But after death the five aggregates dissolve.
My question is : are the clinging aggregates the cause of clinging after death? (Just as one clings to his own existence after death and takes rebirth)

The last mind in previous life is anantara-cause of the after-life-mind.
The previous life, mind&mind factors&forms, is pakatūpanissaya-cause of the after-life.
The previous kamma is nānakkhanikkakamma-cause of the after-life.
The previous life is ārammaṇa-cause of the after-life.
All above is clinging aggregate.
Read: http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_8.htm

I couldn't find any mention of the clinging aggregates on the link provided by you.

You asking for causes of rebirth aggregates. That link showing you  causes of rebirth aggregates.

Not knowing the real nature of things is the cause of clinging after death.
Again: Ignorance is the cause of clinging after death.
Again: Not knowing the truth is the cause of clinging after death.
All three are the same: not knowing the real nature of things , ignorance and not knowing the truth.
All are not knowing ... ignorance ... not being able to discern lies from truths ... thinking "this is so and so" when it is not so and so ...
That being said, what was said is the cause of clinging after death.

You had said in an answer to previous question that " Without knowing the true nature of things, self cannot completely dissolve, thus it remains. This is key in understanding that after death some self remains and it does not completely dissolve."  This is not true... Self is made up of aggregates and at death it dissolves. In this answer it is said that "Birth is the arising of aggregates. Death is the disappearing of that which arose."

Then let me put it this way: The aggregates dissolve, but the doer who fabricated the fabricated aggregates remains.

Basic understanding is that self arises by the cooperation of the five aggregates. When one dies the five aggregates dissolve leaving no self at all!! But Upadana and Law of Karma exists...which again causes those five aggregates to reassemble. Your line of reasoning says when aggregates dissolve doer remains... If it is so then we have found an Absolute soul which doesn't dissolve on death of being!! Absence of absolute self is the basic tenet of Buddhism.

Let me see if I understand ... So rebirth occurs because of craving and clinging. Craving and clinging occurs because of ignorance (because true nature of things are not known). If doer at the time of death completely dissolves, then where does the ignorance come from to rebuild the self to cause his rebirth? Is it from upadana and karma because only upadana and karma remain?

yes. you understand it correctly. The questions you are asking can be asked in the forum. I can only say that Updana and Karma are inherent part of all beings and after dissolution of being, the upadana continues to exist and causes rebirth.

So, you're saying that from upadana and karma comes ignorance. From this it follows that if ignorance is removed, upadana and karma will remain. So, even though ignorance is removed, rebirth would happen because of upadana and karma remaining. But the Buddha said that once ignorance is removed, rebirth stops. So you're claiming that after ignorance is removed, rebirth still happens because of upadana and karma ... but Buddha is claiming that after ignorance is removed, rebirth stops.


text:
What are the traditional Buddhist arguments for rebirth?
According to Buddhist philosophy, there are two Pramanas or means of valid knowledge: Pratyaksha or sensory perception and Anumana or inference.  (This is in contrast to most Hindus who believe in three or more Pramanas.) My question is, what are the traditional Buddhist arguments for the existence of rebirth?
Now at least ordinary humans don't observe rebirth directly, so I assume that these arguments will rely on Anumana.  I've seen Hindu arguments that use Anumana to prove the existence of rebirth, but those arguments are about establishing the existence of the Atma or soul, which Buddhists reject.  So I assume that traditional Buddhist works have a different Anumana-based argument than the one Hindus use.

I am replacing my previous answer.
If my understanding is right, in the school of Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism, idol worship is seen as a step for elementary practitioners, before they are able to reach the advanced stage where they realize that their Self is that invisible Ultimate Truth.
This is similar to rebirth in Buddhism. Rebirth-of-self belief is a tool to help elementary practitioners.
This answer quotes suttas mentioned in this other answer. Please read that answer.
For those who have not yet overcome self-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi, the first of the ten fetters), denying rebirth-of-self view is annihilationism and leads to hedonism, just as it was with Charvaka (Ajita Kesakambali - mentioned in DN 2).
For those who have not yet overcome self-view, it makes sense to adopt the right view with effluents, siding with merit, as defined in MN 117. This includes belief in rebirth, heaven and hell, as well as believing that one is the heir of one's kamma according to AN 5.57. This will result in avoiding misconduct.
Based on MN 38 and SN 22.85, there is no rebirth of a continually existing consciousness, which is what people usually think of, when they talk about "rebirth". Also, the Buddha famously taught that "all phenomena is not self" (Dhp 279, and this answer).
MN 38 also explains that consciousness arises dependent on the six sense media. There is no consciousness that exists apart from it.
Based on AN 6.61 and SN 44.9 quoted in this answer, rebirth refers to the cessation of the old mental individual identity and the arising of the new mental individual identity, from one mind-moment to the next mind-moment. The mind-moments cease and arise along with contact. So, this happens when one contact ceases and a new one arises. Craving is what sustains the continuity from one mental individual identity to the next.
The Buddha placed the greatest emphasis on sensory perception as means of obtaining the knowledge of the truth.

