text:
Why aren't more people interested in Dhamma?
I read somewhere that Dhamma should only be taught to people who are interested and attentive to the knowledge, but why aren't more people interested in the first place? Dhamma could lead to the end of suffering, which is something most people would be interested in right?
Is this because of indifference and thus ill-will and aversion? Is it because of delusion? Laziness and lethargy, or other parts of the five hindrances?
And why do people react so hostile when discussing achievements such as having better concentration, more equanimity etc.? Why don't they see it as an opportunity to learn something new? Why is there such a lack of enthusiasm and a drive to search for wisdom?

See also How to explain what Buddhism is?

In the Ayacana Sutta (SN 6.1), the Buddha explained that for the masses who are strongly clinging to sensual pleasures and other things like name, fame, wealth, health, relationships etc., it is hard to understand the full depth and breadth of the Dhamma.

Then, while he was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking
  arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep,
  hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of
  conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation
  delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment.
  For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment,
  enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising
  are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of
  all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending
  of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach
  the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be
  tiresome for me, troublesome for me."

And then, most terrifyingly to us:

As the Blessed One reflected thus, his mind inclined to dwelling at ease, not to teaching the Dhamma.

Fortunately the Buddha was persuaded otherwise:

There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.

I will answer from the pragmatic perspective targeting mainly a western person.
There aren't more people interested in Dhamma because the path of Buddha is difficult and requires non-trivial amount of knowledge, therefore plenty of time is spent on reading treaties, sutras and texts to get even basic intellectual understanding of principles.
Furthermore, Eightfold path is not an easy, nor quick path to follow, and it is marked with plenty of difficulties and hardships on the way; there are hindrances and stagnations, questions, all sorts of issues that one experiences. For this very reason, many people even remotely interested in Buddhism get either quite frightened or put off - for they have to abandon so much, much more than the typical western person is comfortable with, and secondly, Buddhism requires much practise practise every day. Given that there are many more alternatives to do in the evening, in the stimuli times, people prefer to keep themselves relatively content and ignorant while binging on Netflix.
The experience of practising Christianity or Islam is much simpler and convenient; they incorporate basic, more straightforward rules to follow and neither of them require anything more than blind faith.

Dhamma could lead to the end of suffering, which is something most
  people would be interested in right?

For people who grasp to Self, Dhamma and emptiness is a step down, it's just a bad trade.
For people who discover Dhamma, who accept emptiness but still remember the ideal of Self, it's a small step up, it's a good trade.
For those who follow Dhamma, it's best not to compete.
Personally imo, whether with God or nihilism, with respect to the All as defined in SN 35.23, people are indifferent. The former because it's the next world - not this one, the latter just because really.

Dhamma could lead to the end of suffering, which is something most people would be interested in right?
No, that is not what most people are interested in. Most people are interested in worldly goals like making more money, having a beautiful girl/boyfriend, having a big house, glory, fame etc. It is only for those who have seen it all and have seen the inherent nature of suffering in all these things or for those very intelligent few who can through means of mere intellect know that all these things bring only suffering, only they came to the Dhamma.
Yes most people are interested in the idea of 'end of suffering' that's what all the politicians and priests promise but, they choose the temporary end via fulfilling sensual pleasures.
Is this because of indifference and thus ill-will and aversion? Is it because of delusion? Laziness and lethargy, or other parts of the five hindrances?
No, all these hindrances come after you start practicing the Dhamma. It is basically because of ignorance of the fact that there is another path of wisdom called the Dhamma and also by having wrong views about the Dhamma.
And why do people react so hostile when discussing achievements such as having better concentration, more equanimity etc.? Why don't they see it as an opportunity to learn something new?
Because all these achievements don't give you profit and success in worldly terms. Society wants you to be its slave and not a free individual. Think about it, if everyone attains equanimity then who is going to go on borders and wage war.
Why is there such a lack of enthusiasm and a drive to search for wisdom?
That's a matter of personal intelligence. Lack of enthusiasm for wisdom only denotes the naivety of an individual.

Because Dhamma is difficult to understand. The path shown by Buddha is difficult to follow. For example most people will like to keep their wealth and relatives intact and would not follow the footsteps of Buddha and renounce wealth and relatives. People don't understand their belief in Self is an illusion, based on false belief. For pain and suffering most people would go to a modern doctor rather than seek refuge in Dhamma. People are craving for ignorance, craving for feeling , craving for existence , craving for non-existence. But they don't know that they are ensnared in the endless cycle of birth and death. People are unable to give up personal love or enmity. They wish bad for the person or society leading to personal or social struggle. For example Hindu Muslims fight over Ram Mandir in India or Palestines and Israel struggle over Jerusalem. These fights involve the person so deeply in the Maya( Delusion or moha) that fail to see the Truth that these people and societies are devoid of any Self. People are jumping like monkeys one tree to another tree to find happiness which lasts (which they don't find it).
Laziness and lethargy is due to ignorance. If people are told that they are going definitely going to suffer very badly if they do not amend their ways then all the laziness will vanish. But this doesn't happen because people believe in the Self , they believe that there is eternal being who will save them if they follow the right morals. But unfortunately there is no such being. Good morality gives them better destinations but all those destinations ultimately fail to hold and collapse causing immeasurable suffering. Also I think happiness is being advertised so strongly in the media that no one believes that Life is suffering. At best people want to believe (as Deepak Chopra said) in the existence of both Dukkha and Sukkha.
I gave so many reasons above , the most important reason is that it is very difficult to escape the temptations of Mara. Mara bothered Buddha and Bhikkus and Bhikkhunis. Mara offers temptations(including wealth , sex, children,status etc) to all which most people can not ignore. This is why people are not interested in following Dhamma.

Is this because of indifference and thus ill-will and aversion? Is it because of delusion? Laziness and lethargy, or other parts of the five hindrances?

In short it's the Three Poisons of greed, ill-will, and ignorance within each and everyone of us. See how difficult it is for an addict to drugs or alcohol to abandone those things and return to a simple healthy lifestyle, let alone living a lifestyle under the Dhamma's light. Sensual pleasure is an addiction and in this respect, we're all still addicts to that powerful "drug".

Lust creates the world; in the same way each of us was born from our mother's womb; who created us due to her lust. The world is interested in lust; even when lust causes suffering. Most burned by lust return to lust or suppress their beloved lust (with drugs, alcohol, medication, etc). That the world is like this is ordinary & normal. Those interested in Dhamma is "rare". "Human birth", which means being interested in & according to Dhamma, is "rare".

Bhikkhus, suppose a man would throw a yoke with a single hole into the
  great ocean, and there was a blind turtle which would come to the
  surface once every hundred years. What do you think, bhikkhus, would
  that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years,
  insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole?
If it would ever do so, venerable sir, it would be only after a very
  long time.
Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once
  every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole
  than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the
  human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no
  conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome
  activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual
  devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
  bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
  noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering.
SN 56.47

Why aren't more people interested in Dhamma?
I think that more people are interested -- and that in many cases they already know at least the first thing about it.
I think that if people don't appear to be interested, it's that it's not being taught very well (i.e. that "we don't teach very well", "we are not good teachers").
I think it's famously difficult to teach, by the way -- an activity for which it's better to have some training, and/or an activity which distinguishes a Buddha from an Arahant.
And why do people react so hostile when discussing achievements such as having better concentration, more equanimity etc.?
Perhaps you should ask them why?
I can guess there are many reasons, which could include for example:

It sounds like criticism -- "you could have better concentration" is like saying "you have bad concentration now". And it sounds like conceit -- "my concentration is better than yours"
They don't have faith (and don't know enough to have reason to be faithful) -- i.e. faith in you as a teacher and/or faith in the dhamma
It may seem counter-intuitive (even defeatist) -- e.g. that a sensible remedy for "I'm struggling to obtain something, or to be someone" might be to "stop struggling", and so on.
Not everyone shares the same "view" of the world (e.g. here the first noble truth, which I assumed was obvious to me and everyone, isn't obvious to someone else); the dhamma says there's right view (and therefore presumably wrong view too), and in fact at least two different kinds of right view (see also lay versus monastic life)
Some practical dhamma builds on (and may require) previous dhamma. How easily can you explain the difference between "effort" and "right effort"? Does (or should) your explanation depend on who you're trying to explain it to, and when?
Maybe they have some preconceived objections:

"Buddhism: that's the religion which says I might be reborn as a kitten -- am I right?"
"Buddhism: what strange hats and clothes they wear!"
"Buddhism: maybe I will, in a future life, but in this life I'm unable to understand Tibetan."

Maybe they're already practising: not killing or lying or stealing, trying to work for what's "right" (at least "right" in the sense of mundane/lay society, trying to look after family and friends and so on).
Maybe people aren't completely "rational" and it's beneficial to appeal to their emotions somehow too.
We're not good at memorising (reciting, recounting, narrating) Buddhist text. So whatever text we can produce (e.g. speak) if we're trying to teach isn't as good as the text which we've been privileged to hear or read ourselves.

