text:
Past life regression techniques
Is there anyone knows and has experience in past life regression? How can I do to recall my past life memory? Thank you.

It's a side-effect for one who attains awakening, but not for all, householder Phiost. It's not thought by the teacher to make use of his path for just such, yet it is good to gain firm confidence in the Dhamma, remembering ones past.

As well as what had been done, what leaded one to this birth here. One is reminded by Devas, one by powerful monks, one by again hearing the Dhamma, one by own considering, to lead again the holly live.

Here a Sutta in regard of one who forgot, Nyom @phiost .

There are two methods for seeing past lives:

Through phenomena, and
Through time (or chronologically)

The 'through phenomena' method is not exactly a method. It is more of a chance thing, but it is also easier. In this case, a sight (or other sense-stimulation) occurs and one has a deja vu experience ("I've done this before"), but without the doubt. At this time bending down the mind (or focusing on, or concentrating on) the feeling and the phenomena, a previous occasion when this phenomena occured will come to mind. If pressed further details will appear.
Then you will have to fight your programming and half the other Buddhists in the world who tell you that there is no such thing as rebirth and that you are just imagining things. Would that I had a mind with such an imaginative power!
The chronological method is by way of a yonisomanisikaro=like tracing back of the events of this life from the present moment back to birth, back through one's time in the womb, the time of one's conception, to the previous life. This is rightly an aspect of your setting up of mind (satipatthana). It is also exactly similar to Casteneda's Don Juan's 'recapitulation' method where you start in the present moment, and review every detail to extract yourself from all attachments found there and then move back in time.
More or less unrestricted chronological viewing Past Lives is one of three 'visions' that are obtained by the Arahant, but anyone can experience awareness of past life events through phenomena.
In Buddhist studies you will find that viewing past lives is to be accomplished from the fourth jhāna. But this is just the optimal method.
The formula for the Buddhist seeing past lives can be found in multiple suttas worded similarly to:
He recollects a variety of former habitations,
that is to say
One birth,
two births,
three births,
four births,
five births,
ten births,
twenty births,
thirty births,
forty births,
fifty births,
a hundred births,
a thousand births,
a hundred thousand births,
and many an eon of integration
and many an eon of disintegration
and many an eon of integration-disintegration:
'Such a one was I by name,
having such and such a clan,
such and such a colour,
so I was nourished,
such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine,
so did the span of life end.
Passing from this,
I came to be in another state
where I was such a one by name,
having such and such a clan,
such and such a colour,
so I was nourished,
such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine,
so did the span of life end.
Passing from this,
I arose here.'
Thus he recollects divers former habitations
in all their modes and detail.
A helpful and cautionary Sutta which discusses the method for this and other powers is AN 9.35 (Hare's translation linked-to here:)
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/09_nines/an09.035.hare.pts.htm

Householder Phiost

DN 2: Samaññaphala Sutta — The Fruits of the Contemplative Life  King Ajatasattu asks the Buddha, "What are the fruits of the contemplative life, visible in the here and now?" The Buddha replies by painting a comprehensive portrait of the Buddhist path of training, illustrating each stage of the training with vivid similes.

describes well the way to the higher knowledge, right from the beginning, gained on the way to release.
The door to the deathless is open for those having not fallen into one of the 6 grave faults, and the Devas will go one to open access, for one on the journey toward the deathless.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment, but to escape the wheel, the yoke by putting on it.)

The wheel is illusive. What you think of "true" is not always true and what you think of "fake" is not always fake. When you go beyond that, you might see both true and fake, there is a difference. The "wheel" in Buddhism is the wheel of creating the illusive ego and falsely thinking "I am". Refer to this link: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.099.than.html

It's given how, in the Sutta, Householder @phiost.

Yes, indeed, as you said about yourself:  "I am lost". Kind regards

The Buddha taught conditioned things are impermanent. Due to impermanence, there can be no real lasting self. That is how the post was deleted. Impermanence & not-self. It was never "your post" to begin with. In Buddhism, all things are "anatta" ("not-self"). Regards

Be careful householder @phiost , it's not really dhammic ground here. As the sutta told, the Buddha.

Buddhism teaches ignorance makes a person unhappy. Ignorance creates "self-view". Assuming things to be "self" causes unhappiness. Kind regards.

Dhammadhatu's response should not have been downgraded. It is also a correct answer to the question. It does appear as though the intent was to carp rather than teach as concerns differentiating the use of 'lives' vs. 'abodes' (we are told in many places, e.g. SN I, 1.25,
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/01_sagv/sn01.01.021-030.rhyc.pts.htm#sn.1.1.25
that understanding the distinction, we may use conventional speech - how many here would understand the question if asked in terms of 'abodes'?), but the fact remains that the sutta cited is instructive. Without recognition that it is past identification with the khandhas that is being spoken of when one speaks of having recollected a past 'abode', the practice would be going in the direction of ego-building - 'proneness to notions of a self or soul'.

ajahn brahm has a few videos as QA on this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4BFX_qhhyk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGo0NbOROFY

In original Pali Buddhism, there is no such thing as "recollecting past lives". The Pali term wrongly translated as "past lives" is "pubbenivāsa", which literally means "past dwellings" or "past abodes".
Therefore, in original Buddhism, "recollecting past abodes" literally means recollecting in the past when the mind mistakenly or ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as "self".
In original Buddhism, the word "birth" ("jati") means to create the idea of a "self" or "a being", either internally or externally. When the Buddha recollected his myriad past abodes & births, he recollected each time in the past the wrong view of "self" arose in his formerly ignorant mind.
In conclusion, the Buddhist practise of "recollecting past abodes" is literally explained & described in the sutta SN 22.79 (as translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi). It literally means recollecting in the past when the mind mistakenly or ignorantly clung to one or more of the five aggregates as "self".


text:
What are the points against social engagement?
Last year, I applied for the Tier 1 (Exceptional Talent) Tech Visa in the UK. From the two criteria: "prove at least 2 innovations in tech" and "demonstrate how your engagement with the community helped advanced the sector", I picked the first one, because I don't spend much time socialising online, just doing my programming work. I did give link to my GitHub profile and showed my programming work. Still, the response that I got was negative and stated that "the applicant is expected to have the profile in the community" which I know is false, because it's not my criterion. This all happened because initially there were errors made by experts in their decision, and when I complained and applied for the review, the manager of the organisation that is supposed to provide fair reviews, hated me and wrote the review herself which is not based on any true facts. If you're interested, you can read the review yourself, but after each sentence please ask "why should I believe this, what are the objective facts that support statements". I'm a Senior Software Engineer, and I know that I didn't use frameworks in my work, instead I made dem frameworks myself. The manager just lied about me to the government because they're mental and there's no-one regulating this enterprise that issues reviews.
In any way, I will sue the company for breaking the GPDR since my choice of criteria is my personal data and it was not processed according to my consent and that's settled. However, I also want to prove that telling me that

"Although early in his career, an applicant who wants to be considered as Exceptional Promise is expected to have a profile outside of his immediate employer. This is feasible even with limited experience."

is limiting my opportunities on the religious grounds, such as that I'm a buddhist. This is in addition to the fact there was a clear choice between the two criteria, I picked the innovations, and was judged for the community profile because the manager without Computer Science education is not even in the position to evaluate my work (that's why there's no technical details in the review and the lies of my work not being innovative everywhere without any proof of that).
Sorry for the long preamble, I just want you to understand the background to my frustration when I'm a professional developer, spend 10+ hours a day coding my software, and at the moment not really keen on engaging with the community because I want to finish my software to the extend that I'm happy with it to be presented to the world and because I'm naturally OK by myself and also don't really like the state of what the "community" is doing, with anyone calling themselves developers after taking an online course, whereas I'm a Software Engineer with a master's degree. I'm not a stuck up person it's just annoying how I showed a distinction in masters, a senior software engineering position by 25 yo, and none of these things even matter for the visa? For non-tech sections, people have to have at least a PhD to apply for the same visa, but apparently for the tech one, you can get it just with the community profile "feasible even with limited experience"! The tech bubble is pretty annoying, you can read more. The best way to express my attitude is with a quote

But recall that Nietzsche is not attempting to defend values for everybody to adopt. He wants to free higher people from living by the standards (of equality, modesty, mediocrity) of the ‘herd’.

I think that Nietzsche is aligned with buddhism, and although he did attack it, it was only the part that is related to people becoming ascetics and thus denying their nature, which is exactly what Gautama Buddha was against iirc.
To tell me I have to have a profile in the community is like punishing a kid in the kindergarten for "not playing with other kids". We're adults and I'm building my business and I had shown how I contributed over 60 packages to Open Source, which were dismissed as "not track record". The woman is clearly insane and I know that because I met her and she talked to me in such patronising tone that I knew she thinks I'm upset about not getting the visa for my work not being good enough, rather than because the experts make mistakes and the organisation didn't even ensure that the recommendation they return is correct.
Back to the buddhism, this is the main theme I want to use:

SRAMANA, sramana. This is closely allied to the word shaman, and a
  shaman is the holy man in a culture that is still hunting, it isn’t
  settled, it isn’t agrarian. There is a very strong and important
  difference between a shaman and a priest. A priest receives his
  ordination from his superiors. He receives something from a tradition
  which is handed down.
A shaman doesn’t.  He receives his enlightenment by going off into the
  forest by himself to be completely alone. In other words, a shaman is
  a man who has undergone solitariness. He has gone away into the forest
  to find out who he really is, because it’s very difficult to find that
  out while you’re with other people, and the reason is that other
  people are busy all the time telling you who you are, in many many
  ways, by the laws they impose on you, by the behavior ruts they set on
  you, by the things they tell you, by the fact that they always call
  you by your name, and by the fact that when you live among people you
  have to be in a state of ceaseless chatter.
But if you want to find out who you are before your father and mother
  conceived you, who you really are, you almost have to go off by
  yourself. You go into the forest, and stop talking, and even stop
  thinking words, and be absolutely alone, and listen to the great
  silences.

"Thusness" by  Alan Watts
In buddhist lectures, I always hear about how society brainwashes you by giving you a name, setting the rules and standards that are there to ensure its (temporal) victory over time in trying to establish itself as permanent, but buddhists know that nothing is permanent. Therefore, I'm trying to extract the essence of the idea that a man, as an individual, does not owe society, he is free to live for himself and pursue his/her own goals. This is best reflected in Ayn Rand's philosophy,

“Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.

The Fountainhead
Zen is concerned with what actually is rather than what we think or feel about what is.
What things are, is that my code works, gives result and solves problems. What others think or feel about it is the community profile which I don't care about.
Can you please give me all possible quotes/parts of teaching that would prove that according to buddhism I don't owe society a community profile, I can work on my own and make significant contribution to the sector with just my development work (i.e., the criterion I chose for the visa), without having to prove anything to anyone with the profile.

“A leader is best
  When people barely know he exists
  Of a good leader, who talks little,
  When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,
  They will say, “We did this ourselves.”

Lao Tzu
I tried searching for "buddhism and society" topics, but all comes up vague. What I'm really looking for is anything that resembles Alan Watts's saying that a buddha is not the one who's been conditioned by the society and "community", but on contrary, the one who leaves it to find his/her own way. I know that working on my own on independent software is the way of dealing with suffering, therefore it's irrelevant if I have the profile or not. Gramercy.

I will sue the company ... I also want to prove that telling me that [...] is limiting my opportunities on the religious grounds, such as that I'm a buddhist. I guess that argument (i.e. "religious discrimination") won't be useful/effective -- that they're not denying your application because you're Buddhist, but instead because of what they assess of your (past and future) effect on the tech industry. And proving that you're a good Buddhist (i.e. in line with Buddhist ideals or role models) also wouldn't help with that particular visa application.

Not directly denying it - they demand I get engaged with community which is wrong according to the GDPR because it's not the criteria I chose. I want to get more evidence why it's wrong from the buddhist point of view. For example, if you read Castaneda, he often talks how when people get to know you, they start "making" you, affecting you directly on subliminal level. This is what Alan Watts says as well, that we come into this world alone, seek liberation on our own, and leave it on our own, not with imaginary community. I just want evidence that buddhist can choose to work in solitude.

If you're asking how to integrate Buddhist values with work, having a career, I might recommend this book: The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, In the World, by Bhikkhu Basnagoda Rahula.
It's an anthology of the advice which the suttas give to lay people -- organised into different topics and with commentary for a modern (American) audience. Several chapters of it are relevant to the social relationships you have at work.
The Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) is maybe the single most-detailed sutta for lay people. It describes how to tell the difference between good friends and bad friends, for example -- and warns to avoid bad friends -- but also recommends that you support good friends, family, employers, employees, teachers, and so on.
I'm tempted to add that even software development is a social activity -- that it matters what people think of you and vice versa, and how skilfully you choose and communicate with people. That wasn't the question you were asking here, but I don't think that my saying so would contradict any Buddhist doctrine.
I'm also tempted to give a meta-answer, like, "You seem to be disappointed with the result", and maybe advise about detaching from the outcome -- identify that as "craving" -- and point out that some of that unhappiness seems to be tied to "self-view", i.e. how you see yourself (e.g. "I'm Senior", and "I'm Buddhist", and "I have a master's degree and am better than the community") and so on. I don't think that's a line  of thinking which Buddhism recommends, which says instead to "still their hatred" and to "settle their quarrels" (Dhp 1). However that's not what you're asking either, and I should be trying to just answer the question instead of trying to offer advice.
I don't know that Visa in particular. My guess is that it (like similar visas in other countries) is meant to be a way to give visas to people who'll make a difference to the national tech industry. I guess they're looking for founders (entrepreneurs who found companies and hire people), and/or technical experts whose work might be exploited commercially -- maybe some patents or something. I guess that very few people qualify.
I suspect that your thoughts of suing them are futile, and that it would be better for you to plan another activity that's more likely to succeed and to be beneficial -- not that I'm a lawyer, but I am twice your age, and a software developer, so more experience and I have met lawyers and government bureaucracies in the past.
Re. spiritual development rather than software development, I think that there it's recommended that you have a good teacher -- i.e. the Buddha (as a good teacher) but a good contemporary teacher too if possible. There are different schools (or sects) of Buddhism and different ways of teaching, but it includes gradual training, explaining doctrine step-by-step, some emphasis on morality and generosity (which is, I think, at least partly social).
Even when you start to practice (as a monk) I think that's not just solitary. Monks belong to a sangha. There's seclusion (e.g. from evil and distractions) but also the Kalyāṇa-mittatā as a practice or ideal. I think you're supposed to be able to learn from senior practitioners ("if I practice as they do, then I too can ..."), and so on.
The most famous sutta on that subject is I'd guess the Upaddha Sutta (SN 45.2).
There are also suttas which appear to tell of a more solitary practice; for example:

Someone who hears the Dhamma from the Buddha, understands, and then goes away to practice -- there are several, one (maybe not the best example) is the Kuṭṭhi Sutta (Ud 5.3)
Some solitary practice is recommended for well-taught practitioners -- there's not a lot to be said about that, perhaps, but I think it's evident that people spend a lot of time in solitary contemplation -- something like this from MN 107 perhaps:

As soon, brahman, as he is possessed of mindfulness and clear consciousness, the Tathagata disciplines him further, saying:

'Come you, monk, choose a remote lodging in a forest, at the root of a tree, on a mountain slope, in a glen, a hill cave, a cemetery, a woodland grove, in the open, or on a heap of straw.'

On returning from alms-gathering after the meal, the monk sits down crosslegged, holding the back erect, having made mindfulness rise up in front of him. He, getting rid of covetousness for the world, dwells with a mind devoid of covetousness, he cleanses the mind of covetousness. Getting rid of the taint of ill-will, he dwells benevolent in mind; compassionate and merciful towards all creatures and beings, he cleanses the mind of ill-will. Getting rid of sloth and torpor, he dwells without sloth or torpor; perceiving the light, mindful and clearly conscious he cleanses the mind of sloth and torpor. Getting rid of restlessness and worry, he dwells calmly; the mind inward tranquil, he cleanses the mind of restlessness and worry. Getting rid of doubt, he dwells doubt-crossed; unperplexed as to the states that are skilled,[5] he cleanses his mind of doubt.

One of the more famous (but atypical) suttas about solitude is the "Rhinoceros" sutta (Sn 1.3).
I read that as saying, more especially, it's better to be a contemplative than a house-holder.
Wikipedia says ...

The Rhinoceros Sutra has long been identified, along with the Aṭṭhakavagga and Pārāyanavagga, as one of the earliest texts found in the Pāli Canon.[2] This identification has been reinforced by the discovery of a version in the Gandhāran Buddhist texts, the oldest Buddhist (and, indeed, Indian) manuscripts extant. There is also a Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit version of it in the Mahāvastu. The early date for the text along with its rather unusual (within community-oriented Buddhism) approach to monastic life have led some scholars to suggest that it represents a holdover from a very early stage of Buddhism.