“And what, bhikkhus, is The All? The eye and forms, the ear and
sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and
tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called The
All.
“If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I
shall make known another all’ — that would be a mere empty boast on
his part. If he were questioned he would not be able to reply and,
further, he would meet with vexation. For what reason? Because,
bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain.”
SN 35.23

But in suttas, I think have also seen him using anumana (or inference), although I can't find it at the moment. That would make a good question.

I have been unable to find the word anumāna in the Pali suttas but found it in the later-day Milindapañha, as follows:

He who, himself set free in that bless’d state In which the Upadhis have ceased to be, —Lusts, sin, and Karma—has brought safe ashore,
  Saved from the sea of woe, great multitudes— Only by inference can it
  be known That he, the best of men, existed once. Mil 6.4 1

In AN 2.25 there is the word nītattha (inferred meaning), which I have been unable to find elsewhere in the Pali suttas (although the prefix 'nita' is often used unfavourably, such as 'led' by ignorance or 'led' to hell).
The Dhamma of the Buddha is explicitly defined in the Pali suttas as follows:

The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the
  wise for themselves.' AN 4.92

Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me and is plain, open, explicit and free of patchwork... MN 22

I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard
  to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed
  fist of a teacher who keeps some things back. DN 16

The metaphysical ideas about reincarnation or rebirth, such as Jataka Stories, relinking consciousness (paṭisandhi-viññāṇa), 3-lifetime dependent origination, etc, were obviously brought into Buddhism at a time after the Buddha's passing, probably during to era of King Ashoka, who was zealous in growing the religion socially, Since the core essence of Buddhism does not appeal to common people, a religion would have to be created to make Buddhism appealing, which ultimately resulted in the demise of Buddhism in India (per common scholarly opinion) because Buddhism became virtually indistinguishable from Hinduism.

Buddhism's distinctiveness diminished with the rise of Hindu sects. Though Mahayana writers were quite critical of Hinduism, the devotional cults of Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism likely seemed quite similar to laity, and the developing Tantrism of both religions were also similar. Buddhist ideas, and even the Buddha himself, were absorbed and adapted into orthodox Hindu thought,while the differences between the two systems of thought were emphasized. Wikipedia

If you are Indian, you must know the word 'jati', which is the central term used in Pali Buddhism, does not mean physical birth or childbirth. It means self or social identity or caste:

Jāti (in Devanagari: जाति, Bengali: জাতি, Telugu:జాతి, Kannada:ಜಾತಿ, Malayalam: ജാതി, Tamil:ஜாதி, literally "birth") is a group of clans,
  tribes, communities and sub-communities, and religions in India. Each
  jāti typically has an association with a traditional job function or
  tribe. Religious beliefs (e.g. Sri Vaishnavism or Veera Shaivism) or
  linguistic groupings may define some jatis. A person's surname
  typically reflects a community (jati) association: thus Gandhi =
  perfume seller, Dhobi = washerman, Srivastava = military scribe, etc.
  Wikipedia

In summary, the numerous words in the Pali scriptures, commonly universally translated as "rebirth", simply refer to the re-arising of 'self-view' (see discussion here); just as the words 'pubbe nivasa', which is wrongly translated as 'past lives', really mean 'past adherences', namely, when in the past the mind ignorantly clung to the  five aggregates as 'self'.
Thus, when the Buddha recollected his "past lives" or "past adherences" (properly translated as "past abodes" or "past dwellings", literally "former homes"), he recollected each time the mind in the past ignorantly gave "birth" ('jati') to the idea of 'self', as explicitly explained in the Khajjaniya Sutta, Haliddakani Sutta and elsewhere.

153. Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house. Repeated birth is indeed suffering!
154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
  mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
  craving.
First Words of the Buddha: Dhammapada 153

In his discussions with Brahmans (MN 95; DN 13), monks (MN 38) and even lay people (AN 3.65), the Buddha often condemned the idea of blind faith or unsubstantiated beliefs.

The topic you're discussing is well-answered in the Acela Sutta. I think your primary concern here is with the use of the English term "rebirth" rather than other terms like "re-arising of the self" or "reappearance of the self". MN36 (trans. Thanissaro) calls it "the passing away & reappearance of beings". So, your concern here is not with the technical or philosophical interpretation of the sutta teachings or Pali terms, but rather with the semantics of the English terms used in the translation.

