text:
Buddhism vs. Nature and Real World
I'm not very experienced in Buddhism but while reading some articles and few books about it I wonder about one key thing..
If I am not mistaken, the compassion with other species is one of the key pillar of Buddhism. It teaches us that everything is relative and feeling the compassion with others can help us from the anger and so on (perhaps it's very vague claim and I know there's much more to add but to keep this question brief..)
I really do like the idea however I'm "lost" when it comes to confrontation with laws of nature. Biologically, the human is just an animal. Everyone is trying to survive. The stronger eats weaker (we see it in nature every day and every second - tigers, sharks..everyone just hunts for weaker in order to feed itself and survive). I mean - where is the compassion here?
When I look around and think of the nature I can't help my self but - it's brutal. For example, what about an elephant stepping over the mouse without even realizing it just killed the poor mouse? Or bird mommy flying out of the nest to find some food for the young ones and getting caught by cat? The young birds will die brutally by hunger..and nature has millions such examples every day. Technically, the mouse will die because it wasn't strong/fast enough to escape. The same for those birds. That's how nature gets rid of the weaker ones. It's brutal. The morality and ethics teaches us to value the life while in fact the nature seems to possess no value for life.
These days, we, the humans can simply call a pizza service and feed ourself. It is the science and technology allowing us to survive the harsh conditions. The development of our civilization. But the core is the same - the struggle for survival where the compassion doesn't really help much. How can I possess a compassion to someone who tries to kill/eat me?
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this question doesn't have any sense. But still - I'd like to ask you - does the Buddhism say anything on this topic?

Samsara can be quite brutal and there is suffering. The Buddha acknowledged this in the First Noble Truth. And his last words urged his disciples to strive on with diligence toward their enlightenment. Only through Nibbanna will one escape the suffering of Samsara.
Nature is full of examples of suffering such as you detailed. The animals involved have no evil intentions. They simply eat to stay alive. This is why humans are so very fortunate. We generally don't have to live such a brutal life and we can think things through and form intentions and take actions with as much wisdom and compassion as we possess. This is a blessing.
Treating all beings with metta (loving kindness) creates peace in one's mind. Treating other beings with cruelty creates conflict and discord in one's mind. One is clearly better than the other for living a peaceful life and for creating better conditions for one's meditation and eventual enlightenment.
A sutta which explains this idea of taking care of others by taking care of yourself is the Sedaka Sutta. SN47

Thanks. One question though - what if I am e.g. fishing and catch a fish. How am I supposed to kill it? Personally, I probably can't if I'd like to treat it with loving kindness..

If you take the first precept, you agree to refrain from killing a living being; so you would not kill or harm a fish.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts

I like the Sedaka Sutta, thank you for linking it. Very much in the spirit of Nonduality.

Human belongs to a separate realm other than animal's according to Buddhism's realm classification (the 6 realms are: hell, afflicted spirit, animal, human, asura, and heavenly beings). It doesn't mean we're inherently more compassionate than the animals. It just means we possess much greater potential to either do a lot of evil or a lot of good. You won't find anything in the animal realm like Hitler, PolPot, GenghisKhan, nor you'll find the Buddha, mother Teresa, or Jesus Christ. So, the question is which direction we want to go given our enormous potential? This is where the teaching of the Buddha comes in to play to help us and guide us..

If you step back from this one life and look at the totality of Samsara then no being is better or worse than any other being. Samsara is so vast that any being that kills you in this life, is sure to have died for you in another life. A soldier kills his enemy but he most likely killed a enemy that was at one time his brother.
   If a being steps on another being without the intention in mind to kill, then it is not a violation of the first precept. On the other hand if one intends to kill but doesn't go through with it for some reason then that is a violation of the first precept. Hope this helps.

In a nutshell, Buddhism is the art of living in harmony with the laws of nature and our own psychology. When this is achieved you will be unperturbed by all the worldly scenarios you have mentioned.
If we do not understand the universal characteristics of existence and expect something else or do not understand the true nature of our cognitive process and do something which is non-conducive, misery follows. Buddhism aims at understanding this at the experiential level. Being compassionate is a cornerstone of Buddhism but in so far as to maintain a healthy mind as when one becomes uncompassionate you generate negativity. Being over-attached to companion also generates negativity this is one of the contemporary view which was rejected by the Buddha.

Buddhas Dhamma has just the purpose to escape suffering, but yes, it also serves those who still have no Samvega, even make the Dhamma their means for harming on. So "Buddhism is the art of living in harmony with the laws of nature and our own psychology." might be Nyoms idea but not that of the Buddha, who didn't thought on giving manager courses and bussiness courses... and so possible do not serve the question well in shadow of the Gems.

Maybe the now corrected "freudscher misspelling" 'off' into 'of' took now away all possibilities to approve.

@SamanaJohann I think people assume that the Buddha also gave advice to lay people, the Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) and so on.

Yes, he also adviced how to good wander on for those not ready to look for a path out of danger, no Samvega yet, but the questioner actually sees already the pointlessness in the world, or? Missery always follow if not up to take the path, the Ariya-dhamma.

@SamanaJohann Reading the question closely, it seems to be asking about compassion -- and not samvega, or don't you read it that way? The literal questions were, "I mean - where is the compassion here?", and, "How can I possess a compassion to someone who tries to kill/eat me?".

The path is highest compassion, others is justifying to harm further for death's sake: Brahmanism...


text:
Rebirth in the human realm
I need to find the Sutta in where it is stated how a human being will be reborn. There should be different states for example if you are born in a high society you were respectful towards parents, elders, teachers and so forth in the previous life/lives. If you were into torturing and harming people you will be reborn with a poor health, if you were killing people you will be reborn with a short life span. There are more states but i do not know them.
Help would be much appreciated. Thank you.

This is where the Buddha explains the answer to your questions in detail :

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at
  Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park.
Then Subha the student (brahman), Todeyya's son, went to the Blessed
  One and exchanged greetings with him, and when the courteous and
  amiable talk was finished, he sat down at one side. When he had done
  so, Subha the student said to the Blessed One:
"Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why
  inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among
  mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick
  and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and
  influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born
  people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the
  condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human
  beings, among mankind?"
"Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have
  kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their
  homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to
  inferiority and superiority."
"I do not understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance
  spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning. It would be
  good if Master Gotama taught me the Dhamma so that I might understand
  the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief
  without expounding the detailed meaning."
"Then listen, student, and heed well what I shall say."
"Even so, Master Gotama," Subha the student replied. The Blessed One
  said this:
"Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings,
  murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to
  living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of
  deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on
  the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing
  in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in
  hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is
  reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to
  be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows
  and violence, merciless to living beings.
"But here some woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living
  beings, abstains from killing living beings, lays aside the rod and
  lays aside the knife, is considerate and merciful and dwells
  compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Due to having
  performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body,
  after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly
  world. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his
  reappearing in a happy destination, in the heavenly world, he comes to
  the human state, he is long-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the
  way that leads to long life, that is to say, to have abandoned the
  killing of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to
  lay aside the rod and lay aside the knife, to be considerate and
  merciful, and to dwell compassionate for the welfare of all living
  beings.
"Here, student, some woman or man is one who harms beings with his
  hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives. Due to having
  performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body,
  after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he
  comes to the human state, he is sickly wherever he is reborn. This is
  the way that leads to sickness, that is to say, to be one who harms
  beings with one's hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives.
"But here some woman or man is not one who harms beings with his
  hands, or with clods, or with sticks, or with knives. Due to having
  performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body,
  after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he
  comes to the human state, he is healthy wherever he is reborn. This is
  the way that leads to health, that is to say, not to be one who harms
  beings with his hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives.
"Here, student, some woman or man is angry, much given to rage; even
  when little is said, he is furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, he
  shows ill-temper, hate and surliness. Due to having performed and
  completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the
  human state, he is ugly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that
  leads to ugliness, that is to say, to be furious, angry, ill-disposed,
  resentful, and to show ill-temper, hate and surliness.
"But here some woman or man is not angry or much given to rage; even
  when much is said, he is not furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful,
  nor does he show ill-temper, hate or surliness. Due to having
  performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body,
  after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he
  comes to the human state, he is beautiful wherever he is reborn. This
  is the way that leads to beauty, that is to say, not to be angry or
  given to much rage; even when much is said, not to be furious, angry,
  ill-disposed or resentful, or to show ill-temper, hate or surliness.
"Here, student, some woman or man is envious; he envies, begrudges and
  harbors envy about others' gains, honor, veneration, respect,
  salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such
  kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a
  state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is
  insignificant wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  insignificance, that is to say, to be envious, to envy, begrudge, and
  harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect,
  salutations and offerings.
"But here some woman or man is not envious, he does not envy, begrudge
  or harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect,
  salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such
  kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a
  happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is
  influential wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  influence, that is to say, not to be envious, not to envy, begrudge or
  harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect,
  salutations and offerings.
"Here, student, some woman or man is not a giver of food, drink,
  cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting
  to monks or brahmans. Due to having performed and completed such
  kamma, on the dissolution of the body, after death he reappears in a
  state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is
  poor wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to poverty,
  that is to say, not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals,
  garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and
  brahmans.
"But here some woman or man is a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals,
  perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans. Due
  to having performed and completed such kamma, on the dissolution of
  the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If
  instead he comes to the human state, he is rich wherever he is reborn.
  This is the way that leads to riches, that is to say, to be a giver of
  food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof
  and lighting to monks and brahmans.
"Here, student, some woman or man is obdurate and haughty; he does not
  pay homage to whom he should pay homage, or rise up for whom he should
  rise up, or give a seat to whom he should give a seat, or make way for
  whom he should make way, or worship him who should be worshipped, or
  respect him who should be respected, or revere him who should be
  revered, or honor him who should be honored. Due to having performed
  and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after
  death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes
  to the human state, he is low-born wherever he is reborn. This is the
  way that leads to low birth, that is to say, to be obdurate and
  haughty, not to pay homage to whom he should pay homage, nor rise up
  for..., nor give a seat to..., nor make way for..., nor worship...,
  nor respect..., nor revere..., nor honor him who should be honored.
"But here some woman or man is not obdurate or haughty; he pays homage
  to whom he should pay homage, rises up for whom he should rise up,
  gives a seat to whom he should give a seat, makes way for whom he
  should make way, worships him who should be worshipped, respects him
  who should be respected, reveres him who should be revered, honors him
  who should be honored. Due to having performed and completed such
  kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a
  happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is
  high-born wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to high
  birth, that is to say, not to be obdurate or haughty, to pay homage to
  whom he should pay homage, to rise up for..., to give a seat to..., to
  make way for..., to worship... respect... revere... honor him who
  should be honored.
"Here, student, some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman,
  does not ask: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir? What is unwholesome?
  What is blamable? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What
  should not be cultivated? What, by my doing it, will be long for my
  harm and suffering? Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my
  welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and completed such
  kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a
  state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he
  will be stupid wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  stupidity, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, not to
  ask: 'What is wholesome?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long for
  my welfare and happiness?'
"But here some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman, asks:
  'What is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be
  long for my welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and
  completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he
  reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human
  state, he is wise wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to
  wisdom, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, to ask: 'What
  is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long
  for my welfare and happiness?'
"So, student, the way that leads to short life makes people
  short-lived, the way that leads to long life makes people long-lived;
  the way that leads to sickness makes people sick, the way that leads
  to health makes people healthy; the way that leads to ugliness makes
  people ugly, the way that leads to beauty makes people beautiful; the
  way that leads to insignificance makes people insignificant, the way
  that leads to influence makes people influential; the way that leads
  to poverty makes people poor, the way that leads to riches makes
  people rich; the way that leads to low birth makes people low-born,
  the way that leads to high birth makes people high-born; the way that
  leads to stupidity makes people stupid, the way that leads to wisdom
  makes people wise. "Beings are owners of kammas, student, heirs of
  kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin,
  kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings
  according to inferiority and superiority."
When this was said, Subha the student, Todeyya's son, said to the
  Blessed One: "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama!
  The Dhamma has been made clear in many ways by Master Gotama, as
  though he were turning upright what had been overthrown, revealing the
  hidden, showing the way to one who is lost, holding up a lamp in the
  darkness for those with eyes to see forms.
"I go to Master Gotama for refuge, and to the Dhamma and to the Sangha
  of bhikkhus. From today let Master Gotama accept me as a lay follower
  who has gone to him for refuge for life."
Cūḷakammavibhaṅga Suttaṃ (MN 135)

For a greater understanding on the workings of kammā in this respect, you
should read the Mahākammavibhaṅga Suttaṃ.

You might want to check out MN 135 and MN 136:

"Here, student, some man or woman kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. But if on the dissolution of the body, after death, he does not reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, but instead comes back to the human state, then wherever he is reborn he is short-lived. This is the way, student, that leads to short life, namely, one kills living beings and is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings."

Thank you Santa for your answer. I appreciate that too:)

Important question indeed! But not a simple thing to explain.
Indeed, for the Buddha himself said that karma and reincarnation are one of the four things that can never be explained fully and to probe too deep into it will cause insanity!
There are a ton of stories throughout all the Nikayas.
I reccommend the book "Mind Experiment" by Bavo Lievens. You will see the glorious, intricate web of reincarnation across the planes of existence in vivid, holistic detail and see the things yourself by opening your Third Eye and most importantly the ladder to Buddhahood.
As for your question, I assume you are looking for some formulaic method to figure out someone's future or past based on their present deeds and situation.
Main principle: the present circumstance will help build up the OPPOSITE of whatever the person had too much of (e.g. if they forcibly repressed themselves from sex, they will go crazy with sex next life, if they be hatin'... they will be born in situations where the opposite of that can arise).
Why is this the principle? Because one's incarnation is an educational program.
Anyway, read the book. Here's the excerpt you wanted:

When my mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid
  of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the recollection of
  past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, that is, one birth .
  . .  a hundred births . . .  a hundred thousand births, many eons of
  world-contraction, many eons of world-expansion, many eons of
  expansion and contraction: “There I was so named, of such clan, with
  such an appearance . . .  and passing away there, I was reborn
  elsewhere.” Thus with their aspects and particulars I recollected my
  manifold past lives . . . I directed my mind to knowledge of the
  passing away and rebirth of beings. With the divine eye, which is
  purified and surpasses the human, I saw beings passing away and being
  reborn, inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and
  unfortunate, and I understood how beings fare on according to their
  actions (karma) thus: “These beings who behaved wrongly
  by body, speech, and mind, who held wrong view, and undertook actions based on wrong view, with the breakup of the body, after death, have been reborn in a state of misery, in a bad destination, in the lower world, in hell; but these beings who behaved well . . . who held right view . . . have been reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world. Thus with the divine eye . . . I understood how beings fare on according to their actions (karma). Thus was the second true knowledge attained by me in the middle watch of the night. (MN 36)

Correct me if im wrong but in theravada buddhism we do not have anything called a third eye. That is from spirituality or mysticism. I appreciate your answer but it this is not what im looking for.

Look up six paranormal powers. Divine eye

But yes, you're wrong. Look up Six Paranormal Powers yourself in the suttas.
The Buddha did not reccommend indulging in the powers but he does explain that he himself discovered all these truths using the Six Paranormal Powers which are accessible in a more stable form to one after at least the 1st jhana and did not forbid their use. He even instructed a few of his disciplies to use them.
The Truth is label-less and there are many different mysticisms/spiritualities that explain these phenomena but no one does so as lucidly and with such disillusionment and copletion as Buddha.

Answer does not address the opening question which was asking for identification of a particular sutta.

Yes it does. Look at the bottom. Even includes how the Buddha himself was able to use Divine Eye power (and other arhats) to do see how people go from one thing to another.

Hi Ahmed. I appreciate your answer but I'm not in any way looking for supernatural powers. I'm not in any way interested in these powers.

"I need to find the Sutta in where it is stated how a human being will be reborn." I gave you such a sutta where the Buddha himself describes such a thing and how he, and anyone else, can see the same (through so-called "supernatural power").

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Jhana practice and Dry insight practice together
Is it possible that a meditator uses jhana practice and dry insight together?
I mean: not combined in the same meditation session, but clearly in separate, distinct meditation sessions.
Both meditation practices have their own benefits (and disadvantages), so I wonder if it wouldn't be favorable to use the strengths of both.

You mean can you do dry insight if you already have dome skill in samatha?

Yes, that's what I mean. Wouldn't it be better to start with learning the (rather difficult) jhana practise and then, when this technique is acquired, switch over to the (easier?) dry insight practice?

It could be in any order:

"There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity...Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight...Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight..." ~ AN 4.170 ~

Then there must be the case where one who practices ardently experiences all three scenarios at different points in chronological time?

Of course!
You are supposed to practice the two together! Btw, let's use proper terminology: jhana = samatha practice, dry insight = vipassana.
To use even simpler terms, the former is called "calming meditation" the latter "awareness meditation"
They are complementary not supplementary to one another and actually really one practice...
"Really one practice"
That is an advanced subject that will not be given full justice on a mere Q&A here. Thus, I suggest reading the chapter about the two in the book "A Short Walk on an Ancient Path" by Brian Ruhe.
Basically, vipassana and jhana cultivation are not two totally separate routes. You cannot just tranquilize yourself into jhana but will still exercise STRONG observing faculties in order to concentrate on the meditation object. The better you are at vipassana, the better you should be at calming yourself and vice versa.
Vipassana, which is pure awareness, instead of having any material meditation object, uses your innate formless awareness as a meditation object. Basically its a meditation object of no-object.
What is the object when doing "jhana cultivation"? A material object such as your breath.
Perhaps when you meditate you will notice this:
"OK. I am going to focus on my breathhing... Breathing in, breathing out, breathing in  oh! Noting I just thought about my mom, coming back to breath, breathing in, breathing out"
Makes sense?
Jhana would not be possible without vipassana.
Thus, there is only one practice: jhana.
That's why the buddha doesn't talk about vipassana in the original texts, just jhana and his reccommended route: breathing meditation.
It's also why Thich Nhat Hanh does the same.
The answer to your question: yes! They are one and the same but can be focused on separately to help you perfect Right Meditation and lead you to jhana.

What every order both develop Jhana is important to strengthening of wisdom and ultimately both should be developed. So when practising meditation, it is not the best to take the stance that you aim to develop exclusively on or the other, though different techniques maybe conducive for one or the other, but at time when you reap better results in areas which were not intended this also should be accepted. (Having concentration can lead to wisdom and wisdom lead to concentration through the practice is geared to the other.) If you have concentration wisdom is easy but you need some active effort (through not very much) to develop it though.

Yes. In the Pali suttas Samatha and Vipassana were not clearly two seperate practices as they seem to be today. We argue over this all the time. The argument of those who practice "insight only" or "dry insight" is usually  that it's a matter of interpretation and that the critique that it's incorrect to separate Vipassana and Samatha comes from rigid minds that think there is little room for interpretation of the often profound and hard to comprehend words of the Buddha, even for Pali scholars. They would say they must be interpreted and to try to follow the teachings so literally would be incorrect.

The statement that Jhana is difficult for you reveals that you are TRYING to do it. You do not make  an effort to reach it. This is an error. You relax the body to calm the mind. You have to be able to understand the elements present in the first Jhana before you will know you are experiencing them. This is the vittaka vicara where you ask and answer questions in your mind while at the same time experiencing the comfort of a calm mind(no hindrances present). Then also you experience the comfort of the body in this totally relaxed state. And lastly in the first Jhana you will experience Ekkagata, which is the settling of the mind into a balanced state where the emotions no longer rule the mind. When you experience ALL of these, THAT is the First Jhana.
It happens TO you; you do not MAKE it happen by concentration. AND you will never experience these states without first establishing Sila in your life by LIVING the Five Precepts, not just reciting them.
Sila(living a moral life) leads you into Samadhi(calmness of mind, which is the Samatha or Jhanas. Until you reach that level of practice you cannot begin to acquire the wisdom of Panna.
Simple really. But far from easy.

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

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


text:
The relation between the three types of dukkha
Dukkha is said to have three types.

Can Vipariṇāma-dukkha be analysed in terms of Dukkha-dukkha alone?
Is the experience of Saṃkhāra-dukkha nothing more than Vipariṇāma-dukkha?

Very interesting recent Buddhist Geeks podcast discusses this precise question and looks at discrepancies between the suttas and commentaries: http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2015/01/bg-346-debugging-source-code-dharma/

what was the outcome of the podcast, i do not have the patience for audio... i think yes, with the priviso that i don't believe in a clusterfuck at the end haha. i'm not theravadin,,, so don't have a huge interest in the suttas yo, but thanks :)

The conclusion was that the normal ordering of the three types in the commentaries, and their relationship to each other (e.g. can one be analysed in terms of another, as you asked) is not as per the suttas and, in the author's opinion, needed to be read with care.

The discussion in that podcast is in a blog post by the same author (Bodhipaksa), here -- Three forms of suffering, reinterpreted

Dukkha-dukkha (the dukkha of painful experiences):

The physical and mental sufferings of birth, aging, illness, dying.
The anxiety or frustration of coming across what is not desirable.

Unwanted things happening. Coming in contact with unwanted things, beings and stimuli. Resulting mainly as the world and even ourselves are not what we expect or in our control and being averse to such experience. This includes our form and cognitive process which is subjected to decay and change to which we are averse.

Viparinama-dukkha (the dukkha of the changing nature of all things):

The anxiety or stress of trying to hold onto what is desirable.
The frustration of not getting what you want.

This is mainly use to change. Wanted things not happening. Not coming in contact with wanted things, beings and stimuli. Or desirable experiences coming to an end (partly in relation to the above as it is undesirable for a desirable experience to end). Resulting mainly, as the world and even ourselves are not what we expect or in our control and being in wanting experiences we do not get. This includes our form and cognitive process which which takes on a particular form but we it to be different.

Sankhara-dukkha (the dukkha of conditioned experience):

A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards

Mainly coming current and past volitional formations and karma. These manifests as sensations. These sensation also change and finite experience in common with the above two.
(Quotes sourced from: Dukkha)

Can Vipariṇāma-dukkha be analysed in terms of Dukkha-dukkha alone?

There is some overlap, i.e., if you are experiencing a something desirable and this changes.

Is the experience of Saṃkhāra-dukkha nothing more than Vipariṇāma-dukkha?

Nature of formations is it change hence some overlap with unsatisfactoriness due to change. Stimulating thoughts, happy moods, positive karmic experience all pass away.

sorry but this didn't answer my question, it just gave a run down of the terms i used


text:
Who am I- according to Buddhism
What does Buddha say about the question,"Who am I"? Our body and mind perishes with time. If so then who actually attains the Truth?

It it interesting that you say, "OUR body and mind". So the answer to your question is: "WE do".

This question is similar (although maybe not so similar as to need closing) to http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1891/what-is-the-precise-meaning-of-anatta/2454#2454

Buddhism says there is no core which is unchanging and nor an entity with absolute control over anything we call me or mine. Also, the practice is somewhat geared towards eliminating the notion of a permanent controlling self-identity view as this gives you a yard stick to measure yourself against others, which causes misery. So in conventional wisdom, it is you who attains the truth, although the notion of self will eventually be abandoned.

'Our' body & mind does not perish with time. Instead, the body & mind perish with time. To quote:

Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
  monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?
Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is impermanent... Feeling...
  Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is impermanent. That which
  is impermanent is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and
  gone to its end.'
Very good, my friend Yamaka.
SN 22.85

It is the mind (citta) that attains the truth & is liberated.
That is why liberation in Buddhism is called 'ceto-vimutti' or 'citta-vimutti' ('liberation of mind') rather than 'atta-vimutti' (liberation of self).
That is why meditation is called 'citta-bhāvanaṃ' (development of mind) rather than 'atta-bhāvanaṃ' (development of self).

akuppā cetovimutti, etadatthamidaṃ brāhmaṇa brahmacariyaṃ, etaṃ
  sāraṃ, etaṃ pariyosānanti
The unshakable freedom of mind: That is the purpose of this holy
  life, that is its heartwood, that is its final culmination.
MN 30

~

Visaṅkhāragataṃ cittaṃ taṇhānaṃ khayamajjhagā
The mind has reached the Unconditioned; attained the destruction of craving.
Dhp XI

The question of "who" is explained in the Phagguna Sutta, about how the body, mind, sense experience, feelings, craving & clinging are not a "who"; about how the idea or sense of "who" arises later at 'becoming'.

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression'...the correct way to ask the question will
  be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the
  correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of
  sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he feels.'...the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling;
  and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say
  that 'he craves.'...the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and
  craving is the condition of clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say
  that 'he clings.'...the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the
  origin of this entire mass of suffering

He sort of refuses to answer that question.
The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta is an example of a Sutta in which he refuses to answer.
Your question is a variant of what's given in Wikipedia as The unanswered questions.
There are other questions on this site about why these questions are unanswered:

14 questions left unanswered
Where does a person go after attaining Nirvana?
Why are the 16 Unwise Reflections (“shall I exist in future” etc.) considered unwise?

Views or beliefs about the self are called "identity views". Buddhism suggests that on the path towards enlightenment we need to "eradicate" identity views. I asked about what that means in this question: What are examples of identity-view? the answers to which seem relevant to your questions.

There are other articles here on that subject:

If Buddhism teaches non-self (anatta), then who meditates?

But that thought is a bit like the idea primitive man may have felt, looking at nature. The wind blows, the leaves rustle, the rain falls. There must be “someone” making this all happen! And so they imagined a god or gods who were doing these things.

The difficulty of getting our heads around “non-self”

The Buddha didn’t actually teach that there is no self. I, and other teachers, often say that there’s no self, but this is just shorthand for saying that the kind of self you think you have doesn’t exist. The self you don’t have — the illusory self — is usually thought of as a unitary entity that sits inside you, pulling all your disparate experiences and actions into a single whole. It’s also in charge. And it’s conscious. You don’t have this kind of self — or in short-hand, you don’t have a self. Therefore you don’t have a self to lose, and those problems of “how to live without a self” don’t arise. You already don’t have a self, and you already do just fine. What you do have is an illusion of having a self, and that illusion makes you do less fine than if you got rid of it. The trouble is that once you believe you have a self, and you recognize that your self isn’t happy a lot of the time, you have to start wondering what kind of self you have. It’s obviously lacking! Maybe it’s broken! Maybe it’s not as good as other people’s selves! The illusory self becomes a real burden and gets in the way of our being happy.

This is a tricky question, as the Sutras appear to contradict on this, and there are several interpretations.  My take on this is that Buddhism doesn't tell us who we are, but rather tells us one of the following...

Who we are not.
Not to cling to specific conceptions of who we are.
Not to cling to any conceptions of who we are.

(1) Simply denies that we are independently existing permanent entities.  Some have translated this as "soul" but I disagree with this translation.  Rather, I think a better one is that sense that "you" are somewhere inside your body, directing your mind and body, pulling the strings, independent of all that goes on around you.
(2) Is similar to (1), but rather than deny it, it simply says not to cling to this conception.  This is neither an assertion nor a denial.
(3) Is similar to (2) but it admonishes against clinging to any conception of who we are.  This is particularly important, because one could develop a self-conception that may appear congruent with Buddhism (I'm one with everything, I'm a good Buddhist, I'm enlightened, I'm the thing that will gain the future benefits from this Buddhist practice, etc...).
So which is it?  I don't think there's a good answer, and I'm not even sure it matters.
If the issue with our pain is NOT who we are, but who we are NOT, then the problem becomes one of dissolving this "wrong view"; one need not install a "right view" in its place.  If so, any of the above could work.
In fact, if you take the problem of the self as being the boundaries we draw, and the conflicts that arise at those boundaries, then the solution becomes dissolving those boundaries, and any of the above can do that.  Even an interpretation of the self as identical with everything would do this (although whether it's taught in Buddhism may be debatable).
Having said that, my favored interpretation is (3). In fact, I regard (3) as a specific instance of a much more general principle -- not to cling to anything. This in turn could be seen as one interpretation of "emptiness" (we cling to illusory essences underlying phenomena, or clinging itself has this essence-view as its substrate). Now, since the self is the root of most of our problems, it deserves special attention, and exclusive attention on it may be enough.  This in turn is part of a general framework for understanding Buddhism as a way to live rather than assertions to be believed.
So who attains The Truth?  That question should be dropped, for to ask it may reinforce the self-conception that Buddhism tries to undermine.  Simply live Buddhism, stop asking such questions and see how you fare :)

Buddha said " Satta "..in many Suttas.
the meaning is " clinker (person) "
who clinging in 5 aggregates.
This " Satta "..is developing the 8 noble paths and ending suffer.
And call person who " Nibbana of suffer "..
as.. Arahunt or Deathless-element or Unconditioned-element.
This is not " Permanent Ataman in Upanishad view "...
I don't know why Buddhist seems to avoiding
" Satta(clinker) - Puggalo(person) "...

Can you cite a reference? Because "clinker" is not a word in English This dictionary translates "satta" as, "a living being, creature, a sentient & rational beiṅg, a person;" or "soul".

I used " clinker "...rather than " clinging  "..because " clinging "..imply far from the meaning from Pali and meaning from Sutta..    " Satta " is not soul,  is not Jitta,  is not Vinana,  is not part of 5 aggregates...    " living being " = " Bhutta " = Satta who got the 5 aggregates(born)..   therefore " clinker " = " thing ".. that cling to 5 aggregates.

(i can't link to SuttaCentral)I referred to Satta Sutta which Buddha answered Ver. Ratha that..what is " Satta ".. He said  "  rūpe  kho  rādha  yo  chando  yo  rāgo  yā  nandi  yā
taṇhā   tatra   satto   tatra   visatto   tasmā   sattoti  vuccati .
Vedanāya   .   saññāya   .   saṅkhāresu   .   viññāṇe  yo  chando
yo   rāgo   yā   nandi   yā   taṇhā  tatra  satto  tatra  visatto
tasmā sattoti vuccati.

"clinker"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinker_(waste)

Your question is best answered from the perspective which includes theory of two-truths. Note that it isnt theory of TWO truths- rather two-truths; a hyphenation. Two aspects on the truth.
Since you question particularly pertains to "I", following answer is on the offering->
Conventional truth (smvrttisatya) and ultimate truth (paramarthasatya). Here conventional is used as a label seeking to imply 'of the world, worldly, apparent truth, truth of what appears, etc.'. Conventional truth is that you are an individual whose name is Dipayan Bairagi and so on. Ultimate truth is slightly different.
Ultimate truth is arrived at by ultimate analysis unlike conventional truth which uses conventional analysis. Here, ultimate analysis is using the concept of emptiness to ascertain via analysis that 'I' does not exist as an objective existent and that it is a merely imputed label of a dynamic process which has many other parts. Thus from an ultimate standpoint, there is no I. Not because some "I" existed and it has been destroyed but that the mind has been taught to ascertain the true nature of what appears, via reasoning of emptiness and finds that what we were thinking of or believing to exist objectively was a mere imputation of the mind.
Therefore, depending on the 'frame of reference' of the question the question of "who am I" can be responded.
As to the second part of your question, who attains the truth:
From the conventional standpoint, there is Dipayan who posted a question here and is seeking to understand the path so that he can become enlightened. All of these things are real conventionally. From the ultimate standpoint, true there is no mind or body but then there is also no path, no dharma, no truth, etc.
Your question takes an aspect of ultimate analysis (mind and body perish) and includes it with an aspect of conventional analysis (there is a truth and someone attains it). It is like taking offside from football and talking about basketball and asking 'what is offside?'. The question is not wrong but applied on the wrong game.
You have taken Buddha's statement from different places and contrasted them together, which implies an assumption that what the buddha says at one place is always everywhere true. While that would be correct for many things, it would also be incorrect for many other things. One might, as an example "this is an apple" and on some other occasion say "this apple is nothing but a bunch of atoms". It helps to know the context and text of the verses or sayings.

You are Buddha!
This is what Siddhartha teaches. "That to which I have attained, you may also attain"
You may not realise it, in which case you need to wake up.  And Siddhartha has left behind a set of teachings to help.
Your perception may be clouded by a sense of self. Siddhartha was faced with this obstacle, and created a science to transcend this illusion.
Buddhism at its core (if you care to examine the teachings of Siddhartha) is a science, not a religion. A science of the inner. A religion has formed around it, but the core is scientific.

Who indeed. Maybe there are not truth to be attained. Maybe you already have the truth. Then again who are you?
The concept of self is a very interesting topic in Buddhism. Lot of issues come with the lack of works to properly translate the original Sanskrit words in the sutras.
Personally from my understanding, Buddha teaches that self is empty. Empty in the sense that its a concept, a view of ourselves much like your reflection in the mirror. It changes, it goes away. Thus empty.
Buddha then says that this emptiness is not different from form as we know it, as form too are just concepts.
An example I always like to draw from is a phone. Start picking apart your phone, till what extend does it stop being a phone? In the same train of thoughts, if you start removing parts of yourself, when do you stop being you? When you split yourself, which part stop being you, or are both parts still you?

There is no "who" that attains the truth, there is simply the attainment of the truth.

This question "who am i?" is a koan. Koans are devices meant for you to attain Truth not actually have an answer to...
I hope you don't put your faith in any solid answer (and lose probably the best koan that exists) because the real answer to this koan is beyond words... this is why the Buddha does a great job by always answering this question negatively, saying we are not ____ (e.g. form, sensation, conception, volition, consciousness) but never that we are ____.
This is the classical vedantic negation (neti neti) that all true sages do to their students to encourage them to turn back their consciousness and answer the question "who am i" with their true inner eye.
It's a great meditative practice to ask yourself "who am I"... totally gets you away from sensory perception and is a great route to samadhi and awakening. The most direct, Zen question that exists.

Impossible is to answer your question.
The answer must be experienced.
And what is it that which is experienced?
There is neither I nor no I.
So, who am I?
The answer must be experienced.

None of the above posts answer the original question!  Perhaps the question cannot be answered. Through meditation emptiness may be experienced but not explained. There was a time when scientists believed the vacuum of space was empty.  Now we know that it is far from empty.  Full of "Dark energy", " Dark matter", photons of light gravity, ect. The emptiness experienced during meditation isn't empty either.  It is full of is ness, and am ness.  Void of all else.


text:
Exact meaning of Ditthivisuddhi (3rd purification)
Is ditthivisuddhi (the 3rd purification) only the purification of the illusion of 'self'; 'I'; 'me'; 'mine'?

Understand that mental and physical process and the world at large is not in our control and is changing. So any notion of regarding one self will not be in line with expectations and also would lead to comparison hence misery. (3 Marks of Existence) Further the understanding of the 4 Noble Truth and Dependent Origination.
See: Rathavinita where this is initially covered.


text:
Best books & articles for practicing jhanas
Which are the best books and/or articles for practicing the jhanas?

Please add list of good books from the following arahants:
Mogok Sayadaw U Vimala
Sunlun Sayadaw U Kavi

Have a look at:

Bhante Vimalaramsi
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Forest Dhamma
Forest Sangha Publications
Buddhist eLibrary
Manual of Mindfulness of Breathing

May I also add to this list "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" by Daniel Ingram which has some very hopeful and practical advice for the modern layman/woman trying to cultivate. Daniel is a doctor who says jhana helped a lot during med school. I interviewed Daniel and he's a real awesome compassionate guy.

@Ahmed, at the risk of going off topic, in what context dd you interview Daniel? Was it a public interview, by which I mean, is it available anywhere to listen to or read?

It was a year back and i hit record and my recorder malfunctioned. I asked him some really practical questions about "what does enlightenment feel like?" "How to get jhana in the heat of daily life?" Etc Im trying to get another interview with him.. If i do ill let you know..

@tkp I got a time slot with him and posted a reddit to collect questions for him, going to try to interview him on 23rd.

I have this book by Ajahn Brahm (Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond) which has probably the best description and methods of the topic of Jhana but even better meditation techniques to achieve Jhana. Link below. Hope this helps.
http://www.bookdepository.com/Mindfulness-Bliss-Beyond-Ajahn-Brahm/9780861712755
Metta

I found the following to be very useful:
Books

Focused and Fearless: A Meditator's Guide to States of Deep Joy, Calm, and Clarity

Shaila Catherine writes with a precision and clarity that is missing from most texts on the subject. Great meditation manual as well as guide to the Jhanas. Shaila and Ayya Khema mentioned below seem to write from deep personal experience and this is backed up by their personal histories of practice.

Who Is My Self?: A Guide to Buddhist Meditation

Ayya Khema combines clear and concise instructions that are, for the most part, are a commentary on sections of the Potthapada Sutta that expound on the Jhanas.
Articles

A General, All Purpose Jhana Thread
Jhana Not by the Numbers by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
THE JHANAS IN THERAVADAN BUDDHIST MEDITATION by LEIGH BRASINGTON

I would recommend the book "Practicing The Jhanas" by Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder.
They were both students of Pa Auk Sayadaw and undertook a Samatha Meditation Course under his guidance. Here they achieved the 4 material jhanas and the 4 immaterial jhanas.
The book is streamlined and direct. Not much beating around the bush. They often refer to their own practice and how they trained under Pa Auk Sayadaw. This functions well.
They give lots of useful information and guidance regarding the practice of the Jhanas. I have taken a screenshot of the table of contents so you can see what the book contains.


text:
Can you attain stream entry without meditation?
Venerable sir,
Lately I have been wondering if there is a proper technique that can be used in order to attain stream entry rather than meditating. I have a few experiences with loving kindness meditation though it did not go very well. Actually, I am not good at meditating therefore it is hard for me to walk in the path. It might be easier if there is a proper technique to follow instead of meditating.  Also even though I am in a Buddhist country it is not very popular among the Buddhist to meditate here, so if there is a technique please let me know.
Thank you

stream entry isn't everything my friend, even outside the mahayana there is great progress and effort to be found both in and out of enlightenment !

@user3293056 What is outside the Mahayana? What kind of Enlightenment are they working on? You are speaking of enlightenment for the world or full individual enlightenment that transcends this world that the Gotama Buddha taught? Maybe it's both?

If you find it difficult to meditate you may not have enough merits.
Your bad karma is obstructing you from meditating, either ones performed in this life or previous ones. Remember that it is because of our merits that we can even encounter the dharma.
First develop sufficient merits. Do dana and develop sila. Some people spend years developing their sila and generosity before sitting on the meditation mat. Other ways to develop merits helping others, listening to Dharma talks, being happy for other people's success, volunteering for charity and being humble. Basically just by being a good person and keeping the precepts. Just think of everything that's good and positive, wholesome and happy and let that shine your path. Don't worry about egolessness, equanimity or meditation. Don't run before you can stand. No-one who ever developed deep states of meditation and achieve Arahanthood did so without creating the necessary karma for it.
After you have developed positive qualities or merits then you will naturally be able to grasp meditation. Remember you don't meditate your problems away, you see your problems more clearly. So my advice is sort out your life first then your karma will allow you to meditate.

There are 5 ways to start your journey:

listening to the Dharma
teaching the Dharma
reciting the Dharma
reflecting on the Dharma
meditation

Followed by:

joy arises in him;
because of joy, zest arises;
because of zest, the body becomes tranquil;
when the body is tranquil, he feels happiness;
a happy mind becomes concentrated.

Vimutt’āyatana Sutta
So formal meditation is not the only way. But having said that you should come to a reasonably concentrated and aware mind to progress from joy onwards. For this you might need some mediation. Even if you are not formally doing meditation, awareness and concentration of the arising and passing away of sensations (pleasant, unpleasant and neutral) is a must during normal course of daily activities for reasonable part of the day.
Also see this answer for more reference on Nibbida formula.

For me and my own practice I would venture the answer as a tentative yes - meditation is necessary or at the very least a part of the path. I like to think in terms of the three fold path for things like this. So if you have a practice of ethics, meditation and an appreciation of wisdom (i.e. the Buddha's teachings) then you're going in the right way. Meditation isn't the only thing on the path but I think it's going to be fairly critical really.
That said we have kicked around ideas on this site about attaining levels of insight without meditation. This question investigates dry insight which might interest you. Also there is an indication that there is a compassion only path in Buddhism (see this question) but that remains controversial.
In addition I would say that any practitioners of pure land Buddhism would whole-heartedly disagree with me on this. For them the path is devotional and you can go all the way on having devotion and faith in a Bodhisattva figure. This path might well be more for you?

yes.
 Many in pali cannon have achieved stream enterer without mediation.   when sariputtra (Buddha's chief decipher) was a lay person.. he met A monk Elder Assaji.   He was so impressed with monk's demeanor, he asked him who was his teacher and what were his teachings.  Ven. Assaji, said he was new to this monastic life and could not explain the teaching in detail but in short..
"Of all those things that from a cause arise,
Tathagata the cause thereof has told;
And how they cease to be, that too he tells,
This is the doctrine of the Great Recluse"
Sariputtri achieved stream enterer right then and there.
Buddha's gave about 50+ suttas about the characteristic of a stream enterer.
Another story, Lady Visakha achieved stream enterer when she was 7 when she heard Buddha's teaching (something like, "small faults in others are easy to see but big faults in yourself are difficult to notice" )

You could attain stream entry at any moment for seemingly no reason. Perhaps "self inquiry" would be something you could get into?
People who practice insight often have great and wonderful meditation experiences and this is a sign they could be on the wrong track so to speak. Another meditator, can't seem to get stablized and the practice causes great suffering. This is often a meditator on the right track. So, maybe you are practicing more correctly than you think.

First, you must know that Stream Entry is not something that can be achieved easily. It can take multiple lives to get there. Do your best but do not push too hard to disappoint yourself. I am not a monk and have no attainment myself so think about my answer carefully.
The Buddha's 4th noble truth is the eightfold paths that lead to total liberation, starting with the Stream Entry. The eightfold paths are grouped into 3 groups - Virtues, Development of the Mind, and Wisdom. You asked about meditation which falls under the mind group of the path. Meditation is needed in order to see the wisdom necessary for Stream Entry. But what you meant by meditation is probably sitting down silently for a long time in order to go into deep meditation. If so, there are other ways.
There are other ways to meditate. For example, when you see an old person, you see yourself as an old person. You remind yourself that one day, you will get old and die. You then think about how suffering this world is. Then, you can remind yourself of how the Buddha escaped suffering by putting away his desire.
When you meditate about the suffering of the world enough, you will grow disenchanted with the it. Eventually, you will be free of the belief of self. (Why would want you to be of a self if it will lead to suffering?).
But more importantly, ask yourself this, can a person think clearly if he is getting bothered continuously? Can you see the reflection in water if the water is continuously disturbed? Any kind of meditation, including the one I described, cannot be done successfully without the perfection of virtues (Right Speech, Right Livelihood, and Right Action). If your virtues is not perfect, you will be continuously disturbed by your own conduct. And by perfect, I really do mean perfect. Even unintentionally killing an insect can cause an imperfection. This is why it is easy for monks to meditate. They can perfect their virtues more easily than lay people.
Also, before doing any practice, I suggest that you read the Tripitaka as much as possible. How do you expect to travel to a place so hard to find without a map?

What do you mean by imperfection? If by imperfection, you mean that it will cause negative Kamma then I don't think that unintentional killing of insects can cause an imperfection because it won't constitute any Kamma...Lord himself clarifies this in the story of Ven. Cakkhupala given in the 1st verse of Dhammapada
http://www.buddhistvihara.com/newsletters/2002-spring/kamma_of_cakkhupala_thera.htm

@TheDarkKnightRules Ven. Cakkhupala was an Arahant at the time the insects were killed. An Arahant has some immunity to karma since he cannot seek rebirth. Most people today (especially the OP who asked the question) are not Arahant. He still has to be careful of what karma he takes. Imagine if Person A killed someone in a car accident, will he be responsible for the death? It was not intentional, he still has to face punishment. Same goes with any living being, even if it is just an insect.

No.
To even ask a question such as "can you do ____ without meditation" speaks of a weakness, namely that of being able to sit and focus the mind. A weakness I see in our generation of ADD and media-crazed, electronic-obsessed children and adults.
Stream entry, means cutting off afflictions which means jhana attainment which means A LOT of meditation had to be done, whether it was sitting cross-legged or reclined.
There is no stream-entry without jhana attainment.
There is no jhana attainment without a tremendous amount of efforts at following the Noble Truths and stilling the mind and reaching effortless stilling of the mind.
The Buddhists that are not meditating are NOT seeking to be enlightened in this lifetime. There are plenty of Buddhists that think that by chanting a mantra they will be able to gain entry into a Buddhist heaven. They are not aware that to be equipped to endure the death process, jhana is required.
It's really up to the individual but I wouldn't consider someone a true Buddhist unless they meditate for countless reasons, one being that most of what the Buddha taught during his entire career regarded attaining the jhanas through many different methods including contemplations and loving-kindness meditations and literally hundreds more.
Meditation is an absolute necessity of the Path.
The methods though are many. Don't make meditation seem like so much work!
Remember: the purpose of meditation, jhana, is actually an extremely pleasurable, clear-minded state, which if you achieve it, will get rid of your defilements because you discover this perfect mental-physical state and it will allow you to feel truly pure and empty of egoic creations and thus highly energetic and be able to multi-task and become extremely, highly functional in the world!
Meditation is not a chore or a dysfunction. It is a pathway to becoming a happier, satisfied, powered-up version of yourself. Minus the ego though (you won't feel like showing off or being hurtful to others).
Anybody that doesn't meditate is not taking the path of self-transformation and self-mastery of their karma, mind, and life.
Anybody that has achieved stream-entry without lots of sitting meditation, has only done so because they have tremendous achievement from past lives and thus that weight of good karma carried over to this present life and enabled them to achieve stream-entry with ease (because they are already familiar with the jhana state and entered it easily).
These are all things the Buddha said.
If you like loving-kindness meditation... then learn to do it really well!
There are stories in the sutta of bodhisattvas who attained jhana, stream-entry and even higher stages through such a method alone!
In fact, the beings in the 1st dhyana-jhana heaven are filled with unconditional boundless love.
Through loving-kindness meditation you can attain jhana. There are plenty of guides on the internet particularly on BuddhaNet.
I reccommend doing one practice you like (you have karmic affinity with it from past lives) and also a method you hate and struggle with (it represents a part of the Path that you have travailed over for countless lifetimes).

i downvoted because the tone of this question seemed bullish almost to the point of hostility. sorry no harm donw :)

You are too sensitive. Think of my "hostility" as the stern beration of a wise old monk not to shy away from cross-legged practice!

I think there are many good points in this answer. Mainly though, seekers need a Guru, or some type of wiser person to guide them. That guide can help determine what and how much of it to practice.

There is ample evidence in the Pali canon that one can reap some of the fruits of the path without meditation.  It doesn't make all that much sense to go into this topic myself as it is ably and amply covered by Bhikkhu Bodhi, for example in The Jhānas and the Lay Disciple According to the Pāli Suttas:

I would propose that while disciples prior to stream-entry may or may not possess the formless attainments, skill in this area does not determine a distinct type because powerful concentration is not a governing factor in the attainment of stream-entry. The way to stream-entry certainly requires a degree of concentration sufficient for the "eye of the Dhamma" to arise, but the actual movement from the stage of a worldling to that of a path-attainer is driven by either strong conviction or a probing spirit of inquiry, which respectively determine whether the aspirant is to become a faith-follower or a Dhamma-follower. Once, however, the path has been gained, then one's degree of accomplishment in concentration determines one's future mode of progress. If one gains the formless attainments one takes the route of the body-witness, culminating in release as a both-ways-liberated arahant. If one does not attain them, one takes the route of the view-attainer or faith-liberated trainee, culminating in release as a wisdom-liberated arahant.

One eye-opening concept for me was that of the saddhānusārī or faith-follower who, according to the suttas, is capable (if not inevitably destined) for stream entry in this very life (SN 25).

Nowaday, not like Buddha time, one must do need proper meditation to achieve stream entry level. But it is not so difficult as some may think. What one needs is to search for proper meditation master. The very will to achieve this level is the first step. But there is no short cut but with proper guidance and relentless effort, in seven days to seven years one can attain enlightenment.

here is  a book about sotapanna with citations
http://watnapahpong.com/static_media/Sotapanna_Handbook_English_version_30.pdf
Free download so no breaking of second precept :-)

If the book which you linked answers the question, then what is the answer (or where in the book is the answer)? If you post a link please include a summary or a relevant quote from what you linked.

Nondual Direct Pointing Out such as given in Dzogchen or Zen can result in realizing no-self without meditation, for those who's beings are ready.

Brother,
The stages of enlightenment are dependant on cultivation.
Attachments to circumstances of the generation are a means of describing or assessing the level of enlightenment attainment, So to answer your question brother, achieving stream entry can be done, however that is all dependent on the path taken to attain the Dharma of the individual in question and the 'definition' of meditation.
Meditations are techniques or arts of cultivation. Cultivating the mind, heart and body are all important for a balanced or wholesome foundation. The more wholesome foundation will attune more to reaching the next level of enlightenment than an imbalanced one.
Body meditations are conditioning the limitations of the physical self (exercising the centre of gravity, centre of breathing, and the centre of action).
Heart meditations condition limitations on the emotional self (exercising the centres of Discipline - integrity, tenacity, and detachment; Expression - countenance, amplitude, and articulation; and Connection - empathy, perception, and restraint)
Mind meditations condition the cognitive self (exercising critical thinking, philosophical logic and functional analysis).
Cultivation is refining the arts of learning to reach Dharma for the individual. Focusing on the Dharma of the self will bring forth opportunities of coming across more relevant meditations to attain the Dharma. The relevant meditations nurture the Dharma of the self to Attain enlightenment.
Cultivate in harmony

Meditation is a tool — one might argue its the best tool for the job, but that would take a long discussion of what 'the job' is, which would be a serious digression — and anything you can do with a tool, you can do without a tool. It's just more difficult.
The reason people have trouble meditating is that as they sit, they keep thinking: "Gah, there's got to be something more interesting and useful to do than this." The mind always wants to drag us away from meditation, because the mind always wants to be doing something, because the mind is nothing more than a tool that gets stuff done. If we constantly had a hammer in our hand we would constantly be looking for something to hit with it; when we constantly have our mind engaged we are constantly looking for something to do. Meditation is a tool we use to put that other tool down.
There are all sorts of tricks one can use — one of my favorites is listening to the space between words, where nothing is happening — but putting down the mind is the key.

Based on the quoted talk below, meditation is required for most people, because attainment of stream entry is not possible without the overcoming of the five hindrances, which is done through the attainment of the first jhana.
However, Ven. Dhammavuddho is of the opinion, that very intelligent people, can fully understand the Dhamma and attain stream entry, without jhana or meditation. This is because they already possess the ability to focus their minds. The canonical support for this opinion can be found in this answer.
In the YouTube video entitled "Characteristics of a Sotapanna", Ven. Dhammavuddho Mahathera stated (with some paraphrasing):

Now we look at another Sutta - SN 55.5. ... It is mentioned that there
are four factors or conditions for stream entry - sotapattiyangani.
First, association with true men - sappurisa. Second, hearing the true
Dhamma (Saddhamma). Third, focused attention or proper attention
(yoniso manasikara). And fourth, practice of the Dhamma in
accordance with the Dhamma - Dhammanudhammapatipatti.
The first one is association with true men. The word sappurisa also
means ariyans - those who understand the true Dhamma. Because they
understand the true Dhamma, you can hear the true Dhamma from them.
The second condition - What is the true Dhamma? ... if it agrees with
the Buddha's words in the Suttas, then it is the true Dhamma. ....
The third condition, this word - yoniso manasikara, which I
translate as focused attention. Sometimes they say careful attention.
This word means that when you listen to the Dhamma, you are focused on
listening to the Dhamma. In other words, at that time, you don't have
the five hindrances. If that is so, then you can understand the Dhamma
and attain stream entry.
So who are the people who do not have the five hindrances? In the
suttas, it is stated by the Buddha that as long as a person has not
attained piti (rapture) and sukha (joy)
which are secluded from unwholesome
states, which are secluded from sensual pleasures, the five hindrances
will obsess him and obsess him habitually.
So, there are two types of persons who do not have the five
hindrances. The first is the one who has attained the first jhana
(i.e. he who has attained piti and sukha). When a person has
attained the first jhana, he has eliminated the five hindrances and
the Buddha says that the five hindrances no longer obsess that person
habitually.
So there are two conditions if a person has the hindrances. Firstly,
it obsesses your mind, it enslaves your mind. Secondly, it is
habitual, it is very often there. ... When a person attains the first
jhana, these hindrances reduce to a very low level. ...
The other type of person who does not have the five hindrances
habitually obsessing his mind is an intelligent person - the person
with a high IQ. Normally, a person born with a high IQ, he has good
concentration and that was obtained from previous lives.  ...
These are the two types of persons. One, because of previous lives,
he's born very intelligent - he can focus his mind. The second person
is one who has attained the jhanas.
The fourth condition - practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the
Dhamma. So he keeps practising the Dhamma and he will attain stream
entry. Now this fourth condition may not be necessary for some people.
We find in the suttas - many people when they listen to the Buddha,
speaking the Dhamma, even for the first time, they attain stream
entry. The Buddha confirms this. But some people after they have
listened, it doesn't click immediately. They go back and they think
about it and then it clicks. And then they understand the Dhamma and
attain stream entry.
So this practice of the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma is after
he has listened, he starts to recall the Dhamma or investigate more of
the Dhamma. And then after some time, then the pieces fall into place
like a jigsaw puzzle. And then he sees the Dhamma.


text:
Exact meaning of satisampajanna
What is the exact meaning (definition) of satisampajanna? How can we develop and penetrate it in our practice?

The VRI definition (Source: The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna)

The Buddha, out of his personal experience, found that suffering arises because of the mental habit of craving (tanhatanha). This in itself was not a new discovery, but what was unique to his teaching was that he found a practical way out of suffering. By exploring the depths of his mind, he realized that between external objects and the mental reflex of craving, is a missing link-vedana-the feeling of body sensations.
Whenever we encounter an object through the five physical senses or the mind, a sensation arises, and based on the sensation, craving arises. If the sensation is pleasant we crave to prolong it; if it is unpleasant we crave to get rid of it. Therefore, the immediate cause for the arising of craving and of suffering is not something outside, but rather the sensations that occur within us. To free ourselves, we must deal with this inner reality.
Vedana is the meeting ground, the crossroads where mind and body interact, and where our true nature is revealed in a vivid, tangible way. This is wisdom; the thorough understanding that all sensations, all that one calls 'I', all that one is attached to, are arising to pass away. By objectively observing this process, we develop equanimity towards change. We no longer crave for pleasant sensations nor have aversion to unpleasant ones.
The Buddha called this wisdom sampajanna-the constant thorough understanding of impermanence. By Vipassana one learns to develop the continuity of this understanding. The practice results in a calm, balanced mind in the midst of all the ups and downs of life, and leads to liberation from attachment, craving and suffering. This path is a true art of living that enables one to live a wholesome, creative life. And due to its non-sectarian nature, people from all communities, religions, castes and countries are able to derive great benefit from its application.


text:
How do you handle loud, meaningful family noises while trying to focus?
THe most successful cultivators and Buddhists cultivated in the forest or mountains where there are few people. In our day and age, this is less easy due to polluted rivers, overharvesting of resources, financial necessity, etc. and we all live in noisy metropolises.

"Go to a quiet place without people, sit cross-legged, with
  correct body and correct attention, without any other thoughts, and
  fix the attention on the nose:.."

For a beginner, this is not ideal, although advanced meditators who are enjoying the fruit of their efforts are fully absorbed with their meditation object, not hearing any noise.
How do you handle loud, meaningful and ultimately alarming family noises while trying to focus on meditation object?
What are trains of thoughts that lead you to the state where you do not even understand what they are saying because you are so absorbed in your object?
I experience this frequently, where I don't hear or feel anything and I am singularly focused on my object and this oftentimes happens when I do any type of noting (vipassana) practice. Any tricks, contemplations, ideas any experienced cultivators can give me?
loud = clearly audible through a door, 10 times louder than the sound of your own breathing (which I like to use as a concentration object)
meaningful = language and emotion, which we as social mammals are instinctively wired to respond to when hearing off-handedly, particularly our mirror neurons
Basically I have an annoying, unhealthy family who watches TV with all their free time and never cultivates or does anything despite the many instructions, books given to them. I feel that they often do this to spite me due to my choice to ignore them.
Please give solutions other than blocking out the noise through noise-cancellation, earplugs, or binaural beats (all of which are excellent suggestions) which I have success with and will continue to use but I do not like unnecessary pressure on my ears.

Understand what happens. Sound comes in contact with the ear which re recognise as such and such or voice of so and so. This creates a reaction which creates sensations to which you react with craving or aversion. In the above case you are reacting with aversion. When sound in the dominant input focus on the ear area for sensations. If the sound is very loud it might hurt the ear also but even in other cases when you practice you get some sensation. This has a mental reaction and thought proliferation. This gives arise to sensations in the head area. This should be your secondary focus. If you look closely you will see this creates vibration and sensation all over the body. This should be your tertiary focus. When you start you will not be able to even sense anything around the ear unless very intense but as you go on you will be able to see the vibration through out the body. This comes with practice.
What ever sensation you should not react to it.
Each time your mind gets distracted by the sound or any other sense input do the following:

Recognise the object of attention to which the mind has wandered away and note it without verbalisation or imagination (i.e., without creating mental fabrications): Sense input or mental chartering, etc.
There is a sensation tided to this object being in focus: it can be intellectual stimulation if it is an thought, some other sensation if the body, etc.
Analysing, mental reaction and through proliferation may have created sensations around your head and rest of the body. So note these sensations.
Bring back your mind to your chosen object of attention. This can be extended even when doing normal tasks.
Each stage try to calm the fabrications. Lesser fabrications more concentrated you get.

Good for vipassana but not samatha?

Good for both actually if you your goal in Samantha is gaining concentration.

Wow, great response. From my experience this works even better with vipassana practice but I can now see how calming fabrications would help any meditation practice.
Also I think I'm just more sensitive lately since I got a fever and chills a few days ago.

This happens to me all the time...My mom has the habit of inviting over my aunty to the house and with her come her children and grandchildren and there goes a round of joy and laughter all day long...Suminda has given a very nice advice of being mindful of the sound and not reacting...This is the best but a long haul solution to the problem...I am trying it and it is giving results.
For the short term, I would advise you to check their schedule...Now they must be sleeping at some point of time...This is you Golden Chance...Squeeze out 1 hour from that duration and carry on your practice.
Also since they have disapproved of your practice, I would advise that save your practice from undue negative attention of theirs and let your behaviour speak for you practice.
Also you could try Walking Meditation.

Might I suggest practicing metta. When you feel annoyed towards your family, start cultivating the reverse, by thinking: "May my family be happy and well". It will start small, but with repetition it will build up just like the skills learned in vipassana practice.
Of course this won't change your family's behaviour, but it's excellent medicine for you. After all, who wants to be annoyed? Those who haven't considered the 2nd noble truth, that's who ;-)
Maybe another note would be to make your practice unnoticeable to your family. Not that there is anything wrong with them observing you as you practice, but I have sabotaged myself many times while considering how others would regard my practice.

I'm closed and locked up in my room so they cannot observe me. It is quite comfortable in my room, I have a air filter to filter out cooking smells, etc. I'm practically in heaven, except the noise.
Metta is important but my annoyance is not that strong. As mentioned in Suminda's answer, its important to avoid content analysis and fabrication, it ultimate solves the problem by disabling the interpretive process itself and I don't even notice the sound.
I've been doing it more recently and it's amazing how many thoughts happen from a simple sensation.

My mum's father was a writer (a playwright and novelist) who worked (wrote) at home. Her mother wouldn't let the children play outside his office/study door because their noise would distract him. Later in life, he (my grandfather) clarified that he didn't mind his children playing outside his door: what he found too distracting was if they were fighting or crying outside his door.
I interpret that is meaning that he was OK to let his children live their lives (even noisily) while he worked, provided that they didn't need him (to intervene in their fighting with each other).
In other words, some family noises might be loud and meaningful without being necessarily alarming.
Reaction to noise (dislike, anger) is more unpleasant than the noise itself. I admit that I found constant loud radio problematic in the past.
Your paragraph "Basically I have an annoying, unhealthy ... my choice to ignore them" seems to me like it might be an unhealthy relationship. I suppose I should recommend you talk with a family/relationship counsellor about that. There's nothing on the "Buddhism meta" site about this, but I'd suggest that this site should adopt the same policy as the Christianity site: Pastoral Advice Questions

How do you handle loud, meaningful family noises while trying to focus?

My family are accustomed to giving each other quiet space/time in which to work (or to read, or meditate, etc.), so that's not a problem for me.

Please give solutions other than etc.

One solution would be to (try to) improve your family dynamic. A family/relationship counsellor (or a wise family member or friend) might be able to help with that.
Other solutions (some of which may depend on having a cooperative family dynamic):

Have scheduled (not constant) time for noise and time for quiet
Turn the TV volume down even if you don't turn it off
Get them to wear the headphone if they're making noise
Close the door, sound-proof the room you're in
Use some white noise generator in your room (e.g. the sound of rain)
Practice elsewhere (in a safe public area)

Thank you for your kind consideration. A family counseler is not necessary, the issue is not that big, I simply don't like who they are and I know I will not benefit from their ignorant preoccupations and distractions.
I want to focus on my career and my cultivation and finding my community rather than changing people. It's taken me a while to learn this about my life.
Anywa, white noise is really great! I totally forgot about it especially all the isochronic youtube videos! Thanks for the reminder.


text:
Is it okay to leave your suffering family behind when you have an instinct to attain Nirvana?
I see my society cherishing and nourishing their respected beloved ones and living at their best. I've tried to do that but I have many unanswered questions. How can I help myself to attain Nirvana when I have doubts about leaving my suffering family behind?

This is something you have to decide. There are many angles to consider. Some that I through of are:

What happens to your family when you leave. This can later become a worry that can come back and hold you back in your practice.
Sometimes some level of unsatisfactory is conducive to practice as you are always tested in daily life which might not be the case when in long time meditation as a recluse.
Leaving does remove some responsibility which makes time for serious practice.

There are sufferings that parents cannot help.  I dont remember from what sutta but it goes something like , parents cannot help a child to be free from sufferings that caused by illness, aging, and death. If your family wants to be free from these universal sufferings, they have to practice dhamma.  No other ways around it. Anyone or any being that has name and form (Nama-rupa) experieces sufferings, period. Suffering ends when nama-rupa ends.  (those who achieve enlightenment still experience physical pain while they still have the body) nothing you can do to eliminate those sufferings for them. Best you can do is tell them Dhamma taught by Buddha.

and a universal thoughts of parents when a child is suffering "i wished i could take the pain of (aging, illness, death) from my child"

you dont need to leave your family to practice buddhism.  Tons of lay people in pali cannon that achieved dharma (from sotapanna to arahat) in buddha's time who were lay people.  from the 4th of 8 fold path "correct lively hood".  to live correctly, as husband to cherish wife, provide for children, etc.. basically you live such a way that wont bring you troubles is practicing dharma.

Don't be so attached to others.
Even if they are suffering through self-inflicted drama, your family's suffering is theirs, not your own.
Gradually speak less and less and become ready to leave.
They will never be able to answer your questions. You will never be able to answer their questions.
May each person go to the best place where they will to find their answers!


text:
is language a barrier?
If I am an illitrate of all (this worldly languages) and I am aware of all the unanswered doubts, then how come i'll explain you 'what I have asked or answered ? There are so many bars in putting questions or placing answers people. Ahh.. Nt easy admin.

Language or the word, is a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience. Language is linear and fixed.Experiences are fluid. It is not like taking a photograph or making a duplicate.When one uses language or words to describe an experience what happens is the experience itself is transformed. Language is a way to solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify  experiences which are  impermanent.First we think then we churn our thoughts using words then before we know it we've built a solid wall of concepts around us imprisoning ourselves from the world of sensing or experiencing or just being.This is why its said that Language shows and hides their meaning at the same time.So like everything else in life language should be used skillfully and not as a substitute for reality.

I think I remember a story told of the Dalai Lama walking through a crowd, and meeting someone in the crowd who had some mentally illness. According to the story, the Dalai Lama took that man's hand in his own and held it for a while, and the man (who had been unhappy) relaxed.
The story was told as an example of His Holiness's compassion (and communication).

I suppose there are several different types of language barrier:

Doesn't understand written language ("illiterate")
Doesn't understand spoken language ("deaf")
Understands one natural language but not another (e.g. understands english but not chinese)
Doesn't understand technical vocabuary (for example Pali words such as dukkha)
Sensory barriers (e.g. different people are in different rooms)
Learning disability (e.g. someone didn't learn to communicate when they are an infant child, etc.)
Mental barriers (e.g. someone is drunk, drugged, mentally ill, etc.)

Language is a "system of communication". It might be like "a bridge over a river" or "two people holding hands". There might be a limit to what or how much can be communicated, but language can be as much "bridge" as it is "barrier".
On the other hand, the part of one's mind which communicates using language can (I guess) be mistaken as the 'self' or 'ego'. Language is a sensory (conditioned) phenomenon. Some meditative practices (e.g. "guarding senses" etc.) may be intended to reduce one's dependence on communication.

As for literacy in general-- you have to remember that the Buddha didn't write anything down. I'm not sure that he was literate. There weren't books, instead people did incredible feats of memorization.
Or did you mean you personally? So far this community is full of people who really want to help you people with their question. If you just keep throwing words at people, some will stick. Usually if it is an interesting question, people will edit your question to clean up the English.
In the old Pali texts, the speaker often uses many words with similar meanings in a row, as if they are trying to make sure that if you don't understand one word, you'll understand one of the next near synonyms.
If you keep throwing words at us, we will eventually get the point and in turn, we will keep throwing words at you until we reach an answer.
(This isn't true on all StackExchange sites, on some sites, like StackOverflow, questions get closed if they aren't coherent and reasonable.)

Language is a means of communication. When it comes to the Dhamma the role of language is the elaborate the techniques and provide guidance. The realisation should be at the experiential level.

I was looking through the answers for the most famous Buddhist story about an illiterate person... the 6th patriarch, Huineng. He was illiterate yet (he could not read or write) but due to great past merit and cultivation, when he heard a Buddhist sermon he Awakened. Afterwards he just worked in the monastery and the head, the 5th patriarch, did not know of his Awakening for a long time until he did a poetry contest to find the most Awakened student.

Huineng was born into the Lu family in 638 A.D. in Xinzhou
  (present-day Xinxing County) in Guangdong province. His father died
  when he was young and his family was poor. As a consequence, Huineng
  had no opportunity to learn to read or write and is said to have
  remained illiterate his entire life.
  from Wikipedia

I reccommend reading the full story from The Diamond Sutra Explained by Master Huai-Chin Nan.


text:
Resemblance between bhanga and jhana
Is there any resemblance between bhanga and the jhanas? If so, which is the accordance between both?

Both have Priti. In Banga you can see it through out your body where you can see complete dissolution. In Jhana dissolution aspect might not be that clear depending how you gain it.

Can you gain the dissolution aspect in Jhana from the 1st jhana?

Yes you can. You have to look at inconsistency of the Jhana factors.