text:
Buddhist Cosmology
Although I find this topic interesting, I wonder if study of it, e.g., the various worlds and universes and the beings that inhabit them, what they did to get there, where they go once they leave there, etc, is part of developing the eightfold path? All of the details can overwhelm me and lead toward doubt, so I recently found myself asking if that information is necessary for right view.

No, it is not necessary at all! In fact, I'd say these views are a hindrance to developing the eightfold path in a modern context. You will find that a lot of answers here will be from the viewpoint of orthodox Buddhism. You can find sound advise for cultivating in the modern world from more secular teachers like Thich Nhat Hahn, Stephen Batchelor, Sharon Salzberg, and many others.

I believe it is what makes up/ part of a comprehensive "right view", but not encouraged to be a main focus of realizing the Dharma. It is the kind of topic that leads to answers somewhere along the lines of "Don't ask about the shape of Arrow stabbed on your back" once this topic is dived into.
From a worldly perspective, talking too much about the metaphysical cosmology will likely attract unnecessary skepticism from materialists and worldly scientists, which adds little to no value for one's own practice of the Eight-Folds Path.
Personally I feel it is good to know the framework / core principles of it, certainly satisfy the aspect of curiosity, and aspect of "how things work" logically, but that's about it.

The real world is fundamentally unknowable, ignorance being the starting point of dependent origination. The mind makes a useful, practical sense of the real world using symbolism, memory etc. So that to break out of the constraints of formal language, visual symbolism is a powerful tool and is worth the time and effort to develop some fluency in this medium. The trick is to be imaginative, creative and relevant to one's personal experience; a "mapping out", as it were.  Secondly, stick religiously to the Buddhist system and you won't be disappointed.

From my (Mahayana) perspective, studying Buddhist cosmology is tremendously useful. Especially if the teacher or text goes in depth on psychological characteristics of beings in each realm, how they perceive reality, what motivates them, what keeps them going in circles etc.

It's actually a product of the path, to see the wandering on clearly. And: It's "terrible" nessecary to have firm faith into kamma, cause and effect, yes. Without that, no way. It's not nessecary if wishing just to wander on comfortable, i.e. for gaming, if staying by simply generosity, good conducts and striving for higher.
Where do one likes to go? One would not stay, that's for sure.
(Note that is not given for binding to trade, exchange, stacks in the world but for bond toward liberation)

It is not is part of developing the noble eightfold path. Instead, it is a defiled, impure, egotistical idea that can have the benefit of leading to merit or morality (but it does not lead to enlightenment), as the sutta says below, it is literally a "dirty" ("effluent") sort of right view:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without
effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
There is this world & the other  world. There is mother & father.
There are spontaneously arisen beings; there are contemplatives &
brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world
& the other after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'
This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
acquisitions.
And what is the right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty
of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as
a factor for awakening, the path factor of right view[1] in one
developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without
effluents, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right
view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the
path.
MN 117

One minor nit: I'm not sure "effluent" is used in the sense of "sewage" (i.e. "dirty"), perhaps it mostly/only means "out-flow" -- see What is effluent? (one of the answers to which is yours).

No. Its dirty & filthy. Please try to not question the Dhamma with worldiness. Thanks. MN 7 might help understand the Dhamma: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.007.nypo.html

Yes the Dhamma talks about that, i.e. about "worldliness" etc. -- where "worldliness" I guess might include cosmology. And even MN 7, which you just cited, lists mental defilements. Is it right to describe such doctrine as, "not part of developing the noble eightfold path"?

Its literally written in MN 117 its not part of the noble path.

There are 31 realms of existence or Gathi around each Chakrawata. The Gathi or attributes are simple to imagine. If you condition a mind a certain way, when born next, your existence will correspond to the kind of Gathi developed.
Our sun and the planets is one Chakrawata.  There are millions of other Chakrawata in the universe where living beings exist.
They are composed of the same basic matter Apo, Thejo, Wayo and Patawi. Although due to differences in gravity etc their physical appearance may be different.
The 32 realms of existence of this Chakrawata are all around us. The beings are either made of coarse or fine matter. Human beings are coarse matter beings and so is the animal realm.
Coarse matter beings are born of womb and fine matter beings spontaneously born and die. That is why the coarse matter beings are in Ghandabba stage before a suitable mother is found.
A fine matter being was perhaps captured here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hm4TGDltXs
More footage can be found on youtube with "SLS camera footage" keyword search or similar.
The Chakrawta will end one day. The way the Buddha explained is here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RasmDzXoZA
The human beings are special in that they are born with a Manasa i.e. the mental facaulties to measure, judge etc. The other beings have a scent only.
The human beings mostly use the mental faculties for destructive purposes. They are the ones who do the most damage from all beings.
Although the human condition is the ideal condition to free oneself from all suffering if they live using yoniso-manisikara . This is why the Buddha said being human is incredibly rare and a privilege that one must use to escape this all.

As mentioned in Buddhist cosmology, there are only 31 planes of existence per each Sakwala. Please edit the answer accordingly. For further details: Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school


text:
Is the 'best meditation you do' the meditation you do?
There is a pithy saying for keeping fit that goes

The 'best exercise you do' is the exercise you do

i.e. the most important thing is to find something you enjoy and you can stick with rather that do the scientifically proven 'more effective exercise' that you maybe don't enjoy as much.
So I was wondering is the same true of meditation i.e.

The 'best meditation you do' the meditation you do

So to fill it out - is it more important to find the meditation that suits you personally and perhaps adapt and tweak it until it really suits or is it better to pick a tradition and follow their methods to the letter and force your way through it?

I have not heard of any teacher in any tradition that would say: "Yes, go ahead and shop around, get the best elements from every tradition and construct a teaching and practice that works for you" -- Never.
Every teacher seems to have confidence in their tradition. That said, some of the teachers I personally came in contact with, stayed fairly hands off and minimalistic when it comes to meditation instructions.
My Zen Master famously said "Don't go with the thoughts; don't go against the thoughts" - that's it. No other instructions! He did write a book that had a chapter on meditation, so anyone could read that if they wanted, but he never insisted on meditation to follow a strict order.
Dza Kilung Rinpoche gave rather verbose instructions, as is customary in Tibetan Buddhism but as a Dzogchen Nyingmapa his sentiment has always been that meditation only begins as something guided, because that's how beginner's mind operates, but then as you progress you get to pick your own course in the overall direction prescribed by the teacher or the level you are on.
In my own opinion, meditation is something impossible to pin down and put in a box no matter how hard you try. So even if someone would speak about some particular type of meditation as if many people had the same meditation experience - that would only be a theoretical construct, a figure of speech. In reality every person's meditation, and every meditation session, is different and unique.
It also depends on the situation, the person, the problem, the level, the question, and the current goal. For example in my case, my meditation for many years has been to avoid getting carried away by thoughts. That's what I did, sat and fought with my thoughts and tried to stay in the present. As that did not work too well, I tried meditation that focused on subtle feelings in the diaphragm and lower abdomen, with the goal of discovering and letting go of all tensions and blockages. That worked better and has been helpful. Then for a period of time I meditated on the overall well-being, trying to generate a bright and open, happy mind. That worked quite well. These days I meditate on "no conflict in the mind", in other words the focus of my meditation is sukha-approaching-suchness.
From my perspective, any rigid meditation method is a lie that depends on the student either being blind to the fact, or pretending to not see, that their mind is a not simple mechanical machine but an endlessly fluid spontaneous process with multiple feedback loops.
So in my own personal opinion, of course "it is more important to find the meditation that suits you personally and perhaps adapt and tweak it until it really suits" and no, I would never recommend to "pick a tradition and follow their methods to the letter and force your way through it" - regardless of how many traditional teachers would say so.
That said, it is important that your meditation is not an act of fooling yourself, not an act of indulging in what rubs your ego the right way, but an authentic discovery process. Meditation is the time and place to be absolutely honest with yourself, to see what you normally don't want to see, to feel what you normally don't want to feel, and to get clarity about all this.
For me this type of honesty with yourself is a lot more effective than "to force your way through it".

I guess there are different types of exercise with different results (strength, endurance, longevity, balance, weight loss, weight gain, or doing it for a living), though conventional medical advice is that any (reasonable) amount and type is better than none. On that subject, it's not exercise alone that's healthy -- it's a troika i.e. exercise, nutrition, and rest. Exercise is a stress, and nutrition and rest let the body recover from (and adapt to be able to support) those periodic demands -- which is healthy because if you can exercise then e.g. climbing a flight of stairs isn't going to stop you.
Similarly I'd guess that, to the extent that there are different types of meditation, they may have different results. They might all be called Buddhist though to the extent that they align with Buddhist methods and ideals.
One of the more detailed descriptions of motive that I read on this site was here -- and I suppose that's not the only truth but is a truth.
For a number of reasons, I don't want to criticise the question, but just very superficially it reminds me of, "caught within the logic of calculating mind, calculating merit" -- and at the risk of making a gnomic statement (which, I think, is often silly), my first reaction to reading the question was to think, "I thought that meditation was a form of not doing, for a change."
The question also mentions "something you enjoy", so, a complete logical answer might have to touch on that topic: whether and why meditation is enjoyable, whether (and why or how) to do it if or when it isn't, whether to do it regularly, whether a variety, and so on.

A farmer buys a wild calf at the market, and brings it back to the farm. He thinks, this calf is used to being in the wild, going where ever it wants, when ever it wants. So he drives a stake into the ground, and ties the calf to it with a rope. The calf isn't used to the rope at first, so it struggles against it. After putting up a struggle for a few days, it finally calms down and becomes tame since the struggle is doing it no good.
This is how it is with a daily sitting practice. Our minds and bodies are untrained, untamed. So our thoughts are jumping around, like a wild calf on a rope. As long as we remain tied to the rope, we eventually learn to adapt to it.
So actually, if we let ourselves set our own limits, work our meditation in to our busy schedules, our minds never become tame. We have to set the recommended amount of time aside daily, then get up and do it. People typically complain that their wild untamed mind is a major problem, an obstacle. So they aren't sitting long enough. There is a saying with Zen priests that 2 hours a day is only "breaking even", but i find that if i sit about an hour, most of that time is fairly calm.
The other question is, find the meditation that suits you? There are some important features of skillful sitting meditation, it should be calming, yet it should not be putting you to sleep. One should not judge what comes up during meditation, don't judge yourself. It's not just about relaxation.

If you're exercising for better health, then yes, the 'best exercise you do' is the exercise you do. In fact, increased physical movement of any kind, including taking the stairs more often, or walking to nearby locations instead of driving, can all contribute to better health.
However, if you're training to become a professional athlete, that does not apply. You must follow the rigid training program as closely as possible, and tailor it only slightly to meet your specific needs.
Once you have reached a certain high level of competency and proficiency, you can let go of the rigid training rules, because at this point, you understand how it all works. You know what to do to achieve or maintain the desired results. Or perhaps, it will become a second nature to you, that you don't need the training program anymore.
Similarly, if all you're seeking is more peace of mind or better concentration, then the 'best meditation you do' is the meditation you do.
However, if you're seeking Nirvana, then you can't do it according to your own style. You have to follow the rigid training program as closely as possible, and tailor it only slightly to meet your specific needs.
Once you have reached a certain high level of competency and proficiency, you can let go of the rigid training rules, because at this point, you understand how it all works. You know what to do to achieve or maintain the desired results. Or perhaps, it will become a second nature to you, that you don't need the training program anymore.

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

There are four basic kinds of meditation: ineffective meditation that sucks, transformative meditation that sucks, ineffective meditation that is pleasurable, and transformative meditation that is pleasurable.  No one save for the most masochistic among us would stick with the first kind for very long.  I mean, this is the Buddhist form of banging your own hand with a hammer.  It might look impressive, but it generally proves detrimental over the long term.  The last kind, well, if we all happened upon that from the outset, we wouldn't be asking questions, I don't think.  This kind of practice does exist, but damn is it along way off and damn if it doesn't look anything like you're probably thinking.
So practicably, this leaves us with the last two - meditation that sucks, but is transformative and meditation that is pleasurable, but ineffective.  This is kind of the crux of all Buddhist practice.  And it's where people most often go astray.  In the modern age, I think we've really been sold dog meat labeled as mutton when it comes to meditation.  I mean, you can't go ten minutes without hearing claims of how meditation reduces stress, combats seasonal effective disorder, makes us loving people, and generally amplifies well being and happiness.  Don't get me wrong, meditation does do all of these things, but damn those articles!  They've always got some smiling monk or well proportioned model in white yoga pants sitting placidly on a cushion.  How blissful they must be, right?  They must be flying high on 700cc's of samadhi!!!  Yeah, no.  That's all marketing.  And it's all a lie.  Meditative bliss is real, but if we pursue our practice with only that in mind, we are going to hop off the cushion the second those first arrows begin to bristle on the horizon and we see Manjursri menacingly sharpening his sword.  That's sad because it's only when we offer ourselves up to be cut, shot through, and made uncomfortable that real change becomes available to us.  I mean, no one loses weight without going hungry.  No one furthers their career without working hard.  And that model?  She ain't going to get anywhere on that cushion until she has a line of sweat dripping from the nape of her neck and down past her butt crack.
Any meditation is better than no meditation, just like one stick of broccoli is better than none.  But honestly, what's one stick of broccoli going to do?  Likewise, we may like Snickers bars - or a certain kind of meditation - but if that's the entirety of our diet, we're just feeding our baser instincts.  We're giving our ego what it wants at the expense of our Buddha nature.  The real trick is to find that edge, that place where you are just at the edge of your comfort zone.  That's the real middle way.  And you'll only ever discover it if you put your wants and expectations aside.  Any tweak you make is going to come from your smaller mind's desperate attempt to preserve itself.  You really need to dive in and trust the process - any process, any technique.  Let yourself get beaten up by it.  Don't force it, submit to it.  The more you acclimate yourself to this kind of practice, the more delight you'll take in that challenge and that submission.  After a time, you'll come to know that as the real place where meditation is both transformative and pleasurable.

The best meditation is the meditation that leads you Nibbana(enlightenment). There are many ways that can lead a person to Nibbana so whatever method you use, it is better to use one of these methods that leads you to Nibbana and which is suitable to practise in daily life.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Transfering merits to parents after their death
As a duty of children, how to transfer merits to parents after their death?

This may be a duplicate of the questions on this site -- i.e. you can find answers in the other topics that are linked.

Give an alms giving to monks dedicated to your parents and ask them to perform the ceremony. It will look something like this http://buddhistbugs.blogspot.com/2011/03/transference-of-merits-to-departed-ones.html?m=1

This is a very good question. Although some background info is needed first.
When you act, think and speak in Raga, Dosa and Moha at a fundamental level something extraordinary happens.
You get entangled in a "debt" (Naya) transaction with the other party. In the Sansaric journey the ones who come to harm and create difficulties are those whom you owe a debt. The ones who come to help are the opposite. They owe owe you a debt.
When someone is born he/she awaits in Ghandabba state until a mother with a debt transaction is found. Some parents cannot get pregnant. This means at the time of conception there was no one with a debt transaction in a Ghandabba state.
The obedient children owes the mother a debt. The difficult ones come asking for a "repayment".
There is no Nibbana until ALL debts are settled. Although what typically happens is the person gets entangled in many more debts again while settling one debt.
The Buddha advises thus, "Yo Dhammo, Yo Vinayo" -> conduct every moment cognizing the cause-and-effects of your actions while freeing yourself from Sansaric debts.
Naya (debt) -> (opp) Vi-naya (freeing from debt)
Thus, your relatives are someone whom you have a debt transaction. The way you free yourself from these debts is by giving away merits to them (departed and living).The departed relatives in the Peta/Boota realms await until you free them.
What you do is establish a clean mind first without Raga, Dosa and Moha. Then imagine giving away the merits you have collected to those relatives.
Think and imagine "take these merits and I free you from all debts owing. I implore you to free me from debts owed". Give away without expecting nothing in return. Make sure to be incredibly genuine (බොක්කෙන්ම කල යුතුයි) when doing so.
The example the Buddha gives is do so as if pouring water from one vessel to another.
You have a large mountain of merits (පින්) you have collected. Giving them away helps you to attain Kusal thus Nibbana and also frees you from Sansaric debts.
There are other times you can get burdened with the debt too. Essentially, when you do not take care of your responsibilities towards society, family and even nature you get into debt too.

I think the Pali word for "debt" is iṇa -- and naya is "leading" or "conduct" (and the "vinaya" are the monastic rules of discipline),

The "Vinaya" Pitaka is a series of rules for all Dhamma followers to remain free from getting into Sansaric debts. Its wrongly translated as "Disciplne" although in someway it is. So that Pali is wrong.

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


text:
Are the bodhisattva vows better suited to the lay side of Buddhism?
As a practical observation, if one were staying below arhat for the initial aeons, could monastic living limit the efficacy of a bodhisattva? Since that goal heavily rests on seclusion, and both the wandering and monastic models were developed to enhance seclusion, shouldn't a different, more open model of monkhood exist? They should be able to have kids at least for example, since it would help them to help more beings.

I think this is better as a comment than an answer: I don't understand, "They should be able to have kids at least for example, since it would help them to help more beings." Because the number of children who you help as a teacher -- e.g. 20 or 30 per year in a class -- might be more numerous than the number as a parent. And perhaps you're even better able as a teacher, too, with time and space and training and assistants. Although yes, acting as a teacher might be a lay occupation too -- and you might say the same (as a teacher) about acting as a doctor, or a bus driver.

Very opinion-based, would be hard to answer with anything but personal opinions. Could this be reformulated to be more Dharma-based?

Apparently a "good answer" is usually "based on" something: e.g. "a reference", or, "personal experience". And, maybe as Andrei said, I don't think it's immediately clear how a reference or personal experience (not just opinion) should an inform an answer to the current question.

As a practical observation, per AN4.99 there are four kinds of people found in the world:

One who practices to benefit themselves, but not others;
one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;
one who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others; and
one who practices to benefit both themselves and others.
  ...
And how does a person practice to benefit both themselves and others? It’s when a person doesn’t kill, etc. … and encourages others to do the same. That’s how a person practices to benefit both themselves and others.

The best is one who practices to benefit both themselves and others (see AN4.95):

But the person who practices to benefit both themselves and others is the foremost, best, chief, highest, and finest of the four.

Note that this advice applies to all people, not just monastics. Therefore it would also apply to people who take Bodhisatta vows. It would also apply to people who have or do not have children.


text:
Potential of Five Minutes of Meditation
Once, when I went to a Buddhist meditation center, an experienced meditator said: "Sometimes, for meditation, all it takes is five minutes [in a session]." I'm wondering what is the meaning of such a statement.
Does this refer to relaxation? Insight? Or something else? What is the most plausible meaning?

According to Abhidhamma Jhana is one thought moment. One thought moment is so small there could be billions of thought moments in a splash of the light. So the five minutes of Jhana is quite an achievement for a beginner.

"If one were to develop even for just a finger-snap the perception of inconstancy, that would be more fruitful than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and [in addition to that] if one were to feed one person... 100 people consummate in view, and were to feed one once-returner... 100 once-returners, and were to feed one non-returner... 100 non-returners, and were to feed one arahant... 100 arahants, and were to feed one Private Buddha... 100 Private Buddhas, and were to feed a Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — and were to feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha, and were to have a dwelling built and dedicated to the Community of the four directions, and with a confident mind were to go to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge, and with a confident mind were to undertake the training rules — refraining from taking life, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from illicit sex, refraining from lying, refraining from distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness — and were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will."
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.020.than.html

Ah, well you'd have to ask them. In 1999, when i began the Buddhist practices of meditation, I started with 5 minutes per day and it was enough to keep me anchored and get results, and expand the time and depth of practice. I still only average 45 minutes per day but i augment that with "spacing out" practice where i just stop everything and return to meditation.
Or it could mean that in only 5 minutes time a meditator can reach the deep end of the pool. But for me the longer i sit, the deeper the pool is.
Five minutes is great goal for the "spacing out pratice" - to stop and remember the practice. Maybe thats what they meant.

The Buddhist Bhavna is something you do every second of the day, when eating, taking a shower etc. The 5 min thing makes it sound like the following.
-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCq8-XvqU1Q
Does the meditation look and feel like this?
If that is so, you are doing a Vedic form of meditation. Even Buddha played with the breath before enlightenment. It will give Jhana but they are not Ariya Jhana.
How the correct Buddha meditation got corrupted is explained here.
-> https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31576/15007
The correct meditation espoused by the Buddha is here
-> https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31543/15007


text:
Implementing Emptiness Practically
What is the manner in which those meditating on emptiness actually bring their contemplations into a practical, experienced form? In other words, how does insight (on emptiness) become effective in every day life?

yes, i like this question too! i would suppose most would link "meditating on emptiness" with compassion, though the mechanics of why, how, that works would probably involve a long, and far from everyday, exposition of the buddhist path!

Your question is a good one. If I understand it correctly you are referring to the process of "bridging" your experiences in seated meditation into the time between such meditation sessions. You recognize that there is such thing as focusing one's meditation in a certain way (on emptiness) and it's not clear how to bring that focus to one's daily activities. If that isn't your question I apologize. If that is what you are asking then it's important to understand some of the practical aspects of focusing on emptiness. Focusing on emptiness is not necessarily the same as meditating on emptiness nor is it the same as realizing emptiness.
Focusing on emptiness is using the idea of emptiness as taught by the Buddha to change the way you see your self and your life.
Focusing on emptiness can be described as keeping impermanence always in mind. In other words, whatever you see/hear/taste/smell/feel/think ALONG WITH the organs you use in order to see/hear/taste/smell/feel/think are going to die (or end) REAL SOON! That type of reflection has the PRACTICAL effect of doing two things. First, it causes an increase in awareness of the precious little time we have in this body. And second, it creates an ambivalence towards things that waste that time.
In other words, when you come into awareness of death you start to realize the futility of grabbing onto things you experience with the senses and you also realize the limitations of those organs you are using to perceive objects. This creates dispassion and eventually revulsion for these habits of grabbing onto such ephemeral, unrewarding objects. The nature of all objects of the senses is to burn unto death (as taught in the Fire Sermon [SN 35] among many other sutras). When you meditate on emptiness you are focusing on that truth within all objects of your life and all aspects of what you call your "self" (those organs of perception).
You don't actually need to "sit" for meditation to "meditate" on emptiness in the way I am describing. "Sitting" actually makes it easier to see into this component of fire/death within all objects and without sitting, perceiving objects of everyday life in this way takes even more courage, determination, persistence and most of all, faith in the dharma (+the Buddha & the Sangha). But even if you sit and experience the jnana states sequentially the meditation on emptiness must continue in the same way at each new state. Even the jnana of "nothingness" (one of the highest states experienced by the body) must be seen with using this meditation on emptiness; that is, 'this state is temporary, it too shall pass, it too is on fire.' That is why Sariputta would describe his experience of the jnanas as (forgive my paraphrasing): 'And then the first jnana assailed me, and then the second jnana assailed me . . .' etc! [I will look for the reference to this sutra and add it later, it's in the SN]. The mind as an organ of perception is on fire/subject to death/empty and so, the appropriate practical response to the experiences it delivers is the same: dispassion, revulsion & eventually release.

Kolitasutta (SN 21.1) is translated "beset" (which is like "assailed"), though that's Moggallāna rather than Sāriputta.

this is a good, everyday, answer, i thought.

In your original question you said you had an insight, that even meditative states are "empty". This is a very important insight. From Pali Canon we know that Buddha came to the same realization - that any state is just that, a state. Once you really see this, once you see Emptiness, it becomes clear that nothing in life is more important than anything else. Everything is relative, has relative importance - but in the absolute sense these distinctions don't have inherent meaning. Relative is relative. This does not mean it is not real, it very much is, but it is only real within its certain context.
In Mahayana this realization is considered the first real "entry" into Mahayana proper. If you follow this realization through to all its various implications, you will see it has very far-reaching effects.
For one, you suddenly lose interest in partaking of the worldly drama. Why sweat and worry about stuff if none of this has inherent significance?
Secondarily, you may suddenly feel spontaneous compassion to "sentient beings" (people) that still take this so seriously as to try and attain some "better" states, only to keep going in circles of endless frustration.
Finally, since you are no longer attached to any particular state, you are good with pretty much any position of mind, feelings, and body. Their positions no longer bother you. You can even be frustrated or irritated, so what? Of course, the law of cause and effect is still as operational as ever, so allowing the mind to be in unwholesome states and allowing the actions to lead to unwholesome states is still fully effective at creating bad karma. But in some very deep sense, bad karma, the karma of creating suffering - is part of life. In this sense, it is okay, too. Everything's okay.
So you can feel a relief. You can also feel a little depressed, because nothing really makes sense, all games are over, nothing further to be done. Even the quest for Nirvana that animated us for quite a long time, suddenly loses its shimmer. "Samsara and Nirvana are just two poles for tying the donkeys".
Then you realize that this mindstate - either of relief or of depression, is also empty, since it depends on your perspective or position, on your interpretation.
If you really follow Emptiness through to all its implications, it hits hard. There are countless stories of people feeling like they lost all ground, all will to live on, feeling as if they have died and so on and so forth. Sometimes this is followed by regressing back to a comfortable state. Sometimes this ends with psychiatric issues. And sometimes this matures into what Mahayanists call "union of wisdom and compassion" or "union of freedom and skillful means". Meaning, the deep understanding of Emptiness gives one wisdom (of not getting stuck in one-sided perspectives) and freedom (personal subjective sense of relief, no pressure, no judgement) - but also a sense of empathy and responsibility for the fellow sentient beings.
The above is partially anecdotal and partially a generalization of my own experience. What's important to understand, realization of Emptiness does not make you a superman, nothing like that. If anything, it makes you see very clearly, that in the grand scheme of things, you don't matter at all. And that must be the most sobering spiritual realization of them all.
Welcome to Mahayana!

Insight on emptiness make you aware of the illusory nature of the self. Which means it makes you aware that all forms are empty of a self and clinging to self(ego) is meaningless and only cause you suffering. Having glimpses of emptiness can bring you temporary calm, peace and joy. But it is temporary. After experiencing Nibbana many times-which is the absolute perfect, indescribeble state which brings you perfect peace and happiness during you experience it- you will also experience different types of amazing states of mind. At one point you experience a state of emptiness-which is an amazing state too-where you don't feel a body anymore(the body dissapears) and everything turns to black. All of the boundaries dissapear and every-thing dissapears and transforms to boundless formlessness/no-thingness. You become "no-thing" and everything. But it doesn't mean "nothing" but it means you don't have a form anymore. This is also an amazing and deeply calm state but it is not equal to the perfect peace and happiness of Nibbana. After experiencing this emptiness state few days later a person would start to disidentify from the core of subconscious mind which would eventually make a person free from the identification with the self completely and would make it possible for a person to have very deep peace of mind continously.
The last realization of the emptiness that I described above is a signpost for a person that the ego is about to enter to a death process in just few days later.  But only after the realization of Nibbana these things can be possible. Experiencing Nibbana many times makes it possible to enter to this "jhana"(I don't know the "number" of this jhana LOL but it is undoubtedly a jhana) that starts the process of the death of the core of the self or you can say the core of the subconscious mind.
But If you're a beginner meditator you don't need to think about all of this and you can have this understanding that having glimpses of emptiness is always possible and it brings you temporary calm and temporary understanding of the illusory nature of the self.


text:
How does the reference system of the Majjhima Nikaya work?
I have come across a reference to the Majjhima Nikaya (MN) noted as MN 1.436. In my own book (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A translation of the Majjhima Nikaya by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bikkhu Bodhi) there are 152 suttas and each sutta can be sub-divided into a number of vaggas but I can't figure out how one arrives at the aforementioned reference (just newly started to take an interest in the literature).
Kind Regards
Bo

I think you mean what's usually written MN I 436 (roman one, no dot)... These are volume and page number in the Pali Text Society official printed Pali edition of the Canon.
You can see them e.g. on suttacentral.net next to the sutta number.
Looks like MN I 436 is somewhere between the beginnings of MN 64 and MN 65, most likely it refers to a quote on the last page of MN 64, as found in the official PTS Pali edition.
https://suttacentral.net/mn64

Ven. Bodhi's book also provides PTS references inside square brackets. For the MN 64 example, his book will show:

"Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states [436] and directs it towards the deathless element thus..."

Else as Andrei mentioned, simply go to suttacentral and click MN 64, then click the cogwheel icon on the upper right hand side (it'll say "Text settings" when moused over), then click the "View textual information" slider and it'll shows the infos. on the right hand side of the paragraphs.

Also there's a cross-reference between the two numbering systems, on this page:
Sutta and Jātaka number and name, links and PTS page number


text:
Sutta references
I have read a sutta where the Buddha says that there are elements from other religions in his dharma and certain elements from his dharma in other religions as well.
I'm looking for that sutta.

Perhaps one of the places it occurs is, there's something like that in, DN 25:

Nigrodha, you might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants pupils.’ But you should not see it like this. Let your teacher remain your teacher.
You might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants us to give up our recitation.’ But you should not see it like this. Let your recitation remain as it is.
You might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants us to give up our livelihood.’ But you should not see it like this. Let your livelihood remain as it is.
You might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants us to start doing things that are unskillful and considered unskillful in our tradition.’ But you should not see it like this. Let those things that are unskillful and considered unskillful in your tradition remain as they are.
You might think: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks like this because he wants us to stop doing things that are skillful and considered skillful in our tradition.’ But you should not see it like this. Let those things that are skillful and considered skillful in your tradition remain as they are.
I do not speak for any of these reasons. Nigrodha, there are things that are unskillful, corrupted, leading to future lives, hurtful, resulting in suffering and future rebirth, old age, and death. I teach Dhamma so that those things may be given up. When you practice accordingly, corrupting qualities will be given up in you and cleansing qualities will grow. You’ll enter and remain in the fullness and abundance of wisdom, having realized it with your own insight in this very life.”

I think if you read this quote out of context it says something like, "Keep your other religions" and even "Other religions are compatible with (not incompatible with) the Buddha's doctrine."
Piya Tan's introduction says

This sutta is a good example of early Buddhist humour. It is also an
important document on the Buddhist tolerance of other faiths and as such serves as an excellent platform
for interfaith dialogue. It also shows that the Buddha does not always teach to convert, but teaches because there are negative and bad states that bring about rebirth and suffering, and it is to free us from
them that the Buddha teaches.

... and later ...

On a higher level, the Buddha is declaring that he is not teaching a new religion, but a universal spirituality that underlies any religious teaching worth its salt.

However I'm not sure I read it quite that way in context. I think the body of the sutta explains the ascetic's practice but eventually gets to saying that that's not "the heartwood" -- and the heartwood is what the Buddha teaches. Also the next paragraph implies that the audience should have taken the Buddha as their teacher:

When this was said, those wanderers sat silent, dismayed, shoulders drooping, downcast, depressed, with nothing to say, as if their minds were possessed by Māra. Then the Buddha thought: “All these foolish people have been touched by the Wicked One! For not even a single one thinks: ‘Come, let us lead the spiritual life under the ascetic Gotama for the sake of enlightenment—for what do seven days matter?’

More specifically I interpret the quoted passage as saying, "Gotama doesn't want pupils, doesn't want us to give up recitation", etc. -- i.e. it's denying that Gotama wants these (worldly, perhaps competitive) things -- and it's this that's a better explanation of what Gotama wants, i.e. the motive for which he teaches:

I do not speak for any of these reasons. Nigrodha, there are things that are unskillful, corrupted, leading to future lives, hurtful, resulting in suffering and future rebirth, old age, and death. I teach Dhamma so that those things may be given up. When you practice accordingly, corrupting qualities will be given up in you and cleansing qualities will grow. You’ll enter and remain in the fullness and abundance of wisdom, having realized it with your own insight in this very life.

Quite possibly, though, this is a good model for how to engage in "inter-faith dialog". This might be an example of that: Where does the Dalai Lama say '... be a better whatever you already are'?


text:
Is Nibbana a state of mind or an element (dhamma)?
I have four parts of this question,

Is Nibbana a state of mind or a dhamma?
If Nibbana is a state of mind, is it merely the uprooting of craving?
If the answer for the second question is "Yes", then why it's said "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness? Or simply, how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the existence of craving?
"One attain Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?

I appreciate the answers already given. The subject of Nibbana is deep and well worth exploring. Further comments on the subject may be found here: https://www.amaravati.org/dhamma-books/the-island/

Nibbana is asankhata dhatu (unconditioned element or unconditioned dhamma) therefore it is not a state of mind (MN 115).
Insight wisdom (vipassana) into the three characteristics uproots craving (SN 22.59).
Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana) of mind consciousness (Ud 8.1) but it is not a type of consciousness. This is why 'mind-objects' are called 'dhamme'; because they also include Nibbana.
It is because Nibbana is not a state of mind that a stream winner can taste the peace of Nibbana; even though their mind is not completely pure. This can be compared to feeling a cool breeze on a warm sunny day. Because the breeze is one thing & the sun is another thing, both the cool breeze & warm sun can be experienced together. Similarly, the cool peace of Nibbana (experienced from non-attachment) can be experienced by the stream-winner, even though the mind is not completely pure & cooled.
This said, when a stream-winner is in the stream, their mind is without asava (MN 117). In other words, it is inaccurate to say a stream-winner has craving; as though they always have craving. A stream-winner only has craving when their mindfulness has lapsed.
In conclusion, the mind attains Nibbana by using Path concentration & insight wisdom to uproot craving. The suttas say the Path (of concentration & insight) is conditioned. Therefore, the mind does not uproot craving by attaining Nibbana. First craving is uprooted using wisdom and what remains leftover is experiencing the peaceful element of Nibbana. SN 22.59 says:

Seeing thus [with insight wisdom], the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate [uproots craving]. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released [Nibbana]. With full release, there is the
  knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
  holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
  world.'

A very good answer with references to Pali canon. Thank you @Dhammadhatu sir!

Your'e welcome.

Sir, "First craving is uprooted using wisdom and what remains leftover is Nibbana." By reading this, one may feel that the Nibbana is an element of citta (which is incorrect). Can you explain it in a better way? When considering magga citta veeti, I feel that the defilements are uprooted by taking Nibbana as the object for path consciousness. Am I correct?

According to Nyonponika Thera it is a dhamma or phenomenon, but without a Kantian noumenon.  . ,

According to Nyonponika Thera. LOL. Dhamma vs Dhatu = same thing.

Nibbana is not element of citta. Imagine the citta is a log of wood. When the log is on fire, the log has a high temperature. When the fire is extinguished, the log does not have its own temperature but, instead, has the temperature of the atmosphere around it. The atmosphere is not the log and the log is not the atmosphere. Similarly, when the fires in the citta extinguish, the citta has the temperature of the Nibbana element, which is not the citta but an eternal peace & stillness in nature.

@Damith I think that Dhammadhatu might have pointed out, in previous answers, that suttas talk about "letting go" as an "object of consciousness" -- I think that's e.g. vossagga and similar, not nibbana.

@ChrisW Sir, thank you for pointing out that.

@Dhammadhatu Sir, I've found a reference for this statement: "the mind attains Nibbana by using Path concentration & insight wisdom to uproot craving." So I have doubt only for this: "First craving is uprooted...." Can't it be both happen at the same time. I mean uprooting of craving and attaining Nibbana. I think it's the ignorance which prevent us from attaining Nibbana. According to the dependent origination, ignorance indirectly be the cause for craving. I mean if there's no ignorance, there's no craving. Am I correct?

great answer, but i don't see why you don't quote from e.g. MN 115

OP: Is Nibbana a state of mind or a dhamma?

In this answer, we find the definition of dhamma quoted as:

dhamma [Skt. dharma]:(1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2)
  mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna. Also, principles
  of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit in with the
  right natural order of things; qualities of mind they should develop
  so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in and of itself. By
  extension, "Dhamma" (usu. capitalized) is used also to denote any
  doctrine that teaches such things. Thus the Dhamma of the Buddha
  denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of nibbāna, the
  quality at which those teachings are aimed.

For the purpose of this answer, we will use the definition of dhamma as a thing or phenomena - any thing. It could be physical or mental or empty space or time or non-physical and non-mental, or a concept or a teaching - any thing.
In this answer, a sankhara is summarized as:

Sankharas are "co-doings," things that act in concert with other
  things, or things that are made by a combination of other things. Ven.
  Bodhi uses "formations" or "volitional formations" as his preferred
  translation.
There are 3 uses of the term Sankhara in the scriptures:

Second link in dependent origination - when ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body,
  speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results,
  including "rebirth".
The fourth of the five aggregates - volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas. Also covers all
  factors of mind except feeling and perception.
All conditioned and compounded things including mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and
  computers.

The only thing which is unconditioned and uncompounded is Nibbana.

We can say a sankhara is a thing or phenomena that is compounded or conditioned.
Absolutely everything is compounded and conditioned, except Nibbana.
Your body, your mind, your thoughts, your consciousness, your states of mind, the five aggregates, the idea of the self, the Buddha's teachings as an idea of the mind, the luminous mind (pabhassara citta), empty space, time - they are all conditioned and/or compounded.
In the physics of cosmology today, we know that even empty space is expanding in the universe (and therefore conditioned), and from Einstein's theory of relativity, we know about time dilation - the phenomena which proves that time is conditioned. From quantum field theory, we have learned that empty space (vacuum) is never truly empty, so even empty space is compounded.
Everything that is conditioned, would arise, change and cease depending on other conditions - for example, when you read this sentence, thoughts about the concept of sankhara arise in your mind, then ceases. Your understanding or views regarding this concept would also change with time.
Compounded refers to things that are built up of other things. For e.g. your body is built up of bones, flesh, blood, bile, saliva, cells etc. However, through objectification-classification or reification (papañca), we perceive them as concrete objects, relative to us. For e.g., this is my body, that is not my body.
The three marks of existence state that:

All conditioned and compounded things or phenomena are impermanent. (sabbe sankhara anicca)
All conditioned and compounded things or phenomena are suffering. (sabbe sankhara dukkha)
All things or phenomena are not-self. (sabbe dhamma anatta)

There is clearly a classification here separating phenomena or things (dhamma) into conditioned/ compounded and unconditioned / uncompounded. Everything is conditioned and/or compounded, except Nibbana. Everything is impermanent and suffering, except Nibbana. Absolutely everything is not-self (anatta), including Nibbana.
So what then is Nibbana? It's not conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not arising, not ceasing and not changing. Also see this question. Ud 8.1 and Ud 8.3 support this.
Nibbana is also the highest bliss. This supported by Dhp 203 - 204. So, it's easy to think that it is a state of mind. But states of mind are conditioned, but Nibbana is not. So, how can Nibbana be the highest bliss?
From this question, we find the Buddha talking about "The All" from SN 35.23:

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

From this question, we concluded that Nibbana is included in The All. So, if Nibbana is not a state of mind, then it is a thing that can be experienced by the mind. But Nibbana is also not a thought or concept or feeling, because thoughts, concepts and feelings are also conditioned. Please see this answer. Neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana are all blissful to the arahat.
From AN 9.34 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato):

Ven: Sariputta: “Reverends, extinguishment (Nibbana) is bliss!
“sukhamidaṃ, āvuso, nibbānaṃ.
Ven. Udayi: “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is
  felt?”
“kiṃ panettha, āvuso sāriputta, sukhaṃ yadettha natthi vedayitan”ti?
Ven. Sariputta: “The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it.
“Etadeva khvettha, āvuso, sukhaṃ yadettha natthi vedayitaṃ.

So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind, not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not a feeling. However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana, which is not conditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, not arising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. The mind can therefore experience Nibbana, but it cannot feel it or think about it.
Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced when encountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses) or when encountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses). But for an arahat, sukha or bliss (in this context) is experienced when encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana. Please see this answer for commentaries by Nyanaponika Thera. The supporting suttas are MN 44, SN 36.5 and AN 9.34.

OP: how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the existence of craving?

The stream winner glimpses Nibbana in moments when he is in perfect mindfulness (sati) and clear comprehension (sampajañña) of the four noble truths, the eightfold noble path, the three marks of existence and dependent origination, through wisdom and insight (vipassana). These are the moments when he understands things clearly as they truly are (yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti). These are moments when the five hindrances have been stilled and effluents (asava) are temporarily not arising, but ignorance (avijja) has not been completely uprooted yet. When the five hindrances are stilled and effluents are ceased, craving does not occur. See this answer for details on sati sampajañña.
When the stream winner is not in mindfulness (sati) and clear comprehension (sampajañña), he is afflicted by craving and suffering. However, since he has seen things clearly as they are, identity view, doubt about the teachings and attachment to rites and rules would have been uprooted completely. However, some of underlying tendencies (anusaya - see AN 7.11), especially craving and ignorance, still exist, hence the remaining fetters still exist.

OP: "One attain Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?

The answer given by Dhammadhatu based on SN 22.59 is the right one for this.

This is a very good explanation for the selected answer by using previously answered questions and references from the Pali canon. Thank you @ruben2020!

I linked here from a recent question. Excellent and expertly delivered answer.

Nibbana is the unconditioned. So it is timeless, birthless, deathless and it is not a state of mind.
Entering to Nibbana always happens through transcending the defilements(transcending the desire to do something or be something etc. completely) until one becomes an Arahant because only an Arahant is completely free from the defilements all the time(there is no karmic energies in Arahant's mind that potentially can cause limitations for him/her).
A stream-enterer has spontaneous mindfulness so you can say that when the desire is there with the awareness/mindfulness it is not called "craving". But the degree of the mindfulness of a stream-enterer can change time to time. In the once-returner stage the person is deeply contented and have a very deep peace of mind all the time and s/he is not identified with the thoughts, emotions and feelings but the desires continues until one becomes Arahant.
Also stream-entry is not complete enlightenment and can be described as the transition stage.
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9424/700
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/232/700

I'm not sure what you mean by "state of mind" but I think that Ven. Sujato's articles ...

Nibbana is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t.
Nibbana remains not Vinnana

... implies it isn't that.
The latter for example says (describing an Arahant) that ...

the event of Awakening ... involves an awareness of Nibbana
Nibbana is ever-present in the sense that there is never any greed, hatred, or delusion

... however ...

the Buddha spoke countless times of how all forms of vinnana are impermanent and suffering and not-self

Practically speaking, it is very dangerous to objectify Nirvana as something external. Nirvana is Harmony. Universe is already in Harmony, but in order to be in harmony with that Harmony we need wisdom. Once we attain wisdom, we enter Nirvana. In this sense, Nirvana is a dharma and it is also a state of mind.
When we have wisdom and we see something attractive, repulsive, or disturbing - it does not cause desire, aversion or confusion in us, because wisdom sees through these things, so they don't take hold. That's Nirvana.
If the answer for the second question is "Yes", then why it's said "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness?
Because Nirvana (Harmony) can be "seen" with wisdom.
Or simply, how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the existence of craving?
Stream winner would experience Nirvana (Harmony) at some times, and at other times would lose it and get disturbed, even though in theory they understand everything.
"One attains Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?
"One attains Nirvana" = "one acquires wisdom that is capable of preventing all delusions, including craving".
So now if we substitute it in your original sentence, we get "(one acquires wisdom that is capable of preventing all delusions, including craving) by uprooting craving" - this does not make sense.
Instead, "One uproots craving by (acquiring wisdom that is capable of preventing all delusions)" - this makes sense.
(Based on Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa with commentary.)
P.S. what kind of "wisdom" are we talking about? In traditional terms, it is deep analytical understanding of phenomena and mind; understanding of Emptiness. In simple words, it is deep understanding of how mind works, understanding that relative things are relative.

Sir, you've given a well explained answer for the last part of my question. So, it's correct to say "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana". Thank you!

This from the platform sutra of Huineng suggests that you may be asking the wrong sorts of questions, at least outside Theravada Buddhism!

You can read Huineng's condemnation of this (common sense yet) eternalist and annihilationist view on e.g. p53 Thomas Cleary's translation (published by Shambala).
It seems that great nirvana is already experienced by everyone in this very body, and yet there is no subject to experience it. And realization (unity of samadhi and prajna) would be better thought of as the natural state of the body and mind, one without grasping, but due to the action of the buddha nature rather than attaining a particular "state of mind".
It may (also) be worth noting that many Mahayana Buddhists have claimed that the alayavijnana or storehouse consciousness is the one mind. I think it's probably wrong to say that in Mahayna Buddhism nirvana is the cessation of consciousness, rather than a different way of seeing it.

Is Nibbana a state of mind or a dhamma?

As i understand the meaning of the Theravadin expression the terms Nibbana and Mind are used in a variety of ways and there are several ways to answer your question according to Theravadin interpretation.
Here are some examples of the use of these terms;

Nibbana as cessation of perception & feeling
Nibbana as the removal of greed, anger and delusion
Nibbana as the abscence of greed, anger and delusion
Nibbana as the highest liberation
Nibbana as liberation in general
Nibbana as pleasure where no feeling is felt
Nibbana as a where; there is neither this world nor the next

As for mind;

Mind as the Sixth Sense-Base
Mind as a word for consciousness and intellect (sn12.61)
Mind as preceeding Dhamma
Mind as leading and creating all Dhamma

Mind is therefore spoken of both in a sense of being one of the six, intellect, a sense in it's own rite, as well as being indivisible from other senses when said to be likened to consciousness which can be known as coming into play at contact.
Therefore as far as i can tell the Theravadin school of Sthravira in their Abhidhamma differentiate between the mind as conditioned and unconditioned mind, wherein the conditioned mind is associated with contact and unconditioned mind being beyond objectification as it can not be explained in terms of anything conditioned and familiar to us like language or existence as we know it.

If Nibbana is a state of mind, is it merely the uprooting of craving?

Nibbana can be explained to be referring to both the removal and abscence of craving. The word can refer to the act or the fact of removal taking place or the consequent fact of abscence post removal.

why it's said "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness?

As i understand it the expression "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness" is based on the Theravadin expression of the path and fruition classification in Dhammasanghani which is seen as complementary to what is also expressed in regards to path and fruit terminology in the Patisambhidamagga in the Khuddaka Nikaya.
Again as i understand it;
Basically the fact of destruction of the greed, anger and delusion as it occurs in context of the path it is treated as an attainment of any unification of mind accompanied by other 7 path factors which results in the arising of one of the four paths leading to cessation based absorption.
Path is the initial attainment which for example marks complete removal of delusion in case of one attaining the path of arahantship. The subsequent attainments of supramundane absorption no longer destroy or remove any delusion because there is no delusion to remove, this is one example by which fruit can be known as different from path.
4 paths and 4 fruits make for 8 states different to that extent, therefore 8 types of superconsciousness.
The whole notion of supra-mundane consciousness as it seems to me draws from the Sandha Sutta wherein the superlative man attains a special kind of absorption concentration unknown to gods, so i guess that is the support.
As for Nibbana being the object of the Supramundane Consciousness, this is not to be taken literally as in there being contact between some nibbana eye, nibbana element and superconsciousness element.
The words "contact" and "consciousness" therein would be a figure of speech and the terms being analogical to mundane contact as we know it rather than variants of.
That which is unconditioned is a singleness, meaning there are no parts to it to make contact and a delineation of a multitude therein is impossible.

Or simply, how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the
  existence of craving?

Technically the person experiences cessation of everything and comes to know that which is not included in everything, he is not everything, he is not in everything nor is he apart from everything.
This cessation of conditioned phenomena comes to be discerned as the highest pleasure and bliss beyond objectification.
As far as sense bases go goes objectification, as far as the world goes goes objectification (an4.174) and with the cessation of sense-bases, ceases the world and all stress.
There is that which is not stressful, if there was not that which is not stressful there would be no escape from the stressful (Ud 8x)
So one can say that Stream Enterer experiences cessation when he attains the unification of mind accompanied by 7 factors, practically speaking such absorbtion can last for quite long time. Initial attainment of the Bodhisatta resulted in Arahantship, not stream entry but the unification of mind resulted in supramundane absorbtion which lasted for 7 days, in the case of Sotapatti it lasts shorter, 30 minutes in example or whatever opening there is that is how long one is absorbed, the going beyond time itself means that the relatively short duration does not take away from the realization and it as everything all depends on prior development and conditions.
Another way to explain that Sotapanna knows and experiences Nibbana apart from the actual experience of destruction of greed, anger and delusion and the discernment of their non-existence, apart from that, one can explain that he experiences many kinds of liberation of many types as one would imagine and one can go on and on listing such benefits as being free from wrong view and types of doubt.

"One attain Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by
  attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?

There are many ways to explain these expressions as you can probably see.

Most might probably don"t get the message, how ever, some may be able that certain medicine heals.
"Nibbana isn't anything, nor isn't it anything. Nor both or either."
Mind?

"Monks, eye-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Ear-consciousness... Nose-consciousness... Tongue-consciousness... Body-consciousness... Intellect-consciousness is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief...

Element?

"Monks, the earth property is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The liquid property... The fire property... The wind property... The space property... The consciousness property is inconstant, changeable, alterable.
"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry. SN 25

Any perception of Nibbana?

Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence: ...let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.

(like always not given for trade, stacks, exchange and entertainment that keeps one bond in the wheel but to get out by giving (up) and right concentration)

Considering the fact I got two negative points I will try to attempt my answer again. To me, Nibbana is similar to the curing from last long illness. Curing is not mental but the bodily pleasant feeling is mental. When you are cured you know that you are cured. It is mental.

Is Nibbana a state of mind or a dhamma?
Nibbana is a Dhamma.

Nibbana is not a khandha. But nibbana is one of the ayatana. Ayatana are
  arammana or base for citta. Nibbana is dhammayatana. In terms of
  paramattha element or dhatu, nibbana is included in dhamma dhatu.

PATTHANA DHAMMA By HTOO NAING

But 5 pasada are pancayatana that is cakkhayatana, sotayatana, ghanayatana,
  jivhayatana and kayayatana. Only 16 sukhuma rupa will be dhammayatana
  and they are also dhamma dhatu.

PATTHANA DHAMMA By HTOO NAING

Nibbana is nama dhamma because it can be bent. Citta and cetasika are also
  called nama dhamma. Because they can also be bent. Citta and cetasika can
  bend toward arammana or object.

PATTHANA DHAMMA By HTOO NAING
If Nibbana is a state of mind, is it merely the uprooting of craving?
Nibbana is not a mind-state but at an arammana which induces statelessness.

Ayatana are
  arammana or base for citta.

PATTHANA DHAMMA By HTOO NAING

Nibbana is not influenced by kamma, citta, utu, and ahara unlike other
  paramattha dhamma like rupa, citta, and cetasika. Rupa, citta, and cetasika
  are said to be in the domain of sankhata or they are influenced by or governed
  by outside causes like kamma, citta, utu, and ahara.

PATTHANA DHAMMA By HTOO NAING
If the answer for the second question is "Yes", then why it's said "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness? Or simply, how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the existence of craving?
I believe when there are any other Arammanas one experiences craving but not when it is Nibbana
Also, there is no Chitta when one experiences Nibbana. Therefore there cannot be craving.

Before going deep, dhamma have to be reviewed so that all patthana things
  can well be understood. Dhamma here means naturality or reality or
  uninfluenced existence or ultimate realities or paramattha dhamma. As
  already been said, these dhamma or these nature are citta or state of
  consciousness, cetasika or associated mental factor, rupa or materiality that is
  subjected to change but serves as base for nama dhamma or mind related
  spiritual things, and nibbana or a state when or where there is no citta, no
  cetasika so no defilements and no fetters and no related rupa. Nibbana is
  absolute peace when or where there is complete extinguishment of all fire.

PATTHANA DHAMMA By HTOO NAING
"One attain Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?
Both the statements are right.
Saddha is the for the runner to achieve Nibbana

Saddha is a cetasika that co-arise with any kusala citta and any sobhana
  citta. It is belief or confidence. It clears up the mind and makes confident in
  dhamma. Saddha makes impartial belief in triplegem. When saddha arises
  and it works to its full strength it stays as mental faculty and it can also lead
  other mental factors to be fully enlightened. It is one of 37 bodhipakkhiya
  dhamma that leads to nibbana. Saddha co-arise with 59 sobhana cittas that is
  24 kamavacara sahetuka citta, 27 jhana cittas and 8 lokuttara cittas.

With Saddha established uprooting cravings take you to Nibbana. In dependent origination, you have a feeling which gives rise to craving. The Buddhist meditation instructions are to know the feeling and not it is impermanent without craving:
Investigate Feelings

i. On seeing a form with the eye,

one investigates the form that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the form that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the form that is the basis of equanimity.

ii. On hearing a sound with the ear,

one investigates the sound that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the sound that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the sound that the basis of equanimity.

iii. On smelling a smell with the nose,

one investigates the smell that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the smell that is the basis of equanimity.

iv. On tasting a taste with the tongue,

one investigates the taste that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the taste that is the basis of equanimity.

v. On feeling a touch with the body,

one investigates the touch that is the basis for mental joy,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the touch that is the basis of equanimity.

vi. On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,

one investigates the mind-object that the basis of mental joy,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of mental pain,
one investigates the mind-object that is the basis of equanimity.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Understand Feelings are Impermanent hence do not Cling or take Delight in them

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

“Nothing is worth clinging to”
When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One: “In what way, Bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”
“Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to. And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all]. Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all things.
Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful or neither painful nor pleasant.
As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]
he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).
When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating ending in them, contemplating letting go, he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.

Pacalā Sutta
When you attain Nibbana you do not have cravings.

From the view point of contemplation, there are 3 kinds of nibbana. They are_

sunnata nibbana
animitta nibbana
appanihita nibbana

Sunnata nibbana means 'nibbana is free of arammana of tanha, raga, etc etc.
  There is no atta in ultimate sense. Nibbana is free of attajiva. When ariya-tobe was contemplating on dhamma as anatta then the nibbana that he saw is
  called sunnata nibbana. Because as he is viewing as anatta and as there is no
  atta and free of atta then nibbana is called sunnata nibbana.
Animitta nibbana means 'nibbana is free of raga, kilesa, and free of base and
  causal things. When ariya-to-be was seeing dhamma at magga citta, if he saw
  dhamma as anicca then the nibbana that he saw is called animitta nibbana.
  Because there is no nicca or permanent nimitta.
Appanihita nibbana means 'nibbana is not to be craving for as in cases of
  tanha, raga, kilesa, etc etc.' When the ariya-to-be was seeing the dhamma as
  dukkha or suffering then the nibbana that he saw is called appanihita
  nibbana. Because nibbana is free of tanha and raga and any other
  defilements.

PATTHANA DHAMMA By HTOO NAING

"Nibbana is nama dhamma because it can be bent."? Anicca? Who bents, Upasaka? It seems that Upasaka has matched a Hindu teacher here. And what citta with what arammana? Eternal?

HTOO NAING is a Burmese name. So the teacher is most likely not Hindu but Buddhist. The mind can bend toward arammana or object, which in this case has Nibbana as the object.

As if such, wisdom and faith, is a matter of birth... come on, not such low level, Upasaka. Prove, no matter where from. 4 great references (maha parinibana sutta). In same biased ways one could say: its a sanskrit promote website and so related to Hindus from Burma, Sri Lanka...

"there are 3 kinds of nibbana" - This statement is wrong. These are not kinds of Nibbana but kinds of one who getting to know about Nibbana. There's only one element called Nibbana.

Is Nibbana a state of mind or a dhamma?

It is not a state of mind. It is also not the teachings, but what the dhamma is attempting to describe.

If Nibbana is a state of mind, is it merely the uprooting of craving?

It is not a state of mind. An arahant sees nibbana in craving.

If the answer for the second question is "Yes", then why it's said "Nibbana is the object of eight super-mundane consciousness? Or simply, how would a stream winner experience/see Nibbana with the existence of craving?

Nibbana is not separate from, nor the same as craving. Without nibbana there would be no craving.

"One attain Nibbana by uprooting craving" or "One uproots craving by attaining Nibbana" Which one of the aforesaid is correct?

The second. Craving naturally lessens after enlightenment. When craving occurs, an arahant sees nibbana in craving and no longer craves to be free of craving.

It is a gradual cessation of craving. It is like removing the fuel from a fire gradually.
While fuel remaining, the Nibbana is a state of mind. When the fuel fully bunts out it is a Dhamma.

It is the usual question about the difference between vinnana, mano and citta. If you want, you can say that the citta is what is in contact with the deathless (or getting the knowledge of the qualities of the deathless?), which makes it ''a thing'' (meaning a dhamma), which would fit well with the way to "do vipassana'' in the jhana, like here

"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the
  first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?
  There is the case where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn
  from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first jhana:
  rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed
  thought and evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are
  connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and
  consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an
  arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness,
  not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done
  so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is
  peace, this is exquisite - the resolution of all fabrications; the
  relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion;
  cessation; Unbinding.'

The goal would be to detach the citta from  rupa, from the five cords of sensual pleasure, the asavas, the kilesas, from anything that is dukkha, which would be why the asekhas have realized the nirodha of rupa, nirodha of vedana, of vinnana and so on.
But you can also say that nibanna is a ''thought'' and then you talk about sati, mano and thoughts.
The ability to witness with the proper view is about sati like the buddha keeps saying here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.035.than.html and sati is the proper use of mano. Yoniso maniskhara is even more explicitly tied to mano.  Panna, sati and mano are tied. Panna is witnessing that a liberated citta is good and a non-liberated citta is bad, and witnessing a liberated citta. Panna would be viewed as sati applied to nibanna, to a liberated citta...
So a liberated citta is what is ''experienced'' and panna is knowing that the liberated citta is the end of the world. You cannot talk about nibanna without talking about the liberated citta AND the knowledge or witnessing of this liberated citta.
When nibanna does not happen by lack of sati and directing the citta towards nibanna right at the first jhana, this can also be done :

The thought occurs to him, 'What if I, with the complete transcending
  of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, were to
  enter & remain in the cessation of perception & feeling.' Without
  jumping at the cessation of perception & feeling, he, with the
  complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception &
  feeling.
"When a monk enters & emerges from that very attainment, his mind is
  pliant & malleable. With his pliant, malleable mind, limitless
  concentration is well developed. With his concentration well developed
  & limitless, then whichever of the six higher knowledges he turns his
  mind to know & realize, he can witness them for himself whenever there
  is an opening.

So  ''the cessation of perception & feeling'' still does not bring nibanna just like that, sati is still required to turn the citta towards
So far, all this leaves vinnana alone, besides the nirodha of vinnana. Then people wonder if arahants cognize things or not. So people speculate about what happens to vinnana when the citta is liberated. There are only 2 suttas explicitly about the Anidassana Viññāṇa, even worse they are in DN and MN, (which is not a good news for the people who take seriously this vinana), a sutta  in SN 12.64 talk about the "vinnana which does not grow" so they link it to their Anidassana Viññāṇa. Then people wonder if the citta is eternal or not, if the vinnana is eternal or not, if they are the true self or not, if they are conditioned or not.

Anidassana Viññāṇa is not taught to arahants but to unfaithful non-Buddhist Brahmins & Brahma Gods. Its got nothing to do with Buddhism.


text:
Buddhist thought on Amends
Did the Buddha address the idea of making amends for past wrongs? I understand that we really only have the present moment in which karma is made, and where past karma manifests. But say one was a thief in this lifetime, stole much, but then found Buddhism and the path. According to the Buddha, should this person make an attempt to repay the victims of his/her theft?

Walking the path with bad karma presently lingering will make it more difficult to gain wisdom. This is because the guilt you feel from stealing will distract you from your cultivation of concentration and insight. If you find you are having a hard time focusing during your meditation sessions because of this guilt, making amends could help you better progress in your search for enlightenment. If you are just suffering in general because of it, it still may be beneficial.
That being said though, it is not required to clear that karma. Once you attain enlightenment, all your karma is released, and the guilt will no longer remain.
So the answer is, how much is it bothering you? If you feel sad and guilty every day because of what you've done, making amends can relieve you of that. If it is of little concequence to you, don't worry about it and continue the path.

It has caused me much suffering, confusion, and shame for nearly 20 years. I made the amends two days ago. Over the phone and sent a check. I feel a great weight lifted off me and already my practice feels enriched.

@KevinMartillo Beautiful! Best wishes to you on your path. I am so glad your actions have brought you peace.

I don't know, so I'll answer with the little bits I do know.

I think that, to ordain as a monk, a person should (must) be free of debt and of good reputation -- I don't know how that's interpreted with respect to past theft.
There are some crimes where it isn't even obvious how to "make amends" or "repay the victim" -- if you steal someone's life, for example.
And yet there is at least one famous example in the suttas of a murderer becoming a monk, enlightened and harmless.
I guess everyone has a lot of past karma -- and Buddhism may be kind of about ending karma rather than continuing to act on it -- and for that reason I sort of doubt (I might be wrong) whether he taught people to make amends by repaying victims (especially materially), but I also hesitate to say that you shouldn't.
There's a notion of owing a great deal to one's parents, a debt which can't be repaid.
See also topics about 'forgiveness' (for example), which might be relevant

Actually a question already often answered here, for example Confession in Buddhism

Did the Buddha address the idea of making amends for past wrongs?

Yes. It's a very important point, althought very denied by "Buddhists" and "reformer" since they sell/advertise with a pseudo liberal idea of remorse-lessness without having given causes for such.

I understand that we really only have the present moment in which karma is made, and where past karma manifests.

It's possible good to understand kamma better and that "only present" does not help much. Good, as most, Ven. Thanissaros generous Dhamma gifts: Karma Q & A

But say one was a thief in this lifetime, stole much, but then found Buddhism and the path. According to the Buddha, should this person make an attempt to repay the victims of his/her theft?

If such is possible, not always would a "victim" accept such, such can nothing but useful. It's important to understand that "nobody" would force you in regard of confessions, amends or repay from the side of the tripple Gems. How ever, as for the case one wishes to join the monastic Sangha, certain questions are raised and Monks are restricted from giving ordination to certain people.
Generally again the important story of Angulimara, the mass-murder, to get some understandings that wrong and right is not something lasting till certain points of attainings.
"No future" (for the current existence) in Dhamma are only in 6 cases, for one having killed mother, father, an Arahat, caused the Buddha shed bold, scaused a split of the Sangha and if holding strong wrong views, like those who deny the requirment of remorse, making amends of faults and other cause and effect denying ideas.
Hearing the good Dhamma, accepting right and wrong as explained and taking refuge in the Gems, if truthful, is the most usual kind of showing ones change and stick to virtue out of firm confidence.
At least: one who walks the path in it's full, is one who will "repay" all debts and an Arahat is someone really free of debts. Yet there are still three person hardly ever to repay.
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and what ever is thought to bind to the world for gains their but for liberation)

The cause for what you call "remorse-lessness" is simply that there is no one there. Once it is known that the self is an illusion, it is realized that nothing has ever been done wrong. How could a wrong action be taken by a non-existent actor?

@w33t AN 11.1 says the cause of non-remorse is (or that it's the purpose of) "skillful virtue/ethics/morality" (kusalāni sīlāni), no?

That is a good excerpt. I think it very clearly describes what I am saying. Remorse is a potential barrier to enlightenment. But, if you experience enlightenment while feeling remorse, all remorse will be absolved. For once there is known there is no one there, it is impossible for that non-person to be guilty of something.


text:
What were the source documents of the PTS Sutta Pitaka?
The Pali Text Society published editions of the Pali Tipitaka, starting in about 1890.
I assume it was copied (transcribed) from one or more written sources, not from memory, is that so?
From what written documents/sources did the editor[s] of the PTS edition get the text? Were they manuscripts, or printed? And I'm guessing the PTS transcribed the text to Roman script?
Where (in which countries and/or by whom) were those source materials copied? Was it from one source or several?
Would you happen to know whether the source documents still exist today?
This answer says that different editions are more or less the same in every country ...

With the Pali editions, we inherit a complex manuscript tradition. In each country there are multiple different editions, both modern printed editions and older manuscripts. The ones we have ended up using are more or less random. The problem is that despite the many variations, the reality is that it is a huge amount of work to gather and collate them, and the end result is, “Yep, apart from these few instances, it’s pretty much the same as all the others.”

... still I'm wondering specifically where the text of the PTS edition came from (and where the work was done).

Do you already know the site of some EBT-friends (and Pali-translators) https://discourse.suttacentral.net/ You might get some authoritative answer there. If you don't have an account there (or don't want to have one) I could ask for you.

I asked three questions there last year.

Related: How was the Buddha Jayanti edition of the Tripitaka derived?

Related: List of tipitaka versions’ differences (on SuttaCentral)

Wow, the links give well exposed material. Hope you'll get what you're looking for!

Also there's a letter here from Mrs. Rhys Davis which begins, When, some sixty-five years ago, my husband retired from which gives some clues about "how" and some explanation of motive, "why".

oh, If I should once happen to lie in bed with broken leg or so, I'd try to re-format that complete text... It seems it would be a very good piece of history to have this as a book or as fluent electronic text!

@GottfriedHelms It's great, isn't it -- written with a wife's loving hindsight, and appreciation (e.g. to the monk who first taught her husband) and as a public plea to others for help with continuing the work.

Well said, Chris. And blessed is someone who finds karuna...

Sources Consulted for the PTS Pali Nikāya Texts
Dīgha Nikāya
Edited by
Vol. 1, 1890: T.W. Rhys Davids and J.E. Carpenter
Vol. 2, 1903: T.W. Rhys Davids and J.E. Carpenter
Vol. 3, 1911: J.E. Carpenter
Ph = M = B - the Phayre MS. of the India Office Library (Burm. ch)
Bm Burmese ms, royal Mandalay Collection, India Office, No. 40
Br Printed Burmese text, Rangoon
Sm A ms in Sinhalese characters in the possession of Professor Rhys Davids
Sc Sinhalese manuscript belonging to J.E. Carpenter
Sd Sinhalese ms. belonging to T.W. Rhys Davids
St Sinhalese ms, Turnour Collection, India Office
Si = K  Printed Siamese text, King of Siam's edition 1893 (Siamese ch)
RhDt Rhys Davids' trnscript
Majjhima Nikāya
Edited by
Vol. 1, 1888, V. Trenckner
Vol. 2, 1896, R. Chalmers
Vol. 3, 1899, R. Chalmers
A = - Sk the Copenhagen MS. No. VI (Singh. ch)
Ph = M = B - the Phayre MS. of the India Office Library (Burm. ch)
St Sinhalese ms, Turnour Collection, India Office
Bm Burmese ms, royal Mandalay Collection, India Office, No. 40
Si = K  Printed Siamese text, King of Siam's edition 1893 (Siamese ch)
Anguttara Nikāya
Edited by
Vol. 1, 1885, R. Morris, 2nd Ed.: A.K. Wrder
Vol. 2, 1888, R. Morris
Vol. 3, 1897, E. Hardy
Vol. 4, 1899, E. Hardy
Vol. 5, 1900, E. Hardy
T = St Sinhalese ms, Turnour Collection, India Office
Ba No. 2276 (in Sinhalese) of the Oriental Mss. in the Library of the British Museum
Bb No. 2412 (in Sinhalese ch)  of the Oriental Mss. in the Library of the British Museum
Ph = M = B - the Phayre MS. of the India Office Library (Burm. ch)
Bm #122, #123 Burmese ms, royal Mandalay Collection, India Office, No. 40
S.M. (Sinhalese ch) Morris collection
B.K. Burmese texts
M. #s 125, 130 of the Mandalay collection (Burmese ch), India Office Lib.
M6 Morris Ms. (Sinhalese ch)
M7 Morris Ms. (Sinhalese ch)
M 8 Morris Ms. (Burmese)
S = Si = K  Printed Siamese text, King of Siam's edition 1893 (Siamese ch)
2nd Ed:
Ke Siamese editionof the text
Ce Sinhalese edition of the text
ChS Chaṭṭha Sangīti Piṭakaɱ
Saɱyutta Nikāya

Edited by
Vol. 1, 1884, M.L. Feer
Vol. 2, 1888, M.L. Feer
Vol. 3, 1890, M.L. Feer
Vol. 4, 1898, M.L. Feer
Vol. 5, 1890, M.L. Feer
B (Burmese ch) ms of the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris
S1 Copenhagen ms
S2 British Museum ms
S3 Morris ms
Composed as an appendix to the article: On the Importance of the Pali Text Society Translations at
http://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/dhammatalk_forum/give_ear/ge_015.importance_pts.htm

The Pali PTS Tripitaka was written in Sri Lanka. How it was written is explained here. -> https://qr.ae/TW8x2e

That explains it was oral tradition until 76 BC, and written after that: but not exactly what the source material was for the PTS editions. They were published starting in about 1890 -- was that from memory (I'm guessing not), from manuscripts (perhaps, but from where or from whom), or from an earlier printed edition?

So "oral tradition" means the monks recite the Sutta daily in order to retain the Sutta in memory. The 3 baskets were looked after by groups of monks.  Each group would ensure its not forgotten.

Yes that's what "oral tradition" means. But i'm not asking about the first few hundred years, this question is about the late 19th century, 130 years ago -- from what source[s] did the editor[s] of the PTS edition collect the Pali text for the suttapiṭaka which they published?

The Tipitaka was written in Ola leaf and that is the original source. Almost 95% of the sources would be from Sri Lanka since that was where Buddha lived and his Dhamma existed and the Dhamma councils were conducted. British officers George Turner and Hugh Nevill who worked for the British civil service has taken it from Sri Lanka. its all documented and catalogued. The rest presumably from other countries.

Having a good Q&A-site means to find answers which adress the questions. It is a really clear formulated question, no place for misunderstanding... (downvote)


text:
Buddha's Comment on Compassion Meditation
I think I recall reading about the Buddha saying that compassion meditation was far superior to compassionate action, hundreds (or some great number) times more. Is this accurate? What is the source for this?
I am also interesting in knowing if this is true in people's experience on here.

All Brahmaviharas are good if based on right view and moral virtue. If not, all are merely destructive for long time happiness and beyond.

So compassionate action is the base, founded on right resolve. It's not an instead but a refinery.

Buddha taught that one should develop compassion or karuna both with actions and meditation. This can be seen in Mettanisamsa Sutta:
"Monks, for one whose awareness-release through good will is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected"
Although good-will or metta is not the same with compassion, both of them are considered two of the four sublime attitudes, brahmavihara. In this sutta, Buddha mentioned that good-will has to be perfected both in mind and actions for the benefits to be experienced. Thus, the same approach applies to compassion as well.
Besides, in my experience, practicing only metta meditation without performing skillful actions related to loving-kindness still makes me feel like I am a "selfish" person. it is only with the practice of both meditation and skillful actions does one able to perfect the sublime attitudes; meditation depends on skillful actions and skillful actions depend on meditation.
References:
"Metta (Mettanisamsa) Sutta: Good Will" (AN 11.16), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 23 July 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an11/an11.016.than.html