@ruben2020 (edit: rephrasing my comment) — so are you saying that Buddhism core beliefs do not include past lives and literal rebirth? And this is just a misconception? (perhaps originated or augmented by translation artifacts)

So far as I know, the reasons or arguments include:

It's Buddha-vacana, i.e. it's understood that the Buddha said so
It's widespread traditional normal belief, which even pre-dates Buddhism (Buddhism isn't the only religion)
There are historical events or witnesses (e.g. of young children who display knowledge which they could only have acquired in a previous life), e.g. associated with the recognition of Tulkus:

In order to accept reincarnation or the reality of Tulkus, we need to accept the existence of past and future lives.

And there are logical arguments such as (from the same reference):

Generally, Buddhists believe that there is no beginning to birth and that once we achieve liberation from the cycle of existence by overcoming our karma and destructive emotions, we will not be reborn under the sway of these conditions. Therefore, Buddhists believe that there is an end to being reborn as a result of karma and destructive emotions, but most Buddhist philosophical schools do not accept that the mind-stream comes to an end. To reject past and future rebirth would contradict the Buddhist concept of the ground, path and result, which must be explained on the basis of the disciplined or undisciplined mind. If we accept this argument, logically, we would also have to accept that the world and its inhabitants come about without causes and conditions. Therefore, as long as you are a Buddhist, it is necessary to accept past and future rebirth.
For those who remember their past lives, rebirth is a clear experience. However, most ordinary beings forget their past lives as they go through the process of death, intermediate state and rebirth. As past and future rebirths are slightly obscure to them, we need to use evidence-based logic to prove past and future rebirths to them.
There are many different logical arguments given in the words of the Buddha and subsequent commentaries to prove the existence of past and future lives. In brief, they come down to four points: the logic that things are preceded by things of a similar type, the logic that things are preceded by a substantial cause, the logic that the mind has gained familiarity with things in the past, and the logic of having gained experience of things in the past.
Ultimately all these arguments are based on the idea that the nature of the mind, its clarity and awareness, must have clarity and awareness as its substantial cause. It cannot have any other entity such as an inanimate object as its substantial cause. This is self-evident. Through logical analysis we infer that a new stream of clarity and awareness cannot come about without causes or from unrelated causes. While we observe that mind cannot be produced in a laboratory, we also infer that nothing can eliminate the continuity of subtle clarity and awareness.

I don't understand these arguments well enough to argue them myself: I could only quote them. If you want to question one of these arguments, try posting that as a new question tagged tibetan-buddhism.

There appear no valid Buddhist arguments for "rebirth". Generally, all Buddhist arguments for "rebirth" revolve around misinterpretations of literal sutta teachings and mistranslations of literal Pali words.
For example, the sutta doctrine of dependent origination in the suttas is visible in the here & now (MN 38) and refers to the "birth" ("jati") of "beings" ("satta"). Suttas such as SN 23.2 & SN 5.10 literally explain a "satta" ("being") is merely a view or mental concept. Therefore, the traditional cultural & current Australian worldly Buddhist arguments that dependent origination explains "rebirth" appear literally wrong & heretical.
Similarly, the most common Pali words translated as "rebirth", namely, the words related to "upapanna", have no literal etymological root of the word "birth" ("jan"). These words have the etymological root of "pad", meaning "to go; to walk". Thus the suttas often teach unwholesome kamma leads/go to hell & wholesome kamma leads/go to heaven. Hell & heaven are described as mental states, such as in SN 35.135.

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


text:
A wall of energy slammed me back during meditation? What was this?
2 years ago, I was meditating for about 2 hours a day and was rapidly transitioning to a higher vibration when all of the sudden, I was slammed back by a force of energy back into my chair. Since then I havent been able to get as deep into meditation as I did before then. Im not sure what happened, but feel some kind of a block happened. Has anyone else experienced this or know what happened?

What was happening up until you reached that wall?  Could you describe your mental state?  Also, what sort of practice were you doing?

@Laurie Smith-Waterman. Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. Question has been closed as it does not relate to Buddhism but merely meditation in general. Please edit and clarify further in your post.

Honestly, this sounds like an encounter with mu.  I think this question could be reopened provided that additional information regarding technique was provided.

If your breathing, body & mind are currently functioning normally, I would forget about it because your question is an example of 'attachment', which Buddhism teaches to let go of.
Naturally, I can't say exactly what happened, whether the cause was purely mental (a cathartic emotion); or otherwise purely energetic due to some kind of (non-Buddhist) yogic energy manipulation? But obviously what you regarded as "deep" was merely something unnaturally forced & temporary. It sounds like you pushed to some kind of limit in your energetic-breathing-nervous-system due to non-Buddhist yogic practice.
You should ensure your breathing is currently normal because excessive yogic practises can bring harm to the body, breathing & nervous system.
Buddhist meditation has its foundation in letting-go & non-attachment rather than pushing or manipulating.
Below is an example of a yoga practice called 'pranayama', which is a deliberate controlling of breathing: