text:
Is the principle of rebirth falsifiable?
When the Buddha searched for truth in the world he used a method of empiricism. Empiricism is the precursor for modern science and although I believe that rebirth can be verified empirically I am not certain that is qualifies as a scientific theory.
The exact theory I am referring to is that rebirth is a mental process which occurs during our life and continues after physical death.
Although I do not think that rebirth is contrary to scientific evidence I do wonder if it is a theory which can be considered scientific. One requirement for theories in modern science is that they are falsifiable which means that if they are wrong then we can show that they are wrong.
Usually theories predict things and we can test if those predictions are false, however, I cannot think of any predictions which can be tested in this life.
This is assuming that one has a very still mind and can observe fundamental processes. I understand that this is related to the twelve nidanas and the stages when clinging leads to becoming which leads to birth. Is it possible for somebody to know what they should be seeing here before they see it?

When you say "rebirth", do you mean e.g. remembering a previous life, sometimes called "reincarnation"?

@ChrisW I meant rebirth as a mental process which happens in this life and continues upon death rather than a physical process which happens at the point of death. I believe this is the type of rebirth present in Buddhism

In order to be (more) specific about which theory of rebirth you're asking about, would it be right to limit/focus the question on the content of the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta (the whole sutta and nothing but that sutta)?

I appreciate you trying to get a better grip on the question. The focus of the question should be on the falsification aspect, I do not think that the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta mentions anything about rebirth which is testable in this life. I should also mention that I was thinking of testing rebirth only by observing the mind, not by looking for past lives; does the Buddha say that with great samadhi we should verify the existence of rebirth by remembering our past lives?

If you ask a question about a theory (e.g. ask whether it's falsifiable) it may be better to cite/reference the theory which you're asking about. Here you're asking about "the principle of rebirth" as if everyone knows what it is, but see Then where did the concept of “rebirth” come from? If the principle you're asking about comes from suttas then maybe reference the sutta;  or if the principle you're asking about comes from another (later?) source then I'd suggest you reference that.

In order to try and relate how the process of rebirth is falsifiable and therefore try and relate the concept to science, I will have to establish a number of ideas/theories before I can directly try and relate it to science, so I'll have a bunch of definitions or excerpts from sutras and then I'll try and relate it all together, so the beginning of my question may be just listing a bunch of theories which will later be brought together.
The process of "rebirth," as I understand it, doesn't allow for one to remember a past life or past life experiences. It is important to make the distinction between the physical Buddha (Shakyamuni himself) and, what is in essence, the "life force" of the Buddha. Shakyamuni himself wasn't able to see his past lives or remember past experiences from before he was born. What he was able to do, and this is what his fifth transcendental power of being able to see past lives is, is understand his "life force" and perceive the nature of his life, which he had in his previous lives. It is from this concept that karma/karmic chains and other such related ideas come from. To support this affirmation, in the Lotus Sutra, chapter 16 (The Life-span of the Thus-come One), when Shakyamuni Buddha is addressing an assembly of nearly all of his followers, he says:

"You must listen carefully and hear of the Thus Come One’s secret and his transcendental powers. In all the worlds the heavenly and human beings and asuras all believe that the present Shakyamuni Buddha, after leaving the palace of the Shakyas, seated himself in the place of
  practice not far from the city of Gaya and there attained annuttara-samyak-sambodhi. But good men, it has been immeasurable, boundless hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions of nayutas of kalpas since
  I in fact attained Buddhahood.... in truth the time since I attained Buddhahood is extremely long (1)".

Shakyamuni here is saying that there was no start to his "existence" or life force in it of itself. Basically, he is saying that his, and everyone else's life force has existed from "the infinite past" and will continue to exist throughout. What is important to know is that one's life force isn't life in the standard sense, but is intrinsically existing as a function of the universe regardless of whether there is life. Life is more the manifestation of one's life force.

Also in the Lotus Sutra, in chapter 14 (Peaceful Practices), Shakyamuni states,

"All phenomena are empty, without being, without any constant abiding, without arising or extinction.... phenomena exist, do not exist, are real, are not real, are born, are not born.... Look upon all phenomena as having no existence, like empty space, as without firmness or hardness, not born, not emerging, not moving, not regressing, constantly abiding in a single aspect (1)".

Here, Shakyamuni is saying that the true aspect of all phenomena is that it has no existence. Another way to say this is that causes don't have intrinsic implications; only effects do. It also is to say that, whatever happens, that doesn't mean anything other than that that happened; how one reacts is all that matters. Here one can see how Shakyamuni's statments of the true aspect of all phenomena can be easily applied to our day-to-day lives, so the next logical step is to have a system of, in essence, figuring out which different effects one can create from any phenomena. This leads us into the next philosophical idea.

The 3000 Realms is an philosophical theory developed by T'ien-T'ai, a Chinese buddhist philosopher. It is to say that the, "entire phenomenal world exists within a single moment of life (2)". The realms themselves are used as a way to "categorize" the phenomenal world. Below is a chart explaining how he came up with 3000 realms:
 (2)
The Ten Worlds (or Ten Spiritual Realms) are basically thought to be the full spectrum of one's life condition, which comes from ones life force (i.e. how one feels). I'm not entirely sure where the concept of the ten worlds comes from, although I believe it is a relatively universall concept, at least within Mahayana Buddhism.
In short, however one feels can be represented as one of the "Ten Worlds", or "Spiritual Realms". The part of the chart which lists it as "The Ten Worlds and Their Mutual Possession" is referring to the fact that T'ien-T'ai considers the ten worlds to exist within each other. That is to mean that, even in the realm of hell, one can exist in a realm of buddhahood. An example from history of this concept would be of Martin Luther-King Jr.. He led the civil rights movement in America for some time and did so peacefully and, as far as I know, ethically too. One may say that he often times existed in one of the upper worlds like Buddhahood or Bodhisattva (I don't know the Ten Worlds well enough to be able to say with much confidence which particular world he was in while he was working for Civil Rights). Anyhow, while he was doing that though, he was angry because of the injustice of how he and other people were being treated and that motivated him. However, the important distinction to be made is that, although he was angry, he didn't act violently, he still thought and acted like one who was in one of the higher worlds would act. The inclusive world which he often dwelled in was Anger, even though he was in one of the higher worlds nonetheless.
Another important aspect of the Ten Worlds is that the entirety of them exist intrinsically within us at all times and one can, moment-to-moment, move from one world to the next- either up or down. That is to say that, at all times, for all people without exception, the World of Hell exists within us, but so does Buddhahood.
--
The next part of The 3000 Realms is The Ten Factors. This theory too comes from the Lotus Sutra in the second chapter (Expedient Means) and is expounded by Shakyamuni to Shariputra and goes as follows:

"Shariputra, to sum it up: The buddhas have fully realized the law that is limitless, boundless, never attained before.... The true aspect of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between buddhas. This reality consists of appearance, nature, entity, power, influence, internal cause, external cause, latent effect, manifest effect, and their consistency from beginning to end (1)".

I personally have a hard time explaining The Ten Factors and so I'll also add a link that describes The Ten Factors (3) more clearly. To the best of my understanding, The Ten Worlds are how we feel emotionally, and the Ten Factors are how we project ourselves upon the world and how these two concepts interact with each other.
--
The final part of The Three Thousand Realms is called, "The Three Realms". I know the least about this part of the Realms, and so my explanation for it probably wouldn't be complete, but there are many websites which I think would be able to better explain them. Everything that I would be able to say about them is addressed in the image I added above, so I'll stop here.
--
What is important to know about The 3000 Realms as a whole is that they describe all of the possible effects within a single moment of life. It also means that everything is subjective - in terms of point-of-view - and that all things are equal.
The reason that I have included the concept of The 3000 realms is because it shows that not just Shakyamuni has a life force, and also that one's enlightenment (world of Buddhahood) intrinsically exists within one's self (as well as every other realm).

All perspectives are equal because anything that we perceive is a perception of a phenomena and all phenomena are "empty", as stated above, thus meaning that everyone's perceptions are equal.
This would mean that, if one can prove that all perspectives are equal, one can prove the principle of rebirth to be falsifiable because: If all perspectives are equal, because all phenomena are empty because there is nothing to perceive, all that is left to exist is our life force. Because our life force isn't constrained by any phenomena (e.g. birth and death), it exists for eternity neither beginning nor ending. One however, can not say that life simply doesn't exist, because as Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." This would leave the only option left being that "rebirth" exists, because our physical selves are bound by physical limitations and phenomena, things will be born and will die. However, since our life force is eternal, and not really "alive" in the sense that living is usually implied with, when we are physically living we embody that life force just as how, when there is matter, there will be gravity. Our life force is eternal, however, we, as living beings, are not, and so we will forever be born and die, but whenever we are born, we embody our life force. This is what reincarnation is.

What is left to do is then prove that all perspectives are equal. For that one must look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I don't understand this concept in its entirety, but I do know that it says that, if there is a person who isn't moving, time will be faster for him or her than it is for someone who is moving. This has been scientifically proven to happen. Time wouldn't change for certain people (or anything for that matter), if someone's perspective could be deemed invalid. It is because everyone's perspective is equal, that time itself changes when something moves.

I hope this answers your question. I know that some of my explanation may be a bit murky or unclear, so I would be happy to try and clear up anything.
Works Cited:
1) The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras. Tokyo: Soka Gakkai, 2009. 57-267. Print.
2) "Three Thousand Realms in a Single Moment of Life." Soka Gakkai International Buddhism in Action for Peace. Soka Gakkai International, Apr. 2012. Web. 6 Aug. 2016. http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/three-thousand-realms-in-a-single-moment-of-life.html.
3)"Ten Factors." Soka Gakkai International Buddhism in Action for Peace. Soka Gakkai International, Oct. 2000. Web. 6 Aug. 2016. http://www.sgi.org/about-us/buddhism-in-daily-life/ten-factors.html.

Each time the mind gives birth to the 'self' idea & believes it is a 'self', that is 'birth'. This is what the mind (rather than the idea of "you") should be seeing.
The Pali suttas explain the word 'birth' ('jati') as the mental generation of the mental idea, view or 'assumption' of 'beings' ('satta') or 'self-identity' ('sakkaya'); that, apart from 'view' or 'conceptual thought', there are no 'beings' to be found.
The twelve nidanas are verifiable by ordinary consciousness, as is taught.

From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fabrications...From the cessation of birth, then aging-&-death,
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair all cease. Such is the
  cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Contemplative says
  this. We speak thus in line with the Contemplative's words'?"
"No, lord."
"Is it the case that you speak simply in line with what you have
  known, seen & understood for yourselves?"
"Yes, lord."
"Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be
  seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves.
Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta

For example, in the Nakulapita Sutta, a frail old man without little meditation experience was taught the basics of dependent origination (the last four nidanas).
However, if you are unable to be free the mind from the "you" or "self" thoughts, you can examine the twelve nidanas in a more mundane manner.
For example, when you suffer, why are you suffering? The cause of suffering is a sense of loss (which is aging-&-death). The sense of loss is caused by the belief you are something or you own something (which is the object lost). This belief you own something is caused by becoming (for example, one day you married a woman & thus become her "husband". Later, your wife left you, which resulted in you suffering about the loss of your wife & your self-identity as a "husband"). You married the woman (who was previously a stranger) because you became attached to her, thinking: "I like her; I want her; I must have her". These attachment thoughts of "I" & "like" & "want" were caused by pleasurable feelings towards the woman & an urge (craving; lust) for her. Ultimately, you suffered over your lost wife because of ignorance. You were ignorant of the reality that craving & attachment cause suffering (4 noble truths), which is why you attached to the woman. You were ignorant of the reality that all conditioned things are impermanent, cannot bring lasting happiness & are not-self. Because you took birth in believing this woman was "my wife" & "I am her husband" (rather than understanding she was "not-self"; "not-mine"), you suffered due to the twelve nidanas.
This link may be helpful, pages 3 to 6:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/shapeofsuffering.pdf

Thanks for your reply, I have heard before of the idea that self-view causes rebirth but I couldn't reconcile it with the idea that sotapannas free from self-view are still reborn. I know that the Buddha told us to verify his teachings but verification is not sufficient for a scientific theory, I was looking for how the theory of rebirth could be falsifiable.

The idea that sotapannas free from self-view are still reborn is just another idea. It cannot be verified. That said,  sotapannas are not permanently free from self-view since self-view arises in a noble practitioner until they attain arahantship. Although sotapannas no longer believe 'self' is real; self-view continues to arise when they are unmindful.

That makes sense, I will reconsider my idea of the rebirth process. If we accept that self view drives rebirth then does this have any affect on whether the theory of rebirth continuing after death is falsifiable?

The scriptures (eg. MN 38) state "birth" ends while the eye sees a form, the  ear hears a sound, etc. Obviously, MN 38 is not referring to physical birth but to a mental birth. In MN 86, the former mass-murderer Angulimala states: "ever since I was born into the noble birth (jati) as a monk, I have never intentionally killed a living being". There is only a dozen or so suttas from 1000s that teach literal reincarnation. As for the hundreds of suttas that use the translation "reborn" or "reappears", there is no evidence they are referring to after life rebirth.

In summary, only a personal experience or realization of the twelve nidanas in the manner I explained will give rise to the conviction that the  twelve nidanas are not about reincarnation.

I think you have misunderstood the nature of my question, I was not looking for how to gain conviction or how to verify teachings, I was trying to figure out if a theory of rebirth meets the falsifiability requirement of a scientific theory. Your answers have not mentioned anything about falsification. I was also not referring to reincarnation like a physical process involving any soul; I do think think of rebirth as a mental process which occurs in this life and "after the dissolution of the body" as the Maha Kammavibhanga sutta puts it.

The term "dissolution of the kaya" does not necessarily refer to the physical body. This again is a materialistic & unexamined interpretation of language. The Maha Kammavibhanga is about happiness & unhapiness due to karma.

@25299… the only way that you will find out about the ‘falsification’ aspect, IMHO, is to first develop trust in the Dhamma. That means that you do not give way to any doubting or questioning. Only then will you put the Dhamma into practice in an orderly manner. If you have no conviction that Dhamma has to be practiced in an orderly manner, you will only carry out any given instruction for a short while only and abandon it. Why is it so?  It is simply because of the doubts that you have. It translates into no confidence, and therefore no results.
Say for example you want to go looking for gemstones. Only if you are aware of the existence of gemstones, and if you are confident about how to proceed in your search, will you in an orderly manner select the appropriate soil leaving out the unwanted, wash it, leaving out the pebbles and select the precious stones. If on the other hand you have no confidence, no knowledge of the technology, you will not have the patience to painstakingly do the needful.
Likewise if there is confidence we practise Dhamma and practice meditation in an orderly manner.  You do things carefully and in an orderly manner with confidence. Only then would you get results in this very life. The understanding in such a person will one day turn out to be a realization. For that you will have to develop the meditation on repulsiveness (Asubha Saññā’) - perceiving the impurity of the body; ‘Ahare Patikkula Saññā’ -perceiving the impurity of material food; ‘Sabba Loke Anabhirata Saññā’ - not taking delight in worlds; ‘Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Saññā’ -impermanence of all aggregates, and of ‘Marana Sati’ -to be mindful of death. (read Asavakkhaya Sutta where the Supreme Buddha explains these five). I could not find the Access-to-insight link, but you can read it in Bhikku Bodhi’s Book.
If these five meditation activities were to be carried out, dispassionateness will arise in you. When you become dispassionate with understanding, then you will begin to lose the desire and craving for materialistic things and sensual pleasures .  Your mind will become calmer and calmer. Only with such a calmed mind will it be possible to develop the special wisdoms.  Your Sakkaya Ditthi (the idea of self) will leave you. You will see results in this very life.

I think you misunderstand the idea of falsification. Theories can be true and that the same time be falsifiable so seeing it truly for myself doesn't tell me if it is falsifiable. I do have trust in the dhamma and I believe what the Buddha said about rebirth. You've described the way the Buddha said to gain confidence in his teachings through a method of empiricism and that's what I do in my practice, but that's irrelevant to my question. I accept that we can verify rebirth empirically.

@user25299, IMHO you are giving inappropriate attention to the wrong type of question, and such questions  will get in the way of progressing in this Dhamma path. For example focusing on questions such as “Who am I?” “Do I have a self?”— the kind of questions that deal in terms of being and identity and questions of this nature will only lead you into a wrong track and leave you stuck there, and will impede your progress.


text:
With my interpretation of 'rebirth', can I become a Buddhist and become accepted within a Buddhist community?
I am just beginning and in need of help and advice on rebirth.
I'm struggling for direction in life. I felt a connection with Buddhism in my day to day life and decided to pursue it further, In the hope it would help me connect to the universe in the way I crave. I'm struggling with the life, death rebirth concept. Before I take my next big step I need to know if my beliefs could be accepted.
I believe heavily in cause and effect but I am struggling with the concept of rebirth. I believe that when I die, my mind dies with me. I am willing to accept that my mental energy may live on but not in the way I have read about.
Please bear in mind I am not saying I categorically do not believe in rebirth I'm just saying my interpretation of it is probably not of the norm. I am concerned this will hinder my progress.
I believe that my energy will not move to another being after I die, but I believe that the way I treat people and the good I do in my short time on earth will live on, although my body is gone I believe that in some way I will live on in the people I have encountered in life. The people I have done good and the people I have done bad.
I feel I need to find a community as many people do not share my opinions and I find a lot of the things I believe marry up with that of the Buddhist beliefs and I want to extend I'm beliefs and build a better connection physically and spiritually with myself and my surroundings. I would like to find peace within myself and help others.
As I'm sure you can tell I am very new to this and the way I explain myself is probably not the best, my spiritual connection is lacking and I'm struggling to see the bigger picture, that I what I wish to expand on. I'm just getting to grips with things and regardless to whether the answer to my question is a yes or no I will still pursue my beliefs. Ultimately I would like to know if I can become a Buddhist and if I can become accepted within a Buddhist community.
Thank you in advance.

Welcome to the site. I edited the title to match or summarize the question which I think you're asking.

Hi Megan and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have also a Help Center with useful resources for new comers.

You don't have to believe in rebirth. Rebirth concept in Buddhism is not as simple as simple as reincarnation anyway.
It's actually better if you don't hold any blind beliefs in Buddhism since it is a find-out-for-yourself kind of religion, i.e. when you reach the proper stage you will have the insights.
It all starts from working on the trainings for morality, concentration and insight.

Core Buddhism is the practise of morality (non-harming), meditation (concentration) & liberating insight (wisdom), which comprise the noble eightfold path. Belief in 'rebirth' is not found in the noble eightfold path.
Regardless, in Buddhism, there is no compulsion or requirement that one must believe anything; which includes the reported teachings of the Buddha. Even when the Buddha was alive, it is reported he said, even if he taught something, one should not blindly believe but to investigate & realise the teaching for oneself.
Some Buddhist communities (centres) strongly emphasise rebirth. However, one can often be part of these communities, as long as one does not actively or overtly try to subvert the teachings given there. Other Buddhist communities (centres) do not emphasis or teach rebirth & strongly emphasis the practise of meditation & the development of liberating wisdom.
Ultimately, in Buddhism (even if 'rebirth' is believed or not) the method for liberation is the same. Liberation is not reach by believing in 'rebirth'. That is why 'rebirth' is not mentioned in the core ('noble') teachings attributed to the Buddha.

Belief in rebirth is part of the noble eightfold path: “Since there actually is another world, one who holds the view ‘there is another world’ has right view. Since there actually is another world, one who intends ‘there is another world’ has right intention. Since there actually is another world, one who makes the statement ‘there is another world’ has right speech." --MN 60 The context makes it clear that 'there is another world' means literal reincarnation. http://www.wisdompubs.org/book/middle-length-discourses-buddha/selections/middle-length-discourses-60-apannaka-sutta

I agree, however, that such a belief is not necessary for approaching Buddhism and should be personally investigated.

MN 60 is not the "noble path". Refer to MN 117 that states MN 60 is not "noble" but is defiled with "asava" & "upadi". Further, "another world" (paraloka) does not mean literal reincarnation. The "worlds" (loka) are mental states, eg. MN 79: "Udayi, is there a world of only pleasantness? Is there a course of actions to realise that world of only pleasantness? Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana". AN 4.45 - "the world & its cessation are in the fathom long kaya with perception & mind". Also SN 12.44 - Loka Sutta

The Buddha, in the passage I cited, explicitly links the belief in 'another world' to the noble eightfold path as I made clear in the first post, so denying that MN 60 is 'noble' makes no sense. If you read the passage, it is in fact clear that 'another world' means literal rebirth; read this from the same source: "...if there is another world, then on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell." 'Another world' is something after death, after the body breaks up.

The word 'marana' (death) & 'kaya' (group;collection) do not necessarily mean what you believe. If it meant what you believe then there would be no karmic consequences in the present life. MN 117 states belief in 'other worlds' (not 'another' world) are not part of the NOBLE eightfold path. Please read MN 117 & stop arguing about your error of claiming this is 'noble'. Thank you

MN 60 states: "right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.". Yet SN 12.15 states: "When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one." MN 117 explains there is a defiled right view for morality & a Noble Right View for liberation. MN 60 is defiled right view for morality. SN 12.15 is Noble Right View for liberation. It is important to discern the difference. MN 117 is very important.

Welcome to the group @megan. You have done the right thing as this path depends 100% on the association with people of integrity in the Dahmma Path. At the time of Buddha, one of His main disciples,  Ven. Ananda told The Buddha that 50% of the path depends on the association of Dhamma Friends, The Buddha corrected him, saying that it is depended 100% in the association of Friends in Dhamma. Whoever who wants to get into the the Noble Eight Fold Path – the road less travelled, need the company of people of integrity in the Dahmma Path who would encourage you in this path. There is a quality of the Dhamma called “Ehipassiko” (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" -- from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test by applying it to their own lives and seeing its effects.
Now you are going to wonder, as to why it is so. Even though you may not see it this way right now, as you progress in this path, you will come to realize that we are suffering from a disease of the mind. The disease of passion, hatred and delusion. And if we are to recover from this disease, we must take the essential medication called advice. That is why you need the association of Friends in Dhamma.
At times you may feel that this advice given by some is a bit harsh. At such times it is good to remember that strong advice is sometimes given to save someone from a big danger. However, if a person dislikes advice then he tries to keep away from such friends who gave advice. And ultimately, that person may come to dislike even the Supreme Buddha’s noble advice. Would a person who dislikes advice in general take delight in the Supreme Buddha’s advice? Of course he will not because the Supreme Buddha’s teachings are filled with advice. Therefore, we must learn to welcome advice. So again @megan, we are very pleased that you have joined our group.  If feel that we can help you in anyway, please do not hesitate to ask us.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does MN 60 contradict SN 12.15? If so, why is it so?
SN 12:15 Kaccayanagotta Sutta states:

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when
  one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right
  discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not
  occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually
  is with right discernment, 'existence (atthitañceva)' with reference to the world
  does not occur to one. 'Everything exists': That is one extreme.
  'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. It's to this
  extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

MN 60 Apannaka Sutta states:

...this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a
  doctrine of non-existence.'
...this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a
  doctrine of existence (atthikavādo).'

My reading of these two suttas gives an impression of a contradiction. MN 60 appears to state the 'doctrine of existence' ('atthikavādo') is right view. But SN 12.15 appears to state the 'view of existence' ('atthitañceva') is wrong view.
Is this a contradiction? If so, what is the cause, what is the reason, for this?

SN 12.15 says that "everything exists" and "everything doesn't exist" are opposite extremes and are both wrong view.
I guess there are different problems with each view: e.g. "everything exists" implies attachment and ignores conditioned/composite nature of everything; whereas "everything doesn't exist" implies nihilism and amorality.
I think that MN 60 concentrates its argument on one aspect, i.e. that the view that "nothing exists" leads to amorality:

it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing

For that reason, "everything exists" is the relatively skillful view.
Incidentally I think that people sometimes talk about a "two truths" doctrine, i.e. that "conventionally things exist but ultimately nothing exists". Another way to express the "conventional truth (or relative truth) versus ultimate truth" duality is to call conventional "skillful" or "skillful means".

If you read the discourse on the right view -The Samma-ditthi Sutta, the ninth sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, the Collection of Middle Length Discourses – you will see that there are two levels of right view.  Lokiya Samma-ditthi (mundane right view) and Lokuttara Samma-ditthi (the TRUE right view). The persons that the Buddha addresses are in two different planes – one has a mundane right view, and the other has a Right View in its truest sense. So there’s no real contradiction between the two.
The Right View on Rebirth is explained in the famous Buddhist book “Milindapahna” which contains a long dialogue between the Greek king Milinder  and Arahant Nagasena.
Miln III.5.5: Transmigration and Rebirth (Miln 71)
The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn?"
"Yes, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."
"How, venerable Nagasena, is it that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn? Give me an analogy."
"Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the other lamp?"
"Certainly not, venerable sir."
"Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn."
As per the scriptures, a being is a stream of Mind connected ‘ Nama-Rupa’. When a person dies, no soul departs. The stream of consciousness ( viññana) upon death, becomes one of the contributing causes for the arising of a new set of five aggregates of clinging (Panca Upadana Khandas)  elsewhere.  In the Attakara sutta, you will find that you do exist. But there is no permanent self in you and the five clinging aggregates (panca upadanakkanda) which constitutes you is beyond your control, and therefore Anatta (non-self). (read  Anatta Lakkana Sutta).

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


text:
Addicted to a particular pleasure even when you know it has its drawbacks.
There’s a passage where the Buddha says that the reason we get so stuck on sensual desires, sensual pleasures, is because we don’t see any other alternative to pain. But when you see that there is the alternative and, as you reflect on it, you see that it has fewer drawbacks, greater rewards, and that you can learn how to tap into it when you need it, then it can be your new attachment—a better one. Does anyone know in which sutta that this passage is found?  Could someone help me in this?

Even after one has seen and understood that there's a better way, that's still not sufficient to abandon sensual pleasures. One would need to attain and experience the higher path himself. As taught in MN 14:

Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality.

Thank you for finding the source @santa100. So it is in Cula-dukkhakkhandha Sutta: The Lesser Mass of Stress (MN 14) - by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. If there wasn’t any gratification at all in our old indulgences, we wouldn’t go for them. And we won’t understand it enough to really let go of it if we never know the difference as to whether the gratification really is worth the price.

We tend to only focus on the "gratification" side of sensual pleasures, not its darker side. That's why the Buddha taught us to look at sensual pleasures in all aspects: the gratification, the danger, and the escape. And right discernment is only the beginning. One would need to follow the gradual training to cultivate all the limbs of the 8-Fold Noble Path to really put an end to craving and ignorance.

Upasaka Saptha Visuddhi,
interested reader,
My person does not give you the desied target here, but maybe support for the problem:
Althought Jhana is a good alternative, still one can develope desire for it, so focus on Vipassana, here or there, or where ever one might be, removes the fetters actually.

"In one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."
— SN 12.52

More on Drawbacks, adinava, here.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other wordily gains]


text:
Is detachment all about not giving damn to peoples/things?

Detachment,
  Everything is lust and mirage

What is the real purpose of life/birth? Aren't we suppose to love, care ?

The real purpose of life is to end suffering. Love is merely one method for preventing & ending certain types of suffering. Non-attachment is another method for preventing & ending other types of suffering.
For example, when a child is born, it is hungry & alone. This suffering of hunger & aloneness is to be ended by parents feeding & comforting the child.
When the child gets older, it suffers from boredom & restlessness, so it plays with toys & games to end the suffering of boredom & restlessness.
When the child becomes a teenager, it has the suffering of sexual urges & engages in sexual activity or gets married to end the suffering of sexual urges.
As an adult, this person has children & suffers when it sees the suffering of its children so the adult practises love & care towards its children to end its suffering & the children's suffering.
Later, the adult experiences the suffering of loss; such as loss of wealth, loss of status, loss of friends, loss of children, loss of spouse, loss of health, loss of life, etc.
To end the suffering of loss, the adult can seek more wealth, more children, more status, another spouse, have plastic surgery or believe in reincarnation or going to heaven with Jesus or God.
Otherwise, to end the suffering of loss or change, like the Buddha, the person can practise non-attachment & not-self, understanding all of the things that change & are lost never actually ever belonged to oneself or were 'oneself' in the 1st place.

I like the way you structured the answer and especially the last part is very insightful.

Life has no requirements, including loving and caring. This is social programming talking.
Life just is.
Furthermore, in Buddhism life is originated from ignorant perception ( see 12 nidanas) so on top of just this is-ness... Buddhism recommends that we fix our ignorance--which requires us to go about the Buddhist self-training process towards a natural happiness and freedom.
Lastly, detachment is NOT indifference. It is about not attaching.
This is why it is usually better to translate detachment as "non-attachment" meaning there is no fabricated attachment.
If attachment happens, you don't attach to getting rid of it. (i.e. forcing away your crush on someone)
If attachment doesn't happen, you don't attach to forcing it. (i.e. forcing yourself to like your biology studies.)
If attachment has already happened, you don't attach to making more of it or making less of it (don't add energy to an obsession with something if it has arisen in your mind, but don't repluse against it  if it is continuing at the moment).
Just get Right View (the first step of the Eightfold Path) and non-attachment will arise naturally.
Follow the rest of the Path accordingly including Right Effort and Right Action and Right Livelihood.
Study the Four Noble Truths more in-depth and you will be really grateful that there is such a balanced, perfect, practical system to self-perfection for all-time.

+1 for "This is social programming talking."

In Buddhism, detachment always comes with compassion.  For an outsider it sounds rather strange because these two sounds rather incompatible.  Any outsider usually would equate detachment with aloofness. But the type of detachment that a disciple of the Buddha develops helps to see the truth more clearly.  It also helps in being more impartial when judging.
Being detached helps to keep that little voice in you at a distance – the inner voice that tends to mislead you from the true path.  It holds this little voice at bay.  Then when meditating with detachment, keeping a certain amount of distance from the activities of the mind helps get some perspective on what comes to mind. So this kind of detachment is not at all about not giving a damn to people or things, but the very opposite of it. In practicing the teaching of the Buddha, it is important to develop a sense of detachment.  Mindfulness is the most important factor that helps in this.

Sorry I don't have much spare time so I'm going to write this answer mostly using hyperlinks.
I haven't heard the phrase "Everything is lust and mirage" before (is it a quote?), but it sounds like it's talking about the main two of the Three Poisons.
Also "not giving a damn" (in the title) sounds to me like the third poison, i.e. "aversion" or "hatred".

There's something (a concept) called 'attachment' in Buddhism, which is sometimes also translated into English as 'clinging' or 'grasping'.
The Sanskrit and Pali word is Upādāna, and (according to Wikipedia) the Tibetan is len.pa (lenpa).
Wikipedia articles about it include:

Upādāna
Attachment as one of the Twelve Nidanas.

There's a concept called 'attachment' in Western psychology: Attachment theory
Although that's the same word (i.e. "attachment") in English, it's not exactly the same theory!
Similarly Western psychology uses the word 'detachment' in various ways, see for example Emotional detachment.
Again this (Western meaning of ) "detachment" isn't exactly the same as what Buddhist theory recommends. To avoid that automatic association between Buddhist and Western meanings, caused by using the same word ("detachment") for both, it might be better to use a slightly different word, e.g. "non-attachment" rather than "detachment".
And in fact I'm not sure that Buddhists do talk about detachment or non-attachment very much. Instead perhaps they warn against the dangers of "attachment": and recommend as an antidote, not "detachment", but rather maybe "renunciation" or "equanimity".

Related to non-attachment is the Buddhist term Nekkamma (renunciation). The original version of the question included the monk tag, and indeed it's maybe "renunciation" for which Buddhist monks are famous. Suttas in the Pali canon recommend renunciation.
I think that Buddhist lay people don't (and probably cannot) practice renunciation in quite the same way as Buddhist monks.
I note without comment that Nekkhamma is listed among the 10 perfections of Theravāda Buddhism, but isn't in the (shorter) list of 6 perfections of Mahāyāna Buddhism.

Buddhist theory recommends attitudes called Four Brahmavihāras. These include Compassion and so on, which (to answer your question) is not the same as "not giving a damn".
One of the brahmavihāras is Equanimity. Note that "Indifference" is described as a near enemy of equanimity which means that indifference might seem similar to, but is actually an opposite of, equanimity).

"I didn't have time to make this answer shorter..." (famous quote)


text:
Mind full Meditation
I Have been training third eye meditation for past three months,now the tingling sensation on my forehead never goes off and i couldn't go proceed and thought of trying mind full meditation,where we see everything in bare sense of view and i found about Buddha's teaching, i found it very interesting,and found some basics to start mind full meditation where they have said to keep my mind on raising and falling of abdomen during breathing.Which they told would help us realizing nothing is permanent and we should mind fully note everything that happens when we breath.this was basic. NOW THE PROBLEM IS MY FOREHEAD SENSATION IS ALWAYS THEIR MAKING MY MEDITATION TASK TOUGH.

Welcome to Buddhism SE. We have also a Help Center with useful resources for new comers. Enjoy your time here.

Depending on what method of meditation you are practicing there are different options.
If you are practicing Samatha (tranquility) meditation, simply return back attention to whatever primary meditation object you have chosen, e.g. the belly or entrance to the nostrils.
If you are practicing Vipassana (insight) meditation, observe the tingling feeling and note it as "feeling, feeling" or "tingling, tingling", while keeping attention on the phenomena. Note it 2-3 times and then return attention to the feeling of the rising and falling of the abdomen (primary object).
In Samatha meditation one is gently shifting attention away from all other phenomena except the breath.
In Vipassana meditation one is changing object according to whatever arises at the sense doors.
For more info on how to meditate I would suggest Ven. Yuttadhammo's booklet and video series on how to meditate (Vipassana meditation).

can you provide me with a link where i can learn Vispassana and thank you for your response!!

Your welcome. The links in my answer are links to teachings on Vipassana Meditation. There is also this link to "Instructions to Insight meditation by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw"

In the Ānāpānasati Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.118.than.html)
 the Buddha taught sixteen themes of meditation Here I shall give you the first three of the 16 parts:
We would start by going to a quiet place, away from the hustle and bustle of daily life. Keep in mind however, that although we may go to a quiet place, which is away from the rattle of busy life, the mind cannot be relaxed easily. We can find seclusion physically by going into a room and keeping it locked. But, would the mind be secluded? We must adjust our minds for seclusion and quiet contemplation.
(1) Breathing in long, he understands: “I breathe in long”; or breathing out long, he understands: “I am breathing out long”;
(2) Breathing in short, he understands: “I breathe in short”; or breathing out short, he understands: “I breathe out short”;
(3) He trains thus: “I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body [of breath]”; “I shall breathe out”; he trains thus: “I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body [of breath].”

When I do anapanasati, I (almost) always start with noticing the sensations in my face, (fore-)head and my neck/shoulders/back and relax them. There is so much tension and emotional stress to find there, especially in the muscles around the eyes, the lips or teeth pressing together and the forehead.
From my point of view there is much benefit from staying with those as long as they are a distraction to you (I sometimes meditate on them for 20min or longer and then continue with the breath):
First there is this whole 'baggage', which is a mix of tension, pain, dislike, more tension because of dislike, thinking, dislike of the dislike and so on.  But if you focus on the body sensations exclusively (without reacting!), you'll see that they are always changing, moving around, getting better or worse, not really a problem and at the same time cut off your reaction to it.
It makes no sense to force your attention to the breath, you can actually get much more concentrated by focusing on the distraction than always trying to force your attention on the breathing. After those sensations are not a problem anymore or they're gone, get to the breath.


text:
I am hearing buzzing, humming sound in silence. Is this problem with my ear or its progress in meditation?

I was practice Breath Meditation then OM Chanting Meditation from year. and finally leave these both because its not suite for me.
Then I start Sound Meditation where I try to listen sound of my heart or other subtle sound. Last week I sit in meditation, after 2 minutes I hear sound like buzzing, hissing, humming.
from that day its continuously buzzing in my ear. Its

Tinnitus

or

Sound of Silence?

Hello Jyo and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have also a Help Center with a resource section for new users. Enjoy your time here.

Tinnitus would be evident regardless of the sound environment, though how noticeable it is depends on the severity of the condition and level of sound being heard compared to your usual environment. It can also vary between left and right ear. Depending on how much it interferes with daily activities, medical evaluation might be called for.

http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/tinnitus.pdf

I am experiencing the same when I focus on hearing when there is no sound/noise (not an intense sound, but definitely a sense impression). Either both of us have bad ears or it's normal (it may be the sound of the blood floating in your brain or something). Nevertheless, if I don't keep my attention on it, it's not there.
I never did meditation on sound, but one option would be to chose another primary meditation object. There are enough of those. If you don't want to do breath meditation, you could use your body sensations as an object. There is a method called part by part sweeping (Link to a guided meditation by Ayya Khema), where you systematically notice sensations/feelings in your whole body. It has the advantage that you become more aware of emotions and reactions, since you are focused on all kinds of (changing) feelings and not i.e. only the breath going in and out. You can get quite concentrated with it, too.
If you want to stay with the sound as your object, you should notice the "hearing" and also your reaction to it ("worry", "dislike" ...).

Good and insightful answer.

I asked one of the Advance Meditation practitioner in India, He says its a sound of Universe. In Hindu its called "Bramaha Nada". He call me just let it go and Practice. Meaning of yoga is just let go. so I am now having faith that I am Progressing and I want to practice with patience...

Buzzing humming sound can be that of breath energy. But if you practice according to the teachings of the Buddha, you will never face any problems.  The ‘Ehipassika’ Dhamma of the Supreme Buddha is open and transparent. So any issues that can arise can be openly discussed. An answer is always there in the scriptures.  For example... Abhibhayathana from Anguttara Nikaya 5 tells you how to overcome a type of obstacle a meditator faces in the form of colours – bright or subdued- of white, red, yellow, orange, blue, etc.
For a beginner, the maithri bhavana (loving kindness meditation) is the most important. It is not easy for everyone to properly do Anapanasati. So they have to first practice Asubha Bhavana and Dhathu/indriya Bhavana. You should not mix one meditation with another. You should get out of one type of meditation to get into another. Anytime when there is wandering thought, the concentration is not there. The appearing of a nimitta is a sign of concentration. When you develop an anapanasati nimitta, and practice it further, then you need a good knowledge of teachings (suttas) for you to overcome obstacles that you face.


text:
Doubt in being mindful when two tasks are going to happen?
When we are doing some work(eating food--first task).. we hear something important  or some noise(second task), which might require us to pay attention to it(to second task)..
(means if we want to be truly mindful, then how we have to deal with this situation)
NOTE: In this case, the first task or work needs continuous attention stream of mindfulness from us..
and second one tries to hinder or abrupt first task's flow..

What you are seeing or describing here is the impermanent and uncontrollable nature of conditioned phenomena.
The ultimate solution is to win Nibbana, the unconditioned. Here there exists no arising or passing away.
While in Samsara, you can practice Vipassana meditation and change meditation object according to whatever arises. You don't have to note everything. Try to balance the faculties to ensure restless and agitation does not arise.
Eat and be mindful of the entire process and if/when another object comes into contact with a sense door, e.g. the ear-door, note that object and return then to your primary meditation object, i.e. the eating-process.
The below Instructions for Mindful Eating is given by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw. Note that these detailed instructions are used on retreat or when you have enough free time to practice in this way. If not, then use general awareness of the eating-process.

Instructions for Mindful Eating
1.Look at the food, noting "seeing."
2.Notice whether or not you are hungry.
3.Note "intending to move."
4.Turn your right or left hand laterally until it's resting on edge, perpendicular to the knee. Stop.
5.Raise your hand straight up until it's more or less at table-height. Stop.
6.Move your hand forward toward the fork or spoon. Stop.
7.Grasp the fork, being aware of the sensation of touch as you do so. Stop.
8.Lift the fork. Stop.
9.Move the fork toward the food. Stop.
10.Place a bite of food on the fork. Stop.
11.Slowly raise the fork to your mouth. Stop.
12.Touch the fork to your lips. Stop.
13.Open your mouth. Stop.
14.Put the food in your mouth. Notice the feel of your lips touching the fork, and the contact or temperature of the food on the tongue. Don't let yourself chew yet. Stop.
15.Lower your hand slowly. Stop.
16.Place the fork on your plate. Stop.
17.Return your hand to your knee. (You still haven't begun to chew.)
18.Chew the food. Flavor will appear. Mentally try to isolate the flavor from the tactile mass of the food, the movement of your mouth, and any desire that arises. Flavor is its own object, separate from all these things. If the flavor is strong you should focus on it. But if the flavor is bland, focus on the movement of the jaw or tongue. Note "moving," "tasting," "desire," "touch," and so on, as appropriate.
19.As you swallow, note "swallowing."
20.Be aware your mouth is empty.
21.Notice whether or not you feel full.
22.Note the intention to take another bite.
23.Repeat steps 1-22. (Although mental notes were not given for all the steps, you may wish to add them, labeling "moving" for steps 3-5 and so on.)
If you need both hands to cut something, focus your attention on one hand only. Apply the same step-by-step procedure to drinking: observe the intention first; extend your hand; grasp the cup; move the cup toward you; take a sip of water; and finally, bring the cup back to the table, stopping completely after each action.
When mindfulness and insight are strong you may not recognize what you are eating. This experience is a revelation. Instead of green beans or rice on the plate, you see only color. Rather than meat or cheese, you taste an unnamed burst of sensation. This experience is difficult to describe, but if it happens you will immediately understand what we are talking about.
The step-by-step eating technique is intended mainly for meditation retreats. During daily life it usually isn't practical to eat this way, except on special days or when you have free time on the weekends. When you are unable to eat in the step-by-step manner just use general mindfulness to be aware of what you are doing as you eat the meal.

Sir, could you give me good link to vipassana meditation.. i like to practice it and increase my mindful nature of mine to extremely epic level..

See this link on Meditation questions and Instructions to Insight meditation by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.

@user2929. Hello I have made a room for us to chat in. I sent you an invitation to the room. I'm there now and for the next 30 min. I also sent you a message in Hangouts.

A common definition of Mindfulness is present-moment awareness.
So the question here is the first task of higher priority then the second task.
For the first example, someone is eating mindfully and they hear a loud noise. Realizing that it is simply a car honking outside the person notes it and resumes their mindful meal. They do this without getting distracted, or getting upset about their peaceful meal being disrupted or going into other trains of thought.
For the second example, someone is eating mindfully and they hear a loud noise. Realizing that it is a fire alarm the person realizes they need to stop eating and take the proper actions to respond to the new situation.
Being mindful should not decrease but increase situational awareness and wise action.

Just as in meditation, you can maintain a sense of mindfulness when you deal with other things. Just as the theme or nimitta of the meditation, or in other words the topic of your meditation – when you deal with other things, the ‘nimitta’ is your main object of focus. If hatred forms in a mind as a result of a cause, then that is Patigha nimitta (an objective to hate) which is your focus. When this focus is powerful, there is no room for a second different object of focus to get in the way.
The appearing of a nimitta is a sign of concentration. When you develop an ‘anapanasati  nimitta’, and practice it further, then you need a good knowledge of teachings (suttas) for you to overcome obstacles that you face. If your focus is not strong,  a meditator will face distractions in the form of colours – bright or subdued- of white, red, yellow, orange, blue, etc. and get trapped in them.  In normal life too it is the same thing. One quality that’s always appropriate in establishing mindfulness is being watchful or alert.
The Pali word for alertness is sampajañña. It doesn’t mean being choicelessly aware of the present, or comprehending the present. Sampajañña means being aware of what you’re doing in the movements of the body, the movements in the mind. This is why mindfulness and alertness should always be paired.


text:
Theravada - Death and rebirth
Recently I did my research and getting familiar with actual teachings of Buddha.
Here are my questions.
2 : There are some kids who can/ could remember things from their past life. Could this be true? If it is true how come?
And correct me if I'm wrong. According to my understanding, Everything including humans belongs to the nature. Human body is made of energies, atoms, molecules etc. When the body dies, those energies don't die with it. They take another form. Like the mango tree example.
Thank you.

Hi Charith and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have also a Help Center with useful resources for new users that you might like.

There have been more than a hundred questions about "rebirth" already on this site, including If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth? and many others. Maybe we shouldn't have another new "what is reborn?" question. Instead I recommend you read some of the existing topics (questions and answers) which are tagged [tag:rebirth] and if you still have questions then ask a more specific question (for example, ask a question about one of the answers).

I'm closing this question as per duplicate.


text:
How should the terms 'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' be translated?
In MN 44 is found an explanation of the terms  'kaya, vaci & citta sankhara' (which are terms also found in Anapanasati steps 4, 7 & 8 and in the 2nd nidana of Dependent Origination).
Bhikkhu Thanissaro's translation is:

Now, lady, what are fabrications (sankhara)?
These three fabrications, friend Visakha: bodily fabrications (kaya sankhara), verbal fabrications (vaci sankhara) & mental
fabrications (citta sankhara).
But what are bodily fabrications? What are verbal
fabrications? What are mental fabrications?
In-&-out breaths are
bodily fabrications. Directed thought & evaluation are verbal
fabrications. Perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.
But
why are in-&-out breaths bodily fabrications? Why are directed thought
& evaluation verbal fabrications? Why are perceptions & feelings
mental fabrications?
In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things
tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily
fabrications.
Having first directed one's thoughts and made an
evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed
thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications.
Perceptions & feelings
are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why
perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications.

The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the cause of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the "verbal fabrication" when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech?
Similarly, in MN 10, contemplating the 'citta' means observing to see whether the citta ('the mind-heart') has greed or not, hatred or not, delusion or not, etc. Therefore, how can perception & feeling be the "mental (citta) fabrication" when many suttas state it is feelings & perceptions that are the cause of mental states of greed, hatred & delusion (as shown below)?

If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one relishes it, welcomes
it or remains fastened to it, then one's lust-obsession gets
obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one sorrows, grieves,
& laments, beats one's breast, becomes distraught, then one's
hatred-obsession gets obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of
neither pleasure nor pain, one does not discern, as it actually is
present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback or escape
from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession gets obsessed. MN
148

In the English language, the term "fabrication" refers to something that is 'fabricated' (such as a 'building'). Therefore, should not the translation here of 'sankhara' mean something that fabricates (such as a 'builder')?

Sankara is conditioning which puts together or makes or forms something.

Kaya Sankhara - this what sustains keeps the body together hence the breath. If breathing stops the body falls apart.
Vaci Sankhara - this is what sustains the formations of verbal thoughts. Before speech thoughts need to form, without them one cannot speak.
Citta Sankhara - this is what causes a mind to arise. Feeling and perceptions are what causes a mind to arise.

Importantly, feelings & perception condition the citta to generate greed, hatred & delusion. Refer to MN 148.

The explanation about the 'vaci sankhara' (which is bolded) clearly states thought is the cause of speech. If this is true, how can thought be the "verbal fabrication" when it is obvious that: (a) speech is the verbal fabrication and (b) thought is that which fabricates (or causes) the speech?

In Pali just one word, sankhara, or pair of words.
English, being precise, has a lot of grammar. You can't construct an English sentence without a verb, a subject, maybe an object, and "prepositions". Maybe English has too much grammar (maybe there's a similar problem translating from Chinese into English), i.e. that to create a grammatical English translation you need to add extra grammar which didn't exist in the original.
Insisting on having a subject (an actor or an agent) for each verb (as English does), doesn't that invite the same kind of mistake as I-making or I-assuming, or reification?
So FYI (and I might be wrong) I think of (i.e. I mentally translate) sankhara as "putting together", i.e. as a kind of verb or a kind of process ... but without assuming there's a corresponding subject ... or you might translate is construction or constructing (or fabrication) without assuming there's a corresponding constructor.
So if you take thought as the cause (or prequel) of speech, I understand it as saying that it's the putting together (creation or construction) of speech.
You said that "speech is the fabrication" but in this context I think it's the fabricated.
Also I think that in English the word "fabrication" can refer to the process and to the end result (so "a fabrication" can be used as a synonym for "the fabricated"): e.g. "the story is a fabrication" means that telling the story is the process of telling a lie, and the told/completed story is the result of telling or having told a lie.
I think that sankhara is the process of constructing/fabricating something (e.g. breath, speech, thoughts) and also the product or result of that construction/fabrication.

Another thing is (and again I may be wrong), isn't the direction of the causation deliberately a bit vague? I read the answers to this topic as saying that it isn't as simple as "A causes B", nor "B causes A". It's not that "body causes breath" nor "breath causes body", rather it's "body and breath co-arise", or "body is the condition in which breath arises and vice versa". I might be wrong but does Western science/philosophy/logic/religion for one maybe try to teach us to believe in "cause and effect"? But isn't Buddhist logic rather about "co-arising", which might be a better description than simplistic "cause and effect"?
Assuming "causation" leads to (it invites) logical problems/fallacies like Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For example, I think, it is that "fire causes heat", or is it that "heat causes fire"? Instead of one or the other, let's say that "heat and fire co-arise".

A final comment, if you read the Dharmafarer commentary on MN 44, the author distinguishes (or tells us to distinguish) between the singular saṅkhāra and the plural saṅkhārā -- saying that the singular (e.g. thought forming speech, or mindful speech, or "functional consciousness") is a quality (property or function) of the relatively enlightened mind, whereas the plural is "mental proliferation" or papañca.

Imo, sankhara here should be translated as 'fabricator' or 'conditioner'. Breathing conditions the life & health of the physical body; thought conditions speech; and perceptions & feelings condition the state (greed, hatred, delusion, enlightenment etc) of the mind (citta). Thus breathing is body conditioner; thought is verbal conditioner; and perception & feeling are the mind (citta) conditioners. Kind regards

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, "Fabricate" means:

to invent or produce something false in order to deceive someone.

I do not see anything wrong with the usage here.
Following is the definition of Sankhara given by the Buddha in Kajjaniya Sutta SN 22.79.

Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre vadetha? 'Saṅkhatam-abhisaṅkharontī·ti kho,
  bhikkhave, tasmā 'saṅkhārā·ti vuccati. Kiñca
  saṅkhatam-abhisaṅkharonti? Rūpaṃ rūpattāya saṅkhatam-abhisaṅkharonti,
  vedanaṃ vedanattāya saṅkhatam-abhisaṅkharonti, saññaṃ saññattāya
  saṅkhatam-abhisaṅkharonti, saṅkhāre saṅkhārattāya
  saṅkhatam-abhisaṅkharonti, viññāṇaṃ viññāṇattāya
  saṅkhatam-abhisaṅkharonti. 'Saṅkhatam-abhisaṅkharontī·ti kho,
  bhikkhave, tasmā 'saṅkhārā·ti vuccati.

Thanks. However. SN 22.79 seems to be about the five aggregates and sankhara there is about sankhara khandha. Where as the 'kaya-sankhara' in MN 44 is defined to be the breathing in & out, which is part of rupa khandha.

"Sanhkara" in Buddhism is same everywhere.

No, it is not. Refer to my comments attached to Saptha Visuddhi's vitakka-bahulo.

In this translation (Bhikkhu Nanamoli & Bodhi) on page 1242 (in the PDF) there are some explaining footnotes:

465 MA: Dhammadinna anticipated Visakha's intention to ask about the formations that cease when one enters the attainment of cessation. Thus she explained the three formations in this way rather than as wholesome and unwholesome volitions of body, speech, and mind, the meaning relevant within the context of dependent origination.
466 MA explains further that the bodily formation and the mental formation are said to be formations "bound up" with the body and the mind in the sense that they are formed by the body and by the mind, while the verbal formation is a formation in the sense that it forms speech. The verb form vitakketva vicaretva has been rendered in a way that maintains consistency with the rendering of the nouns vitakka and vicara as "applied thought" and "sus- tained thought."

Dependent origination explains 'volition' occurs at nama-rupa so it seems inconsistent to say volition occurs at sankhara. When hindrances arise in meditation (flowing out of ignorance & stirring up the 3 sankharas), those hindrances are not 'volitional', which is why many meditators struggle to master & end hindrances. As for 466MA, it is the very contradiction my question addresses. 466MA states the body causes breathing but the thoughts causes speech, thus both differing in meaning. The word "bound up" can also mean "dependent upon". The body depends on the breath for life & good health.

Sankhara is the intentional element in experience—whether physical, verbal, or mental. In Buddha’s teachings on sankhara, He defines fabrication (for want of a better word) as intentional acts. There is an element of intention in all our experiences. This volitional behaviour is internally generated. Without that intention we wouldn’t experience anything. Even if we are to sit still, there’s still the intention, and the intention itself is a doing. It’s a sankhara, a fabrication. It’s what we live with all the time. In fact, all of our experience is based on fabrication, (for want of a better word).
Without the breath one cannot survive.  Breath is intrinsically connected with the body.  Thus the breath is kaya‐sankhara - the “physical putting‐together” – that puts life together in the body. The question that is asked is more on the other two - vaci‐sankhara  and citta sankhara.
Before one speaks aloud, there is a ‘speaking’ or contemplation that takes place internally.  The first or initial contemplation of a thought is ‘vitakka’, then we ‘think through’ or further the internal ‘speaking’. We call it consideration, or ‘vicāra’. Thus the contemplation is considered to be the vitakka/vicara. Another name for it is vaci‐sankhara or verbal fabrication.  So the two basic verbal sankharas are directed thought and evaluation  - vitakka & vicara.
The third is mental formations (citta sankhara). These mental formations are two recognizable attributes – perception and feeling (sañña and vedana).  Mental formations always start with a feeling  as pleasant, unpleasant and neutral.  Then comes perception - the recognition of the object felt.  So mental fabrication, citta‐sankhara, covers feeling and perception.  feelings of pleasure, pain, of neither pleasure nor pain. And then perceptions are the labels the mind gives to things: “This is pleasant. This is painful. This is this and that is that.”
The Buddha once mentioned five categories of people who make use of the discourses. Anyone who tries to intellectually grapple with what was said about Sankhara falls into the third of the five categories that the Buddha mentioned. It is the kind of person who philosophises about the discourses, trying all the time to satisfy his philosophical thirst. In his quest he forgets to make use of as mode or life. He is called 'Vitakka-bahulo' who is eager only to indulge in philosophical aspects of the Suttas (Discourses). We will get to know more on this subject only through practice – through meditation.

How can breathing be 'intentional'? How does the 'kaya sankhara'  put life together in the body using intention when intention is 'nama' & breathing is 'rupa'?  Also, 'sankhara' is not always intentional, such as the 'aayu sankhara' (lifeforce) mentioned in MN 43, which exists in the cessation of perception & feeling. I understand breath is kaya‐sankhara - the “physical putting‐together” – that puts life together in the body. Therefore, the breath cannot be the "bodily formation" but that which forms the body. The builder is not the building just as the breath cannot be the formation built.

SN 22.90 shows not all sankhara is intention: "Form, friend Channa, is impermanent. Feeling is impermanent. Perception is impermanent. Mental formations (saṃkhārā) are impermanent. Consciousness is impermanent. Form is not-self. Feeling is not-self. Perception is not-self. Mental formations are not-self. Consciousness is not-self. All (sabbe) conditioned things (SAMKHARA) are impermanent (aniccā). All (sabbe) phenomena (dhammā) are not-self (anattā). SN 22.90"

I am of the mindset that “Supreme Buddha Knows, I do not know”. What is in the Suttas is the word of the Supreme Buddha. So if I cannot understand something, it does not bother me much. I know that one day I will come to that stage of understanding. One thing that I am always reminded of is “The truth of what Buddha says is beyond doubt; It is beyond reasoning and logic. It is one step from inferential thinking.” That being said, to the question of “Sankhara……

We are been asked to see Sankhara in three different way, and not to mix the three different ways. The first is as part of  Pancaupadanakkhandha.  (Rupa; Vedana; Sanna; Sankhara; Vinnana). The second way is to understand it through Cycle of Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada). The third is Sabbe sankhara anicca. Here every animate and inanimate thing is Sankhara.  The only way for one to understand these in a deeper level is to get into the path. So there is no easy answers. The door to this path is through Saddha.

The suttas you read are "translations" . If the translations are wrong, those words are not Buddha's words.

If there are "three ways" to see sankhara, why did you originally post all sankhara is intention? The sankhara in Dependent Origination is not intention. They are the kaya, citta & vaci sankhara, as defined in the suttas. The translation "volitional formations" is obviously not correct & not the Buddha's words.

You may be right Dhammadhatu. I will be out of town for the next 5 day. When back I will try to read a Sinhala translation that is more to the point. That is why I will never touch the Visuddhimagga or the Abhidhamma. As far as I will go is the Milinda Panha & maybe in future the Nettipakarana that is included in the  Khuddaka Nikaya. I am happy that you ask this question, but sadly you have a way to go in this path. Also we need each other in this path.

Since you confess to not entering the path. how can you judge the path?

You misunderstood. I did not say whether I am in it or not. That is one thing that you know every step of the way, but would not share with anyone. You keep your path very close to your heart. If one thinks that it is impossible to come to it, it actually becomes impossible. The same thing happens when one thinks that I can. I understand or I have understood. If one thinks that he cannot do it, he will not be able to do it. When one keeps on getting entangled in these thoughts the rare opportunity that has come our way gets thrown away from us.

We must try as much as possible to come to Saddha. If not we are likely to go astray. There are many avenues that can lead us astray. But for Nibbana there is only one road. Only one guide.
That single road is thinking that “Lord Buddha knows. I do not know” (Keetagiri Sutta). The only guidance we get is from the sincere friend. That is why I said that we need each other in this path.

Lord Buddha cannot guide if his words are not translated accurately.

It’s hard to find 1 ‘perfect’ English word for sankhara. Ven Dhammavuddho’s dependent origination essay in the link below translates it as activation.
Thought is vaci sankhara (speech/verbal activation), because before one speaks, one must think first. Hence, thought is speech activation.
As for MN148 passages that you quoted, it is describing one who is still fettered by ignorance. Feeling and Perception that are not conditioned by ignorance don’t lead to greed, hatred, delusion. For Arahants, they feel and perceive with true knowledge (means not conditioned by ignorance); hence, they don’t lead to greed, hatred, delusion. Arahant feels a feeling detached (see SN12.51). Note that the ‘sankhara’ that SN12.51 mentioned which an Arahant does not generate anymore is ‘kamma’ (not activation/fabrication as used in dependent origination). The essay below explained sankhara in more details.
https://www.vbgnet.org/Articles/Conditioned-Arising-of-Suffering-2018.pdf

These are the physical and mental processes.
The physical processes here refers to breathing and the rest of the bodily processes like heart beating etc. (i.e. kaya sankhara).
Mental processes are of two types - the input and output paths.
One is the "input path" which processes inputs (the six types of feelings) and gives rise to mental states or cittas (i.e. citta sankhara).
The other is the "output path" which produces actions and words (i.e. vaci sankhara).

It's depend on the context.
Kaya-sankhara in DN22 Mahasatipatthanasutta is on KayaAnupassanaSatipatthana Section, Anapana Article, so Kaya in this article's context refer to Anapana (breath).
Kaya-sankhara in MN44 CulavedallaSutta is in the context of  SannaVedayitaNirodhaSamapatti (emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling). The cessation of perception & feeling ceases sequentially from Vitakka&Vicara (VaciSankhara) in 1st Jhana, then breath (KayaSankhara) in 4th Jhana, then CittaSankhara (other mind and mind's factors), so Kaya in this article's context refer to Anapana (breath).
All above is talking about how Sankhara be ceased. This happens when the practitioner stop to do action on kaya, vaci, citta.
Kaya-sankhara in SN NidanaVagga VibangaSutta is in Paticcasamuppada's context (dependent origination). This is talking about how Sankhara be arisen. This happens when the practitioner doing action on kaya, vaci, mano.

bodily formations/"material phenomenas"
verbal (signs) formations/ ...phenomena (incl. -certain perception(s))
mental formations/ ... phenomena

saṅkhāra: formation, construct, compound, bound together

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


text:
Good method to start finding the core values of Buddhism?
I've recently joined a meditation center that is very welcoming. I have went to a few meditation sessions, and so far I have felt focus on a deeper level. The community is small, though so they don't show many of the teachings. I'd like to read up on the core values of Buddhism, and furthermore, I'm looking for some good methods of finding out for myself what the values are.
If you have any personal stories, all are welcome, as they will be more than useful to me and others with the same question.

related question: New to Buddhism

A good method to start finding the core values of Buddhism, @tuskiomi, is to start reading the Dhammapada (The Way of Truth). These are “Stanzas on Dhamma”, a popular collection of 432 pithy verses of a largely ethical nature. There is always a story behind every verse. The Dhammapada is very accessible, many copies of which are found for free distribution through temples and Buddhist societies, and also on the internet. In the Dhammapada you will see a lot of ‘shoulds’. But each should is based on a condition, “This is what should be done by one if one desires that.” So it is your choice to do it or not. But if that is what you want, this is what you’ve got to do. The nature of cause and effect is such that these are the practices you have to follow. I will give you a few examples that you will find in:  http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/
“If when you see that there’s a greater happiness that comes from abandoning a lesser happiness, be willing to abandon that lesser happiness for the sake of the greater one.”
“A hand without a wound can hold poison and not be harmed. In other words, if you don’t have any bad kamma, the results of bad kamma won’t come to you. But if you have a wound on your hand, then if you hold poison it will seep through the wound and kill you.”
“All tremble at violence. Life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, One should neither kill nor cause another to kill.”
People who recognize their own mistakes and change their ways “illumine the world like the moon when freed from a cloud.”
“Better than a thousand meaningless statements Is one meaningful word Which, having been heard,
Brings peace.”

I am going to recommend three of my favorite teachers and their most popular books. Keep in mind that each of these teachers comes from a different tradition but they are mostly in agreement as to the core values of Buddhism.
"A Path With Heart" by Jack Kornfield. He was one of the very first westerners to teach Dharma in the West beginning in the 1970s.
"The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching" by Thich Nhat Hanh. A famous Vietnamese monk who can trace his lineage back to the Buddha.
"Awakening the Buddha Wihin" by Lama Surya Das. An American who studied for many years in Tibet and became a Tibetan Monk and is a very popular teacher.
All of these books are accessible and you may be able to find them at a public library or certainly find use used versions for sale online.

The basic values of Buddhism are found in the Noble Eightfold Path, which can be read at this link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html
More teachings about values, particular for lay people (non-monks), can be read in the following links:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.04.piya.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
http://www.mahidol.ac.th/budsir/Contents.html
Note: You should be very careful to not get into arguments at your meditation centre about Buddhist values (since many Buddhists are not learned about Buddhist values & want to learn their own values by meditating).


text:
Why is nirvana not mara?
The term "non-duality" oft appears in Buddhist English language literature, both contemporary and in translation. e.g. it is sometimes claimed to be the cornerstone of Yogacara philosophy, and its assertion of "mind only", that no part of us exists independently of consciousness, but nevertheless it does tend to have some existence.
Obviously the term nirvana means buddhist liberation, that point at which the sage or saint (both words appear in the English language literature) has put out the suffering of samsaric existence, be that its elimination or a realisation that it is, in someway, already so extinct.
Mara is the personification of skillessness, a character that deceives e.g. the aspirant away from the holy life, and as such represents (in a sentient being) let's suppose something like the opposite of skillful means.
I thought that nonduality often (if not always) means that opposing terms (good and evil, or illusion and reality) depend upon each other, by convention at least.
So, whether or not the last paragraph is correct, does the above not suggest that nirvana is mara?

There are four terminological divisions of nirvana, and none of them is mara.
Non-duality does not mean “that opposing terms depend upon each other”. Rather, we posit three types of dualistic appearances :

appearance of conventionalities
appearance of true existence
appearance of the apprehended object and the apprehending consciousness as two different substances

A consciousness that is free from the three is said to be “free from dualistic appearances”. By extension, the person who is the object-possessor knowing “in a non-dualistic manner” is also said to be free from dualistic appearances.
Here is an example: Conventional truths do not appear in the perspective of the wisdom directly realizing emptiness. True existence does not appear to the superior's exalted wisdom directly realizing emptiness. There is no appearance of the object and the consciousness as being to different substantial entities to that consciousness. Because the wisdom directly realizing emptiness is free from the three types of dualistic appearances, we say that he who directly realizes emptiness does so “in a non-dualistic manner”. He is free from dualistic appearances (as long as he abides in meditative equipoise on emptiness).
You are right to oppose mara to skillful means. Maitreya/Asanga's Ornament of Clear Realization, says: “The first application in skillful means is called application in skilful means which is victorious over the four mara-demons”.
However, there are four maras:

The mara of the contaminated appropriated aggregates,
The mara of the afflictions,
The mara of the lord of death, and
The mara of the sons of gods. Only this last one is actually referring to a being—obstructing external forces creating obstacles to gaining the freedom of the first three maras. They are gods of the desire realm only—not of the form realm and formless realm. The god Garab Wangchub is posited as an example in the commentary.

Non-abiding nirvana is freedom from the four (and is the final true cessation), therefore it is not mara.

i wager that i could find a primary source that claims that it does mean they "depend on each other". v good answer, thanks

@Tenzin Dorje Excellent very clear answer.that distinguishes Mahayana 'non-duality' from other doctrines of 'non-duality'. It was an excellent guided meditation.

are you sure that non duality never means that in any mahayana tradition mean, that the terms good and evil are not separate? i still believe you are wrong on that count, and am doing some research into it

The "standard" position is that good and evil depend on one another, but they are (1) different isolates and (2) different entities. While a whole and its parts, or emptiness and its basis are one entity - although they are two isolates - because they can not be found apart and abide together, it is not the case of good and evil. When a table turns into ashes, its emptiness ceases to exist as well. Such is not the case of good and evil, long and short, etc. Destroying a short object will not destroy long ones.

They depend upon each other, not by way of cause and effect, not by way of being one entity, but in a more subtle way.

If you had a short object and a long one, and you destroyed the short object, on what basis would the long object still be "long"? Comparison is rather like the whole-part oneness, isn't it?

When the short stick is destroyed, the long stick might not be apprehended as a long stick anymore. However, the basis of designation of the long stick does not cease to exist with the short stick being destroyed. One has to think in terms of (1) basis of designation and (2) object of observation. When a table cases, its emptiness also ceases. It's not about whether it is apprehended as being this or that but whether it is an object of observation at all.


text:
What is the difference between nama-rupa and the five skandhas?
As I understood it from the abhidharma, nama-rupa is just another way of looking at the five skandhas, a different scheme for the same thing, along with others (e.g. the dhatus).
But, as far as I can tell, this is never quite explicitly stated.
Why?
And are they identical ways of saying the same thing?

"from the abhidharma, nama-rupa is just another way of looking at the five skandhas" Would you be able to provide more details on where exactly in abhidharma, this is explained?

it's not ever said in anything i've read, but there is nothing outside the skandhas and it seems that nama-rupa is everything, else something is neither psychological not physical @SajeewaWelendagoda

Nama-rupa & the five aggregates are taught for different purposes.
The five aggregates are objects of insight.

'Such is form, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its passing away. Such is
  perception, such its origination, such its passing away. Such are
  fabrications, such their origination, such their passing away. Such is
  consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' ...AN 4.41

Nama-rupa is a condition in Dependent Origination, where it serves as the 'control centre' for meditation. Either nama-rupa is overcome by ignorance or nama-rupa is controlled to end ignorance.

He sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body [rupa] erect and setting mindfulness [nama] to the fore....MN 118
He lives with attention to body [rupa] established, with an immeasurable mind [nama]...MN 38

Nama-rupa is 'mentality-materiality' & excludes consciousness (although includes internal contact, which includes consciousness one of three constituents but predominantly the mind/mano as a sense organ).

What is mentality-materiality (nama-rupa)? Feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention — these are called mentality. The four great elements
  and the material form derived from the four great elements — these are
  called materiality.
What is consciousness? There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
  tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness.
SN 12.2 & MN 9

Nama = mentality. It also includes another mental functions, such as mindfulness, zeal, energy, persistence, decision, etc (as listed in MN 111).
Why consciousness is kept separate is because consciousness is mere sense awareness, like a mirror. It is essentially 'passive' in nature.
Where as 'nama' is like 'intelligence'. It is a grouping of those functions of mind that discern, develop wisdom & makes decisions. Otherwise, if nama does not develop wisdom, it is controlled by ignorance (avicca paccaya...nama-rupa).
'Nama-rupa' is used as a word-compound to show nama & rupa are inseparably interrelated. For example, when nama becomes agitated, rupa simultaneously becomes agitated.

His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental
  distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental
  stress.
MN 149

Where as consciousness is just awareness or objectivity. Consciousness does not produce suffering where as an ignorant 'nama' produces & is afflicted by suffering; which also afflicts the physical body.
~~~
'Nama-rupa' is also a pre-Buddhist-Brahmanistic term that the Buddha adopted, redefined & thus debunked.
Brahmanism was concerned with 'creationism', of how the mind names forms. In Brahmanism, nama-rupa is 'name-form'. Where as the Buddha said 'nama-rupa' is 'mind-body' (mentality-materiality), which should be observed in meditation so to understand how suffering afflicts the mind-body & also can cease in the mind-body.

Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the world/suffering, the
  origination of the world/suffering, the cessation of the
  world/suffering and the path of practice leading to the cessation of
  the world/suffering... AN 4.45

There are many scriptures where the Buddha talks to Brahmans and the word 'nama-rupa' retains its Brahmanistic meaning as 'name-form'. This causes confusion to most Buddhists & scholars, who incorrectly translate nama-rupa as 'name-form' in all contexts.
When the Buddha teaches Buddhists, the translation is 'mentality-materiality'. When the Buddha teaches Brahmans, the translation is 'name-form'.

The brahman Jata Bharadvaja went to the Blessed One and said: Gotama, I ask you this: who can untangle this tangle?
Where name-&-form,   along with perception   of impingement & form, totally stop without trace:  that's where the tangle         is cut.
When this was said, the brahman Jata Bharadvaja said to the Blessed One, "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent!
SN 7.6

Why?
Different time period. Namarupa is more Theravadin and Five Skandha is a much precise, evolved system that isn't really deeply spoken of until Surangama Sutra--a Mahayana invention.
And are they identical ways of saying the same thing?
No. Not identical but very close.
From Wikipedia entry:

"And what [monks] is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention,
contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements,
  and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called
  form. This name & this form are, [monks], called name-&-form."
Katamañca bhikkhave nāmarūpaṃ? Vedanā saññā cetanā phasso manasikāro,
  idaṃ vuccati nāmaṃ. Cattāro ca mahābhūtā, catunnaṃ ca mahābhūtānaṃ
  upādāyarūpaṃ, idaṃ vuccati rūpaṃ. Iti idañca nāmaṃ, idañca rūpaṃ, idaṃ
  vuccati bhikkhave, nāmarūpaṃ.

With no argument from anyone, we can say from the above that form skandha = rupa.

rupa = form skandha CHECK

Now, we are left with four skandhas.
namas = feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention
Let's match them to the remaining skandhas based on the passage:

**feeling/**sensation skandha CHECK
**perception/**conception skandha CHECK
intention, contact, attention / part of the Ten Omnipresent Factors within the volition skandha.... CHECK
consciousness skandha?? 7th and 8th level of consciousness?

In conclusion namarupa can be generously rounded off to include 4.5 of the Five Skandhas as it seems to be missing much of the other delineations contained within the great volition skandha and the great consciousness skandha.

Elsewhere in the Pali Canon, nāmarūpa is used synonymously with the
  five aggregates.

Once again, I argue against this, since the 7th and 8th level of consciousness do not correlate entirely to "intention"... we cannot say that namarupa is a precise enough (or even late enough) to include these other layers which are actually worked on at the highest stages towards Complete Buddhahood and are described more in the Mahayana than in Theravada!

Rupa or Matter and consists of the combination of the four great elements of solidity, fluidity, motion and heat.
It corresponds to The First Aggregate of Form.
Nama or Mind consists of the combination of sensations, perceptions, volitional activities and consciousness.
It corresponds to the rest of the Aggregates, i.e. the Aggregate of Feelings/Sensations, Perception, Mental Formations and Consciousness.

doesn't answer the question. if you want to add comments like that the consider editing the question imho

great answer Lanka, I have adopted your answer although I would argue consciousness is not included and is not identical to namarupa

To get to know “Nama-Rupa”, and the ‘five skandhas”  the following dialogues between King Milinda and Arahant Nagasena is helpful.
Venerable Sir, what is ‘rupa’ and what is ‘nama’? Why do they generate together?
Dear king, ‘Namarupa’  means mentality & materiality.   Mentality (mind & thoughts) is ‘nama’. Materiality (the four great elements ‘Patavi’, ‘Apo’, ‘Thejo’, ‘Vayo’ which are transitory and the material form derived from them) is ‘Rupa’. ‘Nama’ and ‘rupa’ are linked together like flowers and their scent. They are born together. This phenomenon has been there for a long time.
Venerable Sir, what does conceive as the birth?
Dear King, ‘Namarupa’  (psychological elements of the human person & physical body / Mentality & materiality) conceive as the birth. The body & mind we have at present would never be reborn. Because of the results of good and bad deeds (Karma Vipaka) which we have done using our mind and body, another ‘Namarupa’  (psychological elements of the human person & physical body) is conceived.
Venerable Sir, is it the materiality or form (Rupa) which is Nagasena? Is it the feeling or sense (Vedana) (pleasure, pain or the absence of the either) which is Nagasena? Is it cognitive perception (Sanna) ( awareness of colour, shape, sound, smell, taste & touch) which is Nagasena? Is it volition or mental formation (Sankhara) (habitual actions like greed, hatred, generosity, kindness…etc) which is Nagasena? Is it consciousness (Vinnana) (all the mental faculties pertaining to perception & experience) which is Nagasena?
None dear king.
Venerable Sir, Then is it the five aggregates (Rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara,  vinnana) which is Nagasena?
No dear king.
Then, who is Nagasena?
Dear King, you came here by a chariot. Do you call the compartment the chariot? Or, do you call the roof the chariot? Is the cart wheel or the beam the chariot ? Is the axle the chariot ? Is the bridle the chariot ?
No Venerable Sir.
Dear king, when the compartment, the roof, cart wheels, the beam, the axle and the bridle is combined, it is called the chariot. If it is dismantled and heaped, nobody would call it a chariot.
Similarly, when my hair, teeth, nail, skin, flesh & bones are together, it is called Nagasena. When the five aggregates are together, it is called Nagasena. But, in reality, there is no such person.
Our Great Buddha said thus to Bhikkuni Vajira : “In the manner, that a chariot is called a chariot when the cart wheels, compartment, axle, beam, etc. are combined; a being is called thus when the five aggregates (the Five Skandhas)are merged. ”
King Milinda was very happy about the explanation and thanked Venerable Nagasena.