Why is there such a lack of enthusiasm and a drive to search for wisdom?
I think it would be better to ask the opposite version of this question.
In general, how to teach? What makes a good teacher?
Or more specifically, how could you teach (or how if at all should you act, what could one say or do) in such-and-such a (specific) situation?

The human mind is defective, we were born with a defective mind. And on the top of that the culture and economic conditions are not conducive to nurture a mind of contemplative and ethically correct thinking .
Buddha's teaching requires you to do reverse engineering of the mind. That's not an easy task.
The Dhamma is not easy to understand and human's nature is to avoid difficulties rather making attempts to understand, only those who have strong faith and determination will do it.


text:
what do you think of Miracles as mentioned in the Suttas and in the Oral traditions found in Hinduism and Buddhism?
I know one teacher who is an ok teacher, as far as he gets people to relax and make a good effort, but he really poo poo's any mention of Miracles in reference to the Buddha. I think that Full and complete awakening leads to mastery of the material world. Please give me your real belief in Miracles or not. Also. This same teacher explains some of the Miraculous activities of Arhants are just an activity of a different body, i.e. astral body, or a subtle body , and not really miracles.

This is phrased as a so-called "polling question" (i.e. "what do you think?"): a style that's discouraged by the Moderation policies for Questions. This is identical to (a duplicate of) the "Buddhism and miracles" question, isn't it? Except that the form of the other question allows answers which admit it's controversial (if it is).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
how desire for cessation, never to be reborn, is different from desire for non-being?
The Second Noble Truth identifies three aspects of craving, one of them being craving for non-being.
How does the desire for cessation, to attain final Nibbāna, never to be reborn, differ from the desire for non-existence?

just found a related question -  Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?

Vibhava tanha (craving not-to-be) is a type of craving.
Cessation of being (bhava nirodha) is the cessation of craving (tanha nirodha).
The "desire for cessation" called 'chanda iddhipada' is not a type of craving (tanha).
Also, bhava nirodha is not "never to be reborn". "Bhava" is "egoism". "Bhava nirodha" is the cessation of egoism.
If mind believes believes in "ego" or "self", now can it ever stop being "reborn"?
"Jati" ("birth") itself means "egoism'. "Jati nirodha" happens when egoism stops.
The only way to reach Nibbana is stopping egoism.

If Bhava is egoism, then what is attavādūpādānaṃ?

the start or initial mental conception of egoism; which is then developed (bhava) and fully formed (jati).

Oh! So bhava is the existence of egoism inevitably arising from the concept, contact, feeling,  craving and grasping of egoism thereby leading inevitably to that mess of suffering.

I think that, according to Ananda in SN 51.15, the holy life is "give up or abandon desire" -- perhaps also (my paraphrase) "aiming towards [[being in] a state of] non-craving".
Having reached that state (of non-craving) then the desire is calmed.
Perhaps it's obvious that's not the same as craving for annihilation.

Dhammadhatu's answer mentioned chanda iddhipada which is analyzed e.g. in SN 51.20.
In both these suttas, 51.15 and 51.20 (and actually all of the SN 51.xx suttas describe the Iddhipada), Ven Sujato translates chanda as "enthusiasm" rather than "desire".

Ah right - cessation of craving is different from annihilation - that should be obvious! Probably got confused on how not being reborn is different from non-existence - similar-looking but different motivations I suppose.

yes having a compassionate wish or enthusiasm to be free of craving does have a  different feeling than an aversive desire to not exist.

And also that's a helpful first point, that the holy life is "give up or abandon desire", an attitude of letting go and dispassion (nibbidā), rather than the kind of desire with craving.
MN 22.29 The Simile of the Snake:
Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.

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


text:
Buddhism on vasthu shastra
Vastu shastra (vāstu śāstra) is "a traditional Hindu system of architecture".
Did Lord Buddha debunk vasthu shastra? If not, what are some teachings made by Lord Buddha on the same? If Buddhism does not have an opinion on the topic, opinions of members are appreciated

Please provide a definition of vasthu shastra. Thanks

Traditional hindu science of architecture used by hindus and some buddhists living in south asia and south east asia.

Vasthu shastra is known as vatthuvijjā in DN 2 of the Pali Canon. Vasthu in Sanskrit and Vatthu in Pali is presumably the same word. It is the "science of building sites". I added this to my answer.

Did Lord Buddha debunk vasthu shastra?
Vastu Shashtra is set of instructions on how to build your house or buildings, it has nothing to do with anything the Buddha dealt with,  the Buddha lived in open air and if at all anything was built for Him, the Buddha was gifted parks for His monks, so I don't know if He would have directly addressed anything from Vastu Shastra as much as He would have addressed about 'Hemaghna' (Metallurgy). So there is nothing to be debunked, it's not a theory.
If not, what are some teachings made by Lord Buddha on the same?
But if Buddha had to give advice about all the claims that Vastu Shashtra I believe Buddha would have given the same advise as he gave to the Kalamas.

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by
  traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by
  analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by
  the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for
  yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" —
  then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to
  this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
  scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
  agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
  'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
  that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless;
  these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
  & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
  & remain in them.
He told them to use common sense.

If Buddhism does not have an opinion on the topic, opinions of members are appreciated
It is a bogus pseudoscience, if at all of any value it's just of some aesthetic value to build temples.
For e.g. according to VS the main door of the house should always be facing towards north direction to bring prosperity and all the positive things to house, now if that would have been case it should have been valid all over the world, then all the houses in the US and Europe who are not having north facing front door should have been relatively poor and all houses in India with such a door should have been relatively rich. But such is not the case. If it would have been the case, such kind of statistical data would have been available by now.
Besides the use of the terms like positive energy is very meaningless. So, if not by Buddha, it can be debunked by any high schooler.

study on it's benefits: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360602520_Managing_the_Built_Environment_for_Health_Promotion_and_Disease_Prevention_With_Maharishi_Vastu_Architecture_A_Review . . . what did the buddha say about 'Hemaghna' (Metallurgy)?

Wonder if we know of anything of the design and placement for the temples and dwellings the Buddha was offered

The Indian Vasthu Shastra and the Chinese Feng Shui are known as geomancy in English.
In DN 2, this is known as "vatthuvijjā" in Pali, which in Sanskrit is presumably, "vasthuvidya" or, knowledge or science of vasthu (the science of building sites).
The Buddha forbade monks from practising geomancy in DN 2 (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu), calling it an "animal art" or "debased art":

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
  faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal"
  arts as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens
  and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
  interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
  reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
  oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
  ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
  blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
  geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water
  and gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
  bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
  charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
  "animal" arts such as these.

Another translation of DN 2 by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

“Whereas some recluses and brahmins, while living on the food offered
  by the faithful, earn their living by a wrong means of livelihood, by
  such debased arts as:

prophesying long life, prosperity etc., or the reverse, from the marks on a person’s limbs, hands, feet, etc.;
divining by means of omens and signs;
making auguries on the basis of thunderbolts and celestial portents;
interpreting ominous dreams;
telling fortunes from marks on the body;
making auguries from the marks on cloth gnawed by mice;
offering fire oblations;
offering oblations from a ladle;
offering oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee and oil to the gods;
offering oblations from the mouth;
offering blood-sacrifices to the gods;
making predictions based on the fingertips;
determining whether the site for a proposed house or garden is propitious or not;
making predictions for officers of state;
laying demons in a cemetery;
laying ghosts;
knowledge of charms to be pronounced by one living in an earthen house;
snake charming;
the poison craft, scorpion craft, rat craft, bird craft, crow craft;
foretelling the number of years that a man has to live;
reciting charms to give protection from arrows;
reciting charms to understand the language of animals

he abstains from such wrong means of livelihood, from such debased
  arts. This too pertains to his moral discipline.

'Geomancy is a method of divination that interprets markings on the ground or the patterns formed by tossed handfuls of soil, rocks, or sand. The most prevalent form of divinatory geomancy involves interpreting a series of 16 figures formed by a randomized process that involves recursion, followed by analyzing them, often augmented with astrological interpretations.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomancy

Vatthu-vijja is the pali equivalent of Vastu-vidya (or shastra) and, as mentioned above, refers to “architecture” as both science and a means of livelihood. It is well-known that in ancient India numerous ‘guilds’ of various crafts and arts exists. They travelled around the country, and possibly the world, in order to distribute and provide their skills and services. One type of such guilds was the builders guild, specialised in temple architecture and city planning.
In the context of Buddhism, Vatthu-vijja occurs in a couple of Suttas. Note: these sources all apply to Theravada Buddhism.
First, in the Brahma-Jāla Sutta (chapter 1) vatthuvijja is mentioned in a lengthy list of ‘wrong means of livelihood’ applicable to Brahmans that are ‘living on food provided by the faithful’:

...
(16) Looking at the knuckles, &c., and, after muttering a charm,
divining whether a man is well born or lucky or not.
(17) Determining whether the site, for a proposed house or pleasance, is lucky or not.
(18) Advising on customary law.
...
(source)

In his notes, the translator T. W. Rhys Davids says:

Vatthu-vijjā [...] The craft is further explained by Buddhaghosa in his comment on the Mahā-parinibbāna Sutta I, 26. Its success depended on the belief that the sites were haunted by spirits.
(source)

Upon looking at Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the above-mentioned chapter of the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, we find the following:

At that time Sunidha and Vassakāra, the chief ministers of Māgadha, were building a fortress at Pāṭaligāma to repel the Vajjians, and there were many deities who inhabited the area.
Now, wherever a place is occupied by powerful deities, they bend the minds of the most powerful kings and ministers to build dwelling-places there, and deities of middling and inferior power bend in a similar way the minds of middling or inferior kings and ministers.
The Blessed One, with his divine eye, surpassing the vision of ordinary men, saw those deities occupying Pāṭaligāma. He rose early in the morning, saying to Ānanda: “Who is it then, Ānanda, who is building a fortress at Pāṭaligāma?”
“Sunidha and Vassakāra, Venerable sir, the chief ministers of Māgadha, are building a fortress there to keep back the Vajjians.”
“They act, Ānanda, as if they had consulted with the gods of Tāvatiṃsa.
[Telling him what he had seen, and of the influence the deities, he added]:
“Among the famous residences of the Noble Ones, and as far as trade extends, this will become the chief city of Pāṭaliputta, a centre for trade. However, three dangers will affect Pāṭaliputta: fire, flood, and internal dissension.”
(source: page 25)

So there you go, Vastu-shastra was a common concept in Buddhism. At the very least, the profession and purpose of architecture (vastu) was known to the Buddhist authors.


text:
Which commitment should I make?
I want to make one commitment now to save myself from suffering in distant future.
The kind of suffering is same as due to unity with undesired situation. For example I might have to shake hands with my enemy. Or I might have to live under poverty.
Which single most important commitment should I make to follow every day or every moment or every week so that I may not suffer while getting united with the undesirable?
(Answer should be like start keeping right view or start practicing right view or I should start jogging or I should start meditating or start chanting mantra etc...)

You seem to be overly preoccupied with the future, do you think it is healthy or maybe considered harmful in the long run versus mindful of present problems at hand which you actually can have control of? Disclaimer: I didn’t downvote.

Note to downvoter. I have upvoted this question because it has been a painful concern in my own life. Please consider downvoting as divisive speech and do provide comments with metta.

@dhamma4life Past has gone. Death and other sufferings are in store for us in the future. Present is the only chance to take right steps to end the suffering.  I don't mind downvote or upvote because Buddha asked us to handle all situations with same equanimity.

Buddha said not to be trapped by either, remember. I know it’s not easy but I want you to be happy @Dheeraj. I can recommend good practical book about suffering “No mud, No lotus” if you are not prejudiced against Mahayana and open minded.

@dhamma4life I will be reading that book shortly. Thanks.

How can anyone add something that you cannot already find in the texts? E.g. the pali canon already states the path to freedom from suffering, i.e. The Noble Eightfold Path.

@Lanka Nobel Eight Fold Path mentions too many things. Teaching of Dhamma ( This is not me , This is not mine, This is not myself) can be a commitment. Commitment to abandon all.

@DheerajVerma Maybe an example of a commitment is Taking refuge (or, depending on the school, another vow).

@DheerajVerma. No, it dosen't. The theravada buddhist Path is clearly outlined in the Noble Eightfold Path. The Path can be displayed in a simple and shortened form, suitable for commitments or in a techniqal, complex form, encompassing the entire buddhist Teaching. A simple commitment could be the "commitment to abandon wrong speech" or the "commitment to have right effort". Ofc all the path factors should be practiced in unison since the enforce each other.

The buddhist practice happens not in the past or future but now. The Dhamma is visible here and now. It is mindfulness of the present moment that is the key. If you make mindfulness and vigilance your commitment, it will bridge the way for the rest of the factors. You might want to read up on the Five Spiritual Faculties.

There is a difference between worrying about the future and thinkinf about it in a systematic way. Saying that one should be present at all times is not only impossible but also not helpful because necessary steps are probably dismissed. If there are adversities one has to face, then one had better use some problem solving methods that are in cognitive, emotive and behavioural nature.

One could simply commit to the awareness of:

This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.

Notice that quote is prefaced by the following introduction that addresses the question's focus on action and consequence (i.e., form):

Rahula, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal
  or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every
  form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as...

With right discernment comes a relinquishing of self and an openness to other questions and other suttas.
Also, given the expressed concern about consequence, there may be fear and terror here, in which case the Bhaya-bherava Sutta: Fear & Terror Sutta may be a helpful exploration.

here is a sutta with what resolution to take

When, bhikkhus, the Dhamma has thus been well expounded by me, elucidated, disclosed, revealed, stripped of patchwork, this is enough for a clansman who has gone forth out of faith to arouse his energy thus:

'Willingly, let only my skin, sinews, and bones remain, and let the flesh and blood dry up in my body, but I will not relax my energy so long as I have not attained what can be attained by manly strength, by manly energy, by manly exertion.'

"Bhikkhus, the lazy person dwells in suffering, soiled by evil unwholesome states, and great is the personal good that he neglects.
But the energetic person dwells happily, secluded from evil unwholesome states, and great is the personal good that he achieves.
It is not by the inferior that the supreme is attained; rather, it is by the supreme that the supreme is attained.
Bhikkhus, this holy life is a beverage of cream; the Teacher is present.
Therefore, bhikkhus, arouse your energy for the attainment of the as-yet-unattained, for the achievement of the as-yet-unachieved, for the realization of the as-yet-unrealized, [with the thought]:

'In such a way this going forth of ours will not be barren, but fruitful and fertile; and when we use the robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites [offered to us by others], these services they provide for us will be of great fruit and benefit to them.'

Thus, bhikkhus, should you train yourselves.
"Considering your own good, bhikkhus, it is enough to strive for the goal with diligence; considering the good of others, it is enough to strive for the goal with diligence; considering the good of both, it is enough to strive for the goal with diligence."

http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/wp/sn/02_nv/sn02.12.022.bodh.wp.htm#p1

Now, before I give some advice it is important that we agree on basic premises, otherwise it will be quite difficult to elicit change.

You realize that you are facing an adversity (either imagined, real or even both)
You understand the relationship between a situation, the thoughts, feelings and emotions and the underlying belief system that is responsible for those
If you have by now understood the importance of beliefs and the subsequent behaviour, you know that only practise and hard work largely will help you and that prayer, chanting and meditation will only distract you in the short run and do not address your problem(s) directly
You acknowledge that feeling happy or indifferent feelings in the face of adversity is unpractical because:
a) Healthy negative emotions like sadness, regret, assertive anger etc. all help you to process the negative event properly
b) They allow you to behave in a helpful rather than unhelpful way (since the underlying flexible beliefs are non-extreme in nature and therefore the subsequent behaviours will be non-extreme as well) and
c) Healthy negative emotions motivate you to change the situation if possible and to accept it if you cannot.

Based on these premises it is now important to question your underlying beliefs. Usually these are formulated in rigid ''musts, shoulds, must not" etc. Question them. Are they true? Where is it written?  Does it logically follow that just because you want something you therefore have to obtain it? Is it helpful to think that way?
If you think that you will end up in poverty there are of course also behavioural methods you should do like applying for a job, moving to an other city where job opportunities are better, saving money etc.


text:
Can meditation heal physical diseases?
I recently read the Discourse to Girimananda Thera. In it, the Venerable Girimananda was "afflicted with a disease, was suffering there from, and was gravely ill". The Blessed One was petitioned by another monk who stated: "It were well, bhante, if the Blessed One would visit the Venerable Girimananda out of compassion for him".
To this the Blessed one replied: "Should you, Ánanda, visit the monk Girimananda and recite to him the ten contemplations, then that monk Girimananda having heard them, will be immediately cured of his disease".
Is this possible? Has anyone experienced immediate healing of some disease first hand? If the answer is yes, then I would be curious to know what the limitations (if any) there are for physical healing and if the effects were permanent.
Disclaimer: I am completely new to Buddhism (less than 6 months of practice).

In case it matters, another translation says,

"If you were to recite to the mendicant Girimānanda these ten perceptions, it’s possible that after hearing them his illness will die down on the spot."

I think everyone translates the Pali, "Ṭhānaṃ kho panetaṃ", as "It is possible that".
Also, though this doesn't answer your question, Piya Tan has an introduction to this sutta if you want to read it -- Giri-m-ananda Sutta (A 10.60) -- which includes a page connecting ancient Indian medicine with early Buddhism (and explaining the ten perceptions in more detail).

thank you! I will read through the discussion about Indian medicine.

Marked this as the answer because I think my question was the result of one particular translation of the text. There are other interpretations that would not have sparked the question in the first place.

@Stanley Yes. Sorry if that disappoints but I think it's true. There are plenty of other sutta references to people who get ill -- sometimes people recover (temporarily) and sometimes (eventually) they die. If you read this and this and this too I think or hope that Girimānanda Thera was at least cured in one way.

The mind can affect the body, and the body can affect the mind. They are both conditioned.
With a slight increase in excitement, the heart rate goes up. With relaxation, the heart rate comes down. Stress and anxiety can increase the occurrence of certain medical conditions e.g. gastritis. This is how the mind affects the body.
On the hand, the body can affect the mind. Being ill makes one less energetic. Too much caffeine could make one anxious and jittery. Alcohol can make one heedless.
In my opinion, the sutta relating to Girimananda is not about the supernatural effects of the Buddha's words or powers curing his illness, but rather it is to affect his mind with the Dhamma in such a way, that would sooth and heal the body. I take it here, that the Buddha wants to get the monk to contemplate on these things that helps him to overcome cravings.
From the Girimananda Sutta (translated by Thanissaro):

"Ananda, if you go to the monk Girimananda and tell him ten
  perceptions, it's possible that when he hears the ten perceptions his
  disease may be allayed.
Which ten?
The perception of inconstancy, the perception of not-self, the
  perception of unattractiveness, the perception of drawbacks, the
  perception of abandoning, the perception of dispassion, the perception
  of cessation, the perception of distaste for every world, the
  perception of the undesirability of all fabrications, mindfulness of
  in-&-out breathing.
(for details, please read full Sutta)
Then Ven. Ananda, having learned these ten perceptions in the Blessed
  One's presence, went to Ven. Girimananda and told them to him. As Ven.
  Girimananda heard these ten perceptions, his disease was allayed. And
  Ven. Girimananda recovered from his disease. That was how Ven.
  Girimananda's disease was abandoned.

A similar question to your's, was asked by householder Nakulapita to the Buddha in the Nakulapita Sutta (below). From here, you can see that the Buddha does not intend to supernaturally heal anybody. Rather, he wants each person to think in this way: 'Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will be unafflicted.'

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the
  Bhaggas at Crocodile Haunt in the Bhesakala Grove at the Deer Park.
  Then the householder Nakulapita went to the Blessed One and on
  arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting
  there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, I am a feeble old man, aged,
  advanced in years, having come to the last stage of life. I am
  afflicted in body & ailing with every moment. And it is only rarely
  that I get to see the Blessed One & the monks who nourish the heart.
  May the Blessed One teach me, may the Blessed One instruct me, for my
  long-term benefit & happiness."
"So it is, householder. So it is. The body is afflicted, weak, &
  encumbered. For who, looking after this body, would claim even a
  moment of true health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should
  train yourself: 'Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will
  be unafflicted.' That is how you should train yourself."

Later, householder Nakulapita got more detailed advice from Ven. Sariputta the Arahant, elaborating the Buddha's advice:

Ven. Sariputta said: "Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in
  mind?
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body)
  to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the
  self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling,
  or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He is seized
  with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'Feeling is mine.' As he is
  seized with these ideas, his feeling changes & alters, and he falls
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change &
  alteration.
"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing
  perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in
  perception. He is seized with the idea that 'I am perception' or
  'Perception is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his perception
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as
  possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self
  as in fabrications. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  fabrications' or 'Fabrications are mine.' As he is seized with these
  ideas, his fabrications change & alter, and he falls into sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over their change & alteration.
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing
  consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or
  'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his
  consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in
  mind.
"And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is
  the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has
  regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma;
  who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in
  their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as
  possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is
  not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is
  not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does
  not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its
  change & alteration.
"He does not assume feeling to be the self...
"He does not assume perception to be the self...
"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...
"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as
  possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self
  as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am
  consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with
  these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change &
  alteration.
"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in
  mind."


text:
Is Atma energy?
Someone told me that Atma is nothing but energy which occupies the whole body.
When the energy leaves the body ,the body dies.
I guess the argument is wrong.
But can anyone point out the flaw in the argument that Atma is energy?

The Buddha has worked out there is no atman. So how could it be something at all? (There is, I think, a hinduistic stack exchange, where people discuss using the assumption of an existing atman.)

@GottfriedHelms I know there is no atman. But what if somebody says there is atman and it is energy , then how do you refute it ? That was my question. I am not doubting Buddha. I am trying to convince those who believe that there is atma , that there is no atma.

Dheeraj - well, from where do you know there is no atman? Really, I do not know, I only can say: I've not seen it so far. - "Well", might be the answer, "but I have seen it, your senses are weak!" I think it is a good advice of the Buddha, never to pose as if I know more than I can know and show. I can improve my position in two ways: improving my senses (which might also include to get in contact to such people who claim to have the senses "to see" and check whether there is something I could learn) and/or trusting the Buddha, who claims that nobody has/had "better senses" and my ...

... (poor-mans) "not-finding-atman" agrees with the "not-finding-atman" of the Buddha (and his following arguments) which I find completely convincing - but we should never throw away our gentlemen-ness, reservation against full-mouth-claims, and the acceptance of the fact that we might not know such deepest conjectures/proposals like "existence-of-atman", "results-of-karmic-impulses" and so on. (Btw. thats one of the reasons that I don't like much to involve in this forum too much because there are so many people who "know" so many deep things and still are asking...)

@GottfriedHelms Doubt is one of the hindrance. Sabbe Dhamma Anatta means all Dhammas or phenomenas are without Self. Uninterrupted flow knowledge is what I find on this site. I love it.

Biological bodies are a kind of machine with an engine, so to speak. Just as a car uses oxygen to burn chemical energy (petrol), and then convert it to kinetic energy, the biological body too uses oxygen from breath, to convert chemical energy originating from food into other types of energy. The brain, the nervous system and endocrine system regulate the biological body systems, while the circulatory system circulates oxygen bound to red blood cells across the body, and collects the waste.
When any part of the body becomes diseased or damaged in such a way that the operation of this engine fails, the body stops generating the type of energy that keeps it alive and running. There is no supernatural energy that keeps it alive.
The counter the argument, you can also state the fact that healthy and fit people are more energetic than sedentary healthy people, while sedentary healthy people are more energetic than ill people. So, does this mean that the Atma changes based on the health status?

Exactly if Self was a supernatural source of Energy then why do we need to eat at all ? Energy seems to changeable and perishable(by turning into not useful energy) therefore not worth identifying as Self.  I am not Energy . Energy is not mine. Energy is not myself.

It's like asking if superman is an elf? The question itself is invalid. Atma does not exist and energy does not exist according to Buddhism. All you have are momentary experiences rising and dying instantly. They are of six kinds: seeing, hearing, smelling. tasting, touching and thinking.

I can understand that Atma is a false belief. But the person who believes in Atma says that Atma is energy which neither gets created or destroyed. Atma simply transforms from one energy state to another. Question is how do I disprove that.

How can you disprove that there's no teapot circling around Saturn or that there is no flying spaghetti monster?  You can only explain to him that whatever he is believing in has no basis in experiential reality

If we describe Atma as flow of thoughts in mind, we can say thoughts have an energy as according to chitta niyama, thoughts control the things in world..that means thoughts have energy ,so atma also has energy..
When flow of thoughts or Vinnana or atma departs from  us, we call that as death, so  that atma is also not a certain thing in us, Due to that Buddha said world is anatatma..Like that we can describe atma as an uncertain energy..There may occur some differences of this definition according to the way we describe what's atma


text:
How can we make sense of the Universe from the Buddhist perspective?
I know this is the kind of the question Buddha discouraged to ponder upon with the example of the poisonous arrow.
But after 25 centuries, after what Newton and Einstien and Astronomers and Scientists have bought in light for us, the enormous size of our Universe. It is billions and billions of kilometers across, our earth is a small planet circling an average star which circles an ordinary galaxy on its periphery.
Out in the outer space, there are billions of such galaxies and as far as we know its lifeless, or devoid of intelligent life, like us. And then there is empty space, huge empty space. The nothingness or emptiness of the universe.
And then there is us. A miracle, what sets this question is the paradox of our complexity (biological) against the background of the emptiness of outer space. And here we have reached the conclusion of the first noble truth of Dukkha!!!
Looking at the star-filled night sky, as a Buddhist, how do I make sense of all this?

You ask 'How do I make sense of this'? It seems to me Buddhist practice and study is all about making sense of it. Space and time are described as like an illusion. I find this the only plausible explanation of  quantum physics. You might like to read the explanation of QM by physicist Ulrich Mohrhoff (an Aurobindian) or the discussion of space-time by the mathematician Hermann Weyl. Their explanations are consistent with ultimate non-existence of these phenomena and their reduciblity in metaphysics.or experience.  .

I find or found Buddhism (Buddhist doctrine and the subject-matter of Buddhism) more interesting or useful than e.g. astronomy or physics, because Buddhism speaks to (is relevant to) the human condition whereas physics doesn't really especially.
I suppose your saying "biological complexity" might be (unwisely) privileging a specific view of self. Scientifically I suppose that "empty outer space" is complex too, especially if you look at very big or very small bits of it. All atoms (including every atom except hydrogen which now makes 'earth' and 'life on earth') were originally created in the interiors of now-gone collapsing stars -- however I find that (fact) to be of passing interest but just not practical.
I think that "as a Buddhist" you might consider the Simsapa Sutta:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.

Having done that, if or when you perceive the universe, the night sky, and/or science, you might perceive it with some equanimity, with good-will, without attachment, and so on.

Thank you for this answer. This makes the most sense, that, all that we know from the Buddha is just as much as handful of those leaves and there's just so much more that was not said...and we should attain to Nibbana to know that if at all we want and of everything that is there the Dhamma is all that is needed as knowledge. So this keeps the mystery alive while simultaneously taking us towards Nibbana by following Dhamma. Did I get it right?

There may be other intelligent lifeforms out there, as there are billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars surrounded by planets. As physicist, futurist and science communicator Michio Kaku says, ants are not aware of human beings standing near them and looking at them. Similarly, there may be beings far more intelligent than us looking at us right now, but we may not be aware of them.
How does a Buddhist make sense of the billions of galaxies and stars and planets out there?
As we know, none of the planets, stars, galaxies will last forever. Everything dies out eventually, including our whole universe. Apparently, we could be living in a multiverse where there are many universes. An entire universe itself could experience birth and death, what more things inside them. Who knows? There could even be a multiverse of multiverses. But one thing for sure - everything changes and nothing lasts forever.
That's how a Buddhist should make sense of our glorious universe - everything changes and nothing lasts forever. "Sabbe sankhara anicca" - everything that is conditioned and compounded is impermanent.
The Buddhist should also remember one of the Buddha's last words from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

vayadhammā saṅkhārā, appamādena sampādetha.
  All conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on with heedfulness!

Thankyou for the answer. So at the end we should remind ourself that its anicca, anyways...

In the Kosala Sutta: The Kosalan the Buddha acknowledges such questions:

As far as the sun & moon revolve, illumining the directions with their light, there extends the thousand-fold cosmos. In that thousand-fold cosmos there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns,... And in that thousand-fold cosmos, the Great Brahma is reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Great Brahma there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior....

For the disenchantment, this remedy:

There are these There are these eight dimensions of [mental] mastery. Which eight? (see sutta)

I made a slight edit, because what the disciple is disenchanted with, is the fact that even the Great Brahma, the most supreme of the thousand-fold cosmos, there is still aberration and change. This means that the disciple is disenchanted with the universe that is changing and impermanent.

Yes, adding that sharpens the point that even supreme mastery of such knowledge is subject to birth and death and therefore does not satisfy. I'll submit an edit to your answer and delete this one if accepted.

It's OK. You can maintain your answer.

Thank you for the answer. You are suggesting practicle application to get disenchanted by the mystery that is universe.

Looking at the stars, you can make sense of it as "seeing... seeing.. seeing...". Because that's the only thing you can be sure of. The entities you assume to exist based on seeing will always be fabrications that you can never sense.
When you think about the billions of galaxies or infinite space etc., you can make sense of it as "thinking... thinking... thinking...". Because that's the only thing you can be sure of. The entities you assume to exist based on thinking will always be fabrications that you can never sense.

Just ignore it. I dont remember exactly which súthra it is. Our nobel teacher once said dont try to search such things
1. End of the universe.
2. How the karma happens.
3. Life of lord buddha
Because knowledge these will not helping you to follow nobel eight path.

They're the "unanswered questions", in MN 63 and MN 72.

If you want to search for answer unanswered questions like this, you woudnt be able to search answers for your own question. Cause this kind a questions are off limits for humans.

I think those are not unanswered, those questions does have answers but humans cannot understand them. Simple as that.

They're "unanswered" in the sense that the Blessed One said (in MN 63) that he did not declare an answer, and (in MN 72) that he did not hold a view or a position.

For me i realy dont have questions about such a subjects. As long as they are not help me for understanding dhamma, i just ignore them.

Out in the outer space, there are billions of such galaxies and as far as we know its lifeless, or devoid of intelligent life, like us.

Well, "as far as we know" is the key point here. It's exactly the fact that the universe is so vast, that it's practically a mathematical impossibility to say we're the only intelligent life form ever existed. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson put it best:

Claiming there is no other life in the universe is like scooping up some water, looking at the cup and claiming there are no whales in the ocean.”

Or Dr. Carl Sagan's "Flatlanders" analogy is another good one about the limitation of humans knowledge. Keeping those possibilities in mind, the questions about the "miracle" or "paradox of complexity" automatically get resolved by themselves.

I know this is the kind of the question Buddha discouraged to ponder
  upon with the example of the poisonous arrow.

Exactly. It is a waste of time. We are suffering from illness and world needs to shift attention to the cure as described by Buddha.

But after 25 centuries, after what Newton and Einstien and Astronomers
  and Scientists have bought in light for us, the enormous size of our
  Universe. It is billions and billions of kilometers across, our earth
  is a small planet circling an average star which circles an ordinary
  galaxy on its periphery.
  Out in the outer space, there are billions of such galaxies and as far
  as we know its lifeless, or devoid of intelligent life, like us. And
  then there is empty space, huge empty space. The nothingness or
  emptiness of the universe.

In past I had spent some time ,when I was ignorant, thinking about such realities. All such realities are empty. They do not last forever. They are impermanent. They are changeable and perishable and therefore cause of suffering. Earth will get destroyed. Sun , Moon, Stars , Black holes , atoms all will one day get destroyed. Even the nothingness will not be there. As long as you cling to such realities you will keep coming back to existence. Even the laws of Physics are not permanent. There is no beauty in the constitution of Universe. In fact it might be ugly.

And then there is us. A miracle, what sets this question is the
  paradox of our complexity (biological) against the background of the
  emptiness of outer space. And here we have reached the conclusion of
  the first noble truth of Dukkha!!!

If Universe and us is a miracle then it is a ugly miracle. Existence , birth itself is suffering. That conclusion is actually a miracle. We have evolved from simple life to complex life. Complexity of a AI might leave you wondering how they created AI but it was a step by step process. Complexity of music might leave you wondering how they created the music but it was a step by step process. Body is also complex. But do you believe that you exist in the body ? No you don't. Body is without any self. Body is the cause of suffering as it will change and perish. Your craving for the beauty of the body might result in another rebirth. Abandon such cravings.

Looking at the star-filled night sky, as a Buddhist, how do I make
  sense of all this?

I think as a Buddhist , one would be dispassionate about such empty Dhammas.

Thank you for the answer but I think you are being a little pessimistic.

There was no such thing as modern day language, the scientific method, Newtonian physics, or higher mathematics during The Buddha's time-period those things seem to have come into existence around the 17th Century.
So there was no possibility of anyone asking The Buddha or any arahant to prove or explain things in modern scientific terms. It's also not exactly clear what certain things in modern terms mean because modern language is different.
However the Pali canons mention all types of concepts that only relatively recently came in:

Big Bang and Big Crunch (expansion and contraction of the universe)
Time dilation (time moving at a different pace on other worlds)
Cyclic model
World systems like galaxies

During The Buddha's time he encouraged those with doubt to ask questions.
In modern times if an arahant well-developed in the six higher knowledges or paccekabuddha or sammasambuddha appears they should be able to easily scientifically prove their ideas through modern means if someone challenged them to.
Something like that actually happened when the arahant Kumara encountered an ancient atheist Prince Payasi, here's an exerpt:

"Well, Reverend Kumara, I had friends who followed the right path, who
  were very good people and citizens in every respect. By any right, as
  certain Holy men have said, they should have gone to the Heaven of the
  Thirty Three Devas. Yet, when one of them died, I said to him, "You
  have always been trustworthy and dependable. Certain Holy men say
  that, because of your lifestyle and because you followed the right
  path, you will be reborn in the Heaven of the Thirty Three Devas. If
  this is so, please come and tell me if it is true, or send a messenger
  to tell me if it is true. To date, they have neither contacted me nor
  sent a messenger."
"Hmm. Well, Prince… Consider this. In the Heaven of the Thirty Three
  Devas, time passes at a different pace, and people live much longer.
  In the period of our century, one hundred years, only a single day,
  twenty four hours would have passed for them. Thirty of these hundred
  year days make up one of their months, twelve such months make a year
  and a thousand such years is roughly the life span of those born into
  the Heaven of the Thirty Three Devas. Suppose your friend decided, "I
  will go back to that unclean world just long enough to deliver my
  message to the Prince – I shall set out tomorrow. Or perhaps, after I
  have seen some more of this place, in two or three days, I will set
  out to go see him." – would he have been able to?"
"Of course not, Reverend Kumara, because, by the reasoning you have
  given, we should all be long dead by the time he had spent three days
  there. However, I do not think that those born in the Heaven of the
  Thirty Three Devas would be so long lived, or that time could pass at a different
  pace. How do you know about their lifespan or their time?" (DN 23,
  Payasi Sutta)

The idea of time moving at a different pace on other worlds is something that only recently came in.
But remember there was no such thing as the scientific method or higher mathematics back then so one could challenge an arahant to experimentally prove something like we can now in modern times.
It seems like The Buddha is the only teacher in history who debated in a bold calm fearless manner claiming to know that his ways are true. Still in modern times I don't know if there's any teacher like that.
If someone really is an arahant and also well-developed in the six higher knowledges scientifically proving something should be an easy task for them.
This means in modern times if a skilled arahant or paccekabuddha arises and someone challenges them they should be able to scientifically prove that they are right...it would probably bedazzle and astonish the world...
I wonder however if there really are any arahants that exist in this world...


text:
How to intentionally move to second jhana
I have mastered the 1st and wish to move now to the second. But all the books and sources online confuse me. Some say it happen naturally other say it's something you can focus on to bring about the second jhana like thoughts on how unpleasant the 1st is. So how can i summon the second at will?

Ajahn Brahm gives a very nice explanation about how to get into higher Jhnanas. Imagine that you are in a long corridor with soap water on the floor and you play the game where you come running and slide on the slope water in order to get to another side of the corridor. In this case, the more energy you will slide within the beginning the farther you will get, and in all process, you have to Let-go. So as per my information, you have to further Let-go, to get there. You cannot summon it with the will, the will has to be dropped.
I will recommend you to read Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm -- that will answer the question in great detail.
And maybe this will help: The Basic Method of Meditation (by Ajahn Brahm)

Thank you for the source. So to reach the second jhana abandoned applied and sustained thought this happen when you end attachment to 1st by seeing the flaws and annoyance of it after emerging from it. Then moving your attention away from the object to a the pleasant sensation. That will lead you to the 2nd. Allow rapture and pleasure to fill the whole body

Take me with a pinch of salt but I think you will enter the second directly from the first not by emerging out of it. But idk. I think you emerge out, you mark it as experience and second time go back with more energy in first, let go, and it should take you in second. But idk.

BTW congrats bro...you acheived great feet...just 3 more and you are done....best wishes!

So maybe i already have lol. And thanks bud it took a while. This site truly helped me


text:
Is working in government insurance company right livelihood?
I am currently jobless. I saw the advertisement of recruitment of government insurance company.  So I thought to ask before applying. I am very confused.  I don't want to do any wrong livelihood jobs.

While insurance can be beneficial when needed, in other cases it can sold in a fashion that takes advantage of customers (such as excessive premiums, limited coverage or delayed claims payments). Also some sales practices are misleading at best. Though this more likely involves for profit businesses, you probably won't know until you work there. Then based on the facts make a decision to continue or not.

I don't see any reason why wouldn't it be - it is not meat business or dealing with arms, or criminal activity, therefore isn't causing harm as a result of such business dealings.
After all, insurance is a positive thing as it helps the person in the case of unforeseen event.
Also here, What is exactly Right Livelihood as a reference from sutras. Furthermore, I advise watching What is right livelihood by Ajahn Brahm where it’s thoroughly explained.
From my perspective, make sure the company is not scammers and make it clear that your religion does not allow you to lie and twist the truth if sales is your department. Your intentions on why you work are important here.

How about financial services in general?

It is okay as long as you are helping someone and not do things that directly results in harm or deceit through lie. Watch Ajahn Brahm explaining Right livelihood https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX18H8nw8JE&t=2280s

I worked for two years for an insurance company, doing two jobs, namely, customer service when purchasing policies and insurance claims. It depends on the insurance company and how ethically it operates. I had no ethical issues in both of my jobs (particularly as I was able to negotiate outcomes). It was Right Livelihood. However, such jobs can easily become wrong livelihood if the organisation is unethical. I recommend to apply for the jobs and particularly focus on a task that has the least potential ethical conflict (such as customer service rather than claims).


text:
English translation of the Samyutta Nikaya
Looking for suggestions on an English translation of the Samyutta Nikaya in printed book form other than Bhikkhu Bodhi's version.

SuttaCentral has translations by Ven. Sujato (and other translations).
And there are Piya Tan's translations with his commentaries hosted on a site called "The Minding Centre" (formerly called "The Dharmafarers").
Also (according to this answer), Obo's web site links to several translations if you want to compare them.
And the Buddha Vacana web site is one of my favourites, it only translates some of the suttas but translates in depth, i.e. with the English and Pali in parallel (which you can also get with Ven. Sujato's translations, especially if you enable "Activate Pali word lookup" and "View original text with translation" in the Text settings).

Perhaps also the Pali Text Society (PTS) have a translation.

Thanks for you reply. I'll have a look through the links you provided. I'm really in need of an inexspensive paperback print edition. Bhikkhu Bodhi's book is good but it is to heavy and a bit pricey to put it through the paces of a carry-around-book. :D TU  ☸

Apologies, I missed "in printed book form" in the question. I think his books are online as PDFs, here and here, if that's any use to you (i.e. if you have a portable digital device already).


text:
A person being enlightened by a non-enlightened
I have heard stories of non-enlightened monks preach dharma to ordinary people and those people would become enlightened (At least a stream-enterer).
Can I have any sources on these? Possibly any sutta sources as well?

One story I remember is from Questions of King Milinda, where Nagasena himself not yet a stream-enterer, preached Abhidharma to a lay lady - as a result of which both the lady and Nagasena have achieved the stream-entry:

Now a certain woman, a distinguished follower of the faith, had for thirty years and more administered to the wants of the venerable
  Assagutta. And at the end of that rainy season she came one day to him, and asked whether there was any other brother staying with him. And
  when she was told that there was one, named Nagasena, she invited the Elder, and Nagasena, with him, to take their midday meal the next day at
  her house. And the Elder signified, by silence, his consent. The next forenoon the Elder robed himself, and taking his bowl in his hand, went
  down, accompanied by Nagasena as his attendant, to the dwelling-place of that disciple, and there they sat down on the seats prepared for them. And she gave to both of them food, hard and soft, as much as they required, waiting upon them with her own hands. When Assagutta had finished his meal, and the hand was withdrawn from the bowl, he said to Nagasena: 'Do thou, Nagasena, give the thanks to this distinguished lady.' And, so saying, he rose from his seat, and
  went away.
And the lady said to Nagasena: 'I am old, friend Nagasena. Let the thanksgiving be from the deeper things of the faith.'
And Nagasena, in pronouncing the thanksgiving discourse, dwelt on the profounder side of the Abhidhamma, not on matters of mere ordinary morality, but on those relating to Arahatship. And as the lady sat there listening, there arose in her heart the Insight into the Truth, clear and stainless, which perceives that "whatsoever has beginning, that has the inherent quality of passing away". And Nagasena also, when he had concluded that thanksgiving discourse, felt the force of the truths he himself had preached, and he too arrived at insight he too entered, as he sat there, upon the stream.
Then the venerable Assagutta, as he was sitting in his arbour, was aware that they both had attained to insight, and he exclaimed: 'Well done!
  well done, Nagasena! by one arrow shot you have hit two noble quarries!' And at the same time thousands of the gods shouted their approval.

An alternative translation of the same paragraph:

And venerable Nagasena pronounced for her a sermon on the Abhidharma, about things deep in their meaning, transcendent, dealing with emptiness, [in accordance with the law of dependent co-arising. That is to say: When this exists, that exists; when this arises, that arises.] And right there and then, even before the lay lady could raise from her seat, there arose in her the dust-free, crystal-clear Vision of Dharma: "Whatever is conditional can be controlled". And venerable Nagasena himself, as he was gratifying the lay lady with his sermon, reflected upon the Dharma he was expounding and had himself attained the insight; and even before he could raise from his seat, he had attained the fruit of stream-entry.

Could you please give a link to the source?

@AkilaHettiarachchi This is from Milindapanha, found in Khuddaka Nikaya. The original translation is by Thomas William Rhys Davids. The alternative translation is mine.

Thank you. Could you provide an online link for the translation?

Yes, here: https://suttacentral.net/mil2/en/tw_rhysdavids#pts-vp-en26

The following comes from the Khemaka Sutta (SN22.89).
Ven. Khemaka had been ill. When he was asked, he said (I paraphrase), "I am feeling pain and I am not getting better."
For this, the elder monks asked if Ven. Khemaka takes it that the five aggregates are the self, to which Ven. Khemaka replied that he doesn't assume that the five aggregates are the self.
For this, the elder monks said Ven. Khemaka must be an arahant but then wonder why he said "I am ill".
Ven. Khemaka replied that although he doesn't make the assumption that the five aggregates are the self, but still he hasn't overcome "I am" yet.

"Just like a cloth, dirty & stained: Its owners give it over to a
  washerman, who scrubs it with salt earth or lye or cow-dung and then
  rinses it in clear water. Now even though the cloth is clean &
  spotless, it still has a lingering residual scent of salt earth or lye
  or cow-dung. The washerman gives it to the owners, the owners put it
  away in a scent-infused wicker hamper, and its lingering residual
  scent of salt earth, lye, or cow-dung is fully obliterated.
"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned
  the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five
  clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am'
  desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on
  the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five
  clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its
  disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are
  fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its
  disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of
  these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit,
  'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

So, Ven. Khemaka explained that although he doesn't hold the fetter of the wrong view of identity view, still he has a lingering sense of "I am" due to clinging and conceit. He is actually a stream winner (or higher) but not an arahant.
At the end of the discussion, they all became arahants including Ven. Khemaka himself:

Gratified, the elder monks delighted in his words. And while this
  explanation was being given, the minds of sixty-some monks, through no
  clinging, were fully released from fermentations — as was Ven.
  Khemaka's.

But this does not answer my question. Ven. Khemaka was a stream enterer. This answer would have been valid if Ven. Khemaka was not a stream enterer. Would you happen to have another answer my friend?


text:
What constitutes virtue and how to train myself in virtue?
It is said that Virtue is the ultimate weapon. It is also said that virtue automatically leads to enlightenment without any volition or desire to achieve enlightenment.
Therefore I want to develop 'heightened' virtue but I am unable to find any sutta which explains what constitutes Virtue.
In the following quote from AN 3.90 training for heightened virtue is mentioned:

“And what is the training in heightened virtue? There is the case
  where a monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the
  Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains
  himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the
  slightest fault. This is called the training in heightened virtue.

My questions are :
1. What constitutes virtue ?(Any reference to Suttas would be great.If there are any books giving short summary of Patimokkha in English then that would also be great.)
2. How to train myself in virtue ? (Are there any training books available?)

Virtue or sila at the very minimum is the five precepts. Further practice of virtue is by the eight precepts, ten precepts, Right Livelihood, Right Speech and Right Action.
Further information can be found in AccessToInsight's virtue (sila) page, including sutta verses.
To practice virtue (sila), the first step is to vow to undertake the training of the five precepts, and then practice them with heedfulness (appamada).
The second step is to adopt this thinking from AN 5.57:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

The third step is to understand more deeply from the Dhamma on Right Livelihood, Right Speech and Right Action, and practise them with heedfulness (appamada).

The Patimokkha is one of the books of the Vinaya, i.e. the rules or code of conduct for monks.
There are English-language translations of (introductions to) the Vinaya here, for example The Patimokkha Rules Translated & Explained by by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Dozens of suttas (e.g. SN 56.9) use the word dhammavinaya, translated as teaching and training and/or Dhamma and discipline.
You might like to read the original version of this dictionary entry on the Buddhavacana web site -- it contains hyperlinks to to parts of the various suttas which it references:

adhisīlasikkhā: [adhi+sīla+sikkhā]
training in higher virtue. A definition is given by the Buddha at AN 3.90. It consists of a thorough undertaking of the Pātimokkha's rules.

Adhi·sīla·sikkhā is one of the three sikkhās, together with adhi·citta·sikkhā and adhi·paññā·sikkhā. It is said of these three trainings at AN 3.82 that they are 'ascetic tasks of an ascetic' (samaṇassa samaṇa·karaṇīyāni), at AN 3.93 that they are 'urgent tasks of a bhikkhu' (bhikkhussa accāyikāni karaṇīyāni), and at AN 6.30 that they constitute the 'supreme training' (anuttariyaṃ sikkhā) for the purification of beings, etc. (formula in the style of the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta)
They can even replace the Pātimokkha, in some cases (AN 3.85).
However, adhi·sīla·sikkhā is not only for bhikkhus, since it should also be undertaken by upāsakas, as they meet with their success (sampadā) or their prosperity (sambhava), lest it is their their failure (vipatti) as in AN 7.30, their decline (parihāna) as in AN 7.29, or their ruin (parābhava) as in AN 7.31.

AN 7.29 through AN 7.31 says that lay followers (upāsakas) too should practice "higher virtue", but don't define it.
I suspect that "higher" virtue means more than the five precepts.
Maybe in AN 3.85 it's used instead of a detailed set of rules and definitions, and is used with "heightened discernment" (i.e. when you discern what's what, whether something is virtuous and skilful): in summary, "abandon the three poisons, don't do anything unskillful or engage in any evil".


text:
What do you do to prepare for death?
There are probably a lot of ways to prepare for death. I myself can't come up with more than:

Reflecting on ones own death on a daily basis;
Don't buy stuff that's useless so that it's easier for loved ones to clean up after you.

Are there more things one could do? And what do you yourself to prepare?
Looking for inspiration.
So, I'm not so much interested in the process of dying, but what you do on a daily basis in the years and decades before.

Found a dhamma talk on the practice of mindfulness of death:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xy01jkEsnQ

I prepare for death by watching clouds.
Appearances of entities arise when certain elements come together, and then morph beyond recognition as elements drift apart.
Death is all around us at all times. Everything is changing, always. I prepare for death by letting go of fixed ideas about who I am. Every moment is a different configuration and there's no me in that.
There is no birth and death, only continuous transformation. I learned this by watching the clouds.

Accepted because of its sheer simplicity. :)

There is some excerpt authored by Dalai Lama if you are not negative towards Tibetan Buddhism and the Great Vehicle in general. This is how he approaches preparations for death, with some steps of advice: Preparing to Die.
Generally speaking, this topic of preparations is covered in depth by Tibetans, this is why they oftentimes wear skull beads, to be constantly reminded of death. If you discern a couple of contextual (Vajrayanic) notions you might find it valuable.
Summary of advice from Advice on Dying: And Living a Better Life by Dalai Lama:

If you cultivate a sense of the uncertainty of the time of death, you will make better use of your time.
To prevent procrastination with regard to spiritual practice, take care not to come under the influence of the illusion of permanence.
Realize that no matter how wonderful a situation may be, its nature is such that it must end.
Do not think that there will be time later.
Be frank about facing your own death. Skillfully encourage others to be frank about their deaths. Do not deceive each other with
  compliments when the time of death is near. Honesty will foster
  courage and joy.

The 'Summary Advice' on the bottom of the page contains some useful pointers. This kind of advice is indeed what I'm looking for. Thanks. :)

These sound more like an preparation for life than for death. Probably intentionally.

You wouldn't ask this question unless there is some fear or worry of dying. Otherwise you might as well ask "how to prepare for the setting of the sun?".
So you need to work on that fear. But, what causes this fear?

Tanhaya japati soko
tanhaya jayati bhayam
tanhaya vippamuttassa
natthi soko kuto bhayam.
Craving begets sorrow, craving begets fear. For him who is free from
craving there is no sorrow; how can there be fear for him?
Dhammapada Verse 216

Hence you need to work on eliminating craving. Enlightened beings do not have such questions regarding death as they do not fear or worry.

I have no reason to fear death. :)

Then this question is as valid as asking "how do i prepare for exhaling after inhaling?" :)

No, @Sankha. That is just your opinion. I have a different one.

@Medhini it's not like I'm going to tell your opinion in my answer :)

To prepare for death I imagine that when I will be dying I won't die like I have died all my past lives and I won't die in suffering.
I imagine that I have attained Nibbana and I will be dying a conscious and aware death. I will know that death is coming and I will know that death is happening.
I imagine I won't have to come back. The holy life would have been lived.

If I understand you correctly you're preparing for death by imagening how you would be at that time? Do you practise those imaginations daily, weekly? It's not really clear to me yet.

I am not preparing for my bodily death, I am preparing for my 'ego death' which I understand as Nibbana. So its kind of paradox that in the preparation of later you are preparing for the former. I dont do it as a practise, like daily or weekly, only when thought about death comes to my mind, I think about the way I will be dying. This also helps to strengthen my practise. So to answer your exact question, 'what do you do to prepare for death?' I practise dhamma to attain Nibbana to prepare for my death. I hope this clears the confusion.

Focusing more on your second point rather than the spiritual aspect of getting to grips with the prospect of your own death:

[making it] easier for loved ones to clean up after you.

There are many things you can do to help your loved ones in such a situation. Generally, the hardest thing to do for people in mourning is to take decisions. So, in addition to making it easier on them by not having much clutter, make sure that there's a clear plan. The plan may vary based on your culture and that of your loved ones, it may also vary based on your local laws because not all countries handle an individual's death the same way.
For example, a plan may include

a written will (make sure it is clear, with no room for interpretation). Depending on your local laws you may want to consult a lawyer or other professional.
Funeral arrangements: a clear outline of your choice regarding cremation/embalming/burial, whether or not you want a wake, choose your clothes and casket etc.

Basically go through all the decisions that need to be made after one's death and try to make as many as you can yourself before you pass. When my uncle passed away (car accident), my grandparents found out just how much effort was involved in planning the procedures. They planned everything for their own funerals so that we wouldn't have to go through it when they passed - they even paid for it in advance so that there would be no financial stress in the mourning period. It made it much easier for the whole family to go along with the plan than to come up with one when the time came.
In addition to making it easier on your loved ones, having a plan ensures that you get what you want.

Is this what you personally do to prepare for death? Or don't you consider death at all? Like, it's more something for later in life?

It's not a complete list, and doesn't include any of the psychological approach for death. There were already many good suggestions for the spiritual side of things, so I focused on more concrete steps to take. You mentioned buying less things as a considerate act towards people dear to you that would have to clean up after you, so I expanded on that list and named a few things that could make it easier for your close ones to clean up after you pass. I'm still in my early twenties so I haven't gone through that list myself yet, but I plan to do it later in life.

From page 82 of this Vinaya commentary,
The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

Thus, the Commentary notes, a bhikkhu talking to a dying patient should [... focus on ...]  how to inspire the patient with the following thoughts:

“The attainment of the paths and fruitions is not out of the ordinary for a
    virtuous person. So, having formed no attachment for such things as your
    dwelling, and establishing mindfulness in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, or the
    body, you should be heedful in your attention.”

The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4
  contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by
  asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was
  apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his
  thoughts on the best object possible. The suttas also contain advice on how to
  encourage patients facing death. See, for example,
  MN 143,
  SN 36.7, and
  AN 6.16.
  In all of these cases, the advice is aimed [...] at inspiring
  calm and insight.

Some/various schools of Buddhism have a detailed doctrine on this subject e.g. Tibetan Nyingma tradition referenced in this answer to How to die professionally?
Other related topics may include Experiencing physical pain and Last thought before death?
One more reference -- a Zen story: Three Days More
I think a lot of people will say that the best preparation is the "enter the stream" (and so also abandon identity-view).

This is when one dies and/or the days/weeks leading up to it. What about now, the current situation? You don't contemplate it? What do you do personally? And do you think that stream-enterers no longer have to prepare for death at all?

What about now, the current situation? I thought the quote suggested that now would be a good time for "attainment of the paths and fruitions", to have a "best object possible" on which to focus thoughts. And do you think that stream-enterers no longer have to prepare for death at all? Ven. Yuttadhammo wrote, "the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death ... True death only occurs either at every moment or at the experience of nibbana."

Sorry, none of it answers my original question.

@Medhiṇī Death comes (e.g. for your family and friends) whether you're prepared for it or not. After it comes, you're living with it all the time.

If the previous post doesn't answer your question...here's something, I don't do but know people do.
Read the 'Tibetan book of the Dead', it will teach you everything that's going to happen after you die and before you will be reborn.  In the bardo. You do the pratice to prepare for whats to come.
Also you can learn, how to attain 'rainbow body' when you die. Its an esoteric Tibetan practise I read in Jetsunma Tenzing Plamos book. Though nobody but the Lamas can teach you how to do that. This will surely prepare you for death.

I'll put that on my Buddhist-bucket-list. Thanks. :)

There is no "you" or "I" which dies. Birth, life, and death all happen, but rather than have the experience as it truly is, we remain in a tiny box sometimes called "the ego" which has a hard time seeing anything except as it pertains to itself. This is only a delusion. One prepares for death the same way one prepares for life, by finding liberation from this small limited ego-self. In fact, life itself is the best preparation for death, because of the natural lessons that arise when one awakens to them.
No Death, No Fear -- Comforting Wisdom for Life by Thich Nhat Hanh.

Hi Eric. Not to complain but just fyi, when posting a link or a reference it's often good to quote a bit from it -- is there any paragraph in the book that's especially relevant to the question and answer, e.g. to help the OP determine whether they're likely find an answer to their question in that book? Also fwiw I hesitate to post hyperlinks (instead of citing the title) to entire books because of their copyright (conversely, quoting a bit is fair use). But if I do post a hyperlink I include the title as well as the URL, in case e.g. the URL changes in future.

I'd like to share an answer I got to this question on a different site.

Contemplate death every day. (It's something the Buddha apparently advised.)
Do good.
Read the 'Discourse on the Purābheda Sutta' by Mahāsi Sayādaw.

Plus a suggestion from a monk I don't remember the name of:

Keep a 'book of merits'. (Someone can read it to the person lying on the death bed to help remember good things to ease the mind and help a good rebirth.)

And here a video that explains how to contemplate death correctly:

Appointment with Death.


text:
Why meditate? want a truthful answer without spiritual terms?
What I think of meditation is sitting with a good posture and concentrating on breathing and thinking about nothing. How does this help a person with anything? The only plus point that I can think of meditation is that, during the time you meditate, you forget all the distractions around you and become calm and stress free. Why do people talk about enlightenment?
I saw this definition of enlightenment on Google:

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. (Kant, 1784)

Doesn't that imply "Enlightenment" equals "being disciplined, mature and independent"? How does meditation achieve this? Don't we become mature through experience and growth, disciplined through hard work and independent by accepting yourself?
Hence why do we meditate? Why do we say things like "enlightenment can be achieved through meditation" when it can be achieved without it?

To me it's unclear what kind of meditation your question is related to. Also, there are different understandings of what enlightenment means. Do you do any kind of meditation yet? For me, this question is too broad.

too me I was just inferring the meditation that I used to do in my school yoga classes, where you sit crisscrossed put your the back of your hand on your legs and close your  eyes and take deep breaths for some duration.

Your quote (definition of "Enlightenment") isn't from a Buddhist source -- it's from an 18th century German philosopher (not Buddhist at all ... unrelated to Buddhism).
The English word "Enlightenment" has several meanings/usages which are unrelated to Buddhism -- When was the word enlightenment introduced into Theravada Buddhism? -- yet it has also been used as a translation of various/several different Buddhist terms, see for example:

Enlightenment vs nibbana/nirvana
Is Satori the same as Enlightenment?
gradual versus sudden enlightenment
Four stages of enlightenment

You're sort of right (that meditation isn't essential), in that the Buddhist path is sometimes described as a Threefold Training, of which "virtue" (not meditation) is described the most fundamental.
I think some people say that meditation is primarily for monks rather than lay-people (Buddhism has a lot of other, not meditation-related, instruction for lay people).

As for meditation, it is sometimes described as being of two categories, i.e. meditation for calm or concentration (Samadhi), and meditation for insight (Vipassanā) -- and there's talk (different doctrines) about whether to practice one, or the other, or both together.
Two more things I'd modify slightly about the assertions you made:

Perhaps it (i.e. "maturity" and/or "Buddhism") is, but is perhaps not exactly, about "accepting yourself". Perhaps it's about changing your self too, or changing (or even "abandoning") your "view" of "self". Part of the Buddhist doctrine is anatta (a.k.a. "non-self" or "without self") -- which may be difficult to explain (there are more than 100 questions about it on this site), but I found these to be helpful or understandable introductions to the topic:

How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't? and
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

I'm not sure (I doubt) whether it is about "concentrating on breathing and thinking about nothing". The form of meditation which you're referring to is probably what's called ānāpānasati, where ānapāna refers to breathing and sati refers to mindfulness, so perhaps not "without thinking" -- see Mindfulness of Breathing, Mindfulness with Breathing
"Without thought" might possibly refer to some of the higher jhāna states (or forms of meditation) but that's an advanced topic.

Stop spreading non-sense. Both of you. Please refer to AN 10.1

“Sir, what is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics?” “Ānanda, having no regrets is the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics.”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of having no regrets?” “Joy is the purpose and benefit of having no regrets.”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of joy?” “Rapture …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of rapture?” “Tranquility …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of tranquility?” “Bliss …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of bliss?” “Immersion …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of immersion?” “Truly knowing and seeing …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of truly knowing and seeing?” “Disillusionment and dispassion …”
“But what’s the purpose and benefit of disillusionment and dispassion?” “Knowledge and vision of freedom is the purpose and benefit of disillusionment and dispassion.
So, Ānanda, the purpose and benefit of skillful ethics is not having regrets. Joy is the purpose and benefit of not having regrets. Rapture is the purpose and benefit of joy. Tranquility is the purpose and benefit of rapture. Bliss is the purpose and benefit of tranquility. Immersion is the purpose and benefit of bliss. Truly knowing and seeing is the purpose and benefit of immersion. Disillusionment and dispassion is the purpose and benefit of truly knowing and seeing. Knowledge and vision of freedom is the purpose and benefit of disillusionment and dispassion. So, Ānanda, skillful ethics progressively lead up to the highest.”

@dhamma4life: Meditation is never forced concentration. Please refer to MN 118

I tell you, monks, that this — the in-&-out breath — is classed as a body among bodies, which is why the monk on that occasion remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.

Enlightenment (attaining Nibbana) in a Buddhist context means the end of suffering. Saying that enlightenment is just about being matured could be the understatement of the century :)
There are mainly 2 types of meditations:

Samatha (tranquility): This type of meditation leads to calm, joy, concentration and magical powers.
Vipassana (insight): This type of meditation leads to wisdom and the end of suffering.

Buddhists do both Samatha and Vipassana meditations to achieve the results they bring about.

The 2 meditations you mentioned are actually not distinct. If the mind is joyous and without remorse it sees things as they are automatically (vipassana). Therefore, genuine vipassana happens when sila is developed and not solely via meditation.

They are very distinct - Samatha is forced concentration in order to attain one pointedness, Vipassana is not. Vipassana trains Sati, Samatha doesn’t.

@Val Vipassana does not happen with Sila. Sila is required for Vipassana meditation, but you can practice Sila your whole life without attaining any Vipassana knowledge.