... which IMO emphasises that "usual" Buddhism is "community-oriented".
I think it has echoes in Dhp 5, for example:

Long is the night to the sleepless; long is the league to the weary. Long is worldly existence to fools who know not the Sublime Truth.
Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the fool.

I read that though as saying that it's better not to be a fool, and that good fellowship is better.

I think that in practice people tend to live in mutual dependence on/with each other. And maybe the brahmaviharas are being right attitudes to have towards others in social situations.
There's a certain amount of independence taught as an ideal, e.g. if you had evil companions you should know better and act to become independent of them.
And at the right occasion or to the right audience, there's advice like "be your own refuge" and "be an island". But the more general advice is to do not only "what you know for yourself to be true" but also "what is praised by the wise".

well like you said, the fantasy of '' a man, as an individual, does not owe society, he is free to live for himself and pursue his/her own goals. '' is what humanists who invented the the classical or new liberalism obsessed over. Those people where fed up with the theist christians, ''not  spiritually'' (those people love the word spiritual) but as the day to day ruler, like the priests and nobles messing with the life of the bourgeois and the bourgeois were tired of that. All the usual philosophers like Descartes and Rousseau, Lock and all those people loved liberalism (whether classical or new, does not matter) and this idea of individuals.
And Today those people love to think that their idea of the in-dividual (individual means ''cannot be divided'', like an a-tom but for humans) and human rights as something to do with the dhamma.
Anyway, the thing about relying on yourself and the dhamma is that when a puthujjana stops being a puthujjana, the non-puthujjana has ''gained fearlessness & independence from others with regard to the Teacher's message''
A puthujjana has to rely on the ariya sangha and a few other things before  getting this knowledge, like here http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/07_sevens/an07.066.hare.pts.htm , because the non-puthujjanas will brainwash the puthujjanas. Even the asekhas [ arhats] will train the sekhas [non-puthujjanas who are not yet arhants].
THe fantasy of not being influenced by society and other people is really an obsession of those humanists. Especially the fantasy of doing ''what one wants'' because according to some liberals, freedom means exactly ''doing what one wants'', meaning not being the slave of somebody else. And gain this is not freedom at all according to the buddha, only according to some puthujjanas.

A third basic principle, from a Buddhist perspective, is that our social engagement is not about sacrificing our own happiness to help unfortunate others who are suffering. That just reinforces a self-defeating (because self-exhausting) dualism between us and them. Rather, we join together to improve the situation for all of us. An email I recently received included the remark of aboriginal woman that makes this point perfectly: «If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is tied up with mine, then let us work together.»

My wanting to do what I want is related to my liberation, and my compassion to the world. I create good software of high quality, and thus I seek to relieve the world’s dukkha. This is supported by my Open Source contributions. Other people might choose to do it via teaching programming, organising events etc, but that's not my path and I have the right for that

is limiting my opportunities on the religious grounds, such as that I'm a buddhist, was said, householder Anton.
By one's deeds, one becomes this or that, not by taking a stand.
Actually the Buddha did not give rights, nor did he encourage to claim such, since it is actually basic and unskillful, serving wrong view:

He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made impure in three ways by mental action.

As for actions based on wrong view, something like "wrong speech" easily arises: speech that seeks for harm, seeks for dividing people... seeks for revenge. In the actual case, may the householder consider that such as "mail-privacy" may even violate worldly laws. And what does he expect, if fighting against the hand which he seeks for getting his food and protection?
Why wishing to enter spheres where not welcome? Why wishing to conquer?
So looking for one's duties, serve more sublime and dwell in gratitude, knowing that one is heir to one's actions, is the wise and suggested track.
As for the question raised, what ever one likes to give, aside of one's duties, depending on certain society, involvement, what ever is based on proper means, meaning holding Silas above certain thoughts that it might be helpful, is always a good choice. At a point where one makes a society one's own, and desires for having control over it, at this stage the protection of Silas (i.e. ethical conduct) often fades and things get worse -- not only to lose one's society. To gain more and more freedom, one gives what can be given, does not leave any debt behind. More and expanded on the ways the Buddha suggested, for one's own and all others' welfare, may householder Anton find in the essays: Wisdom over Justice, and Justice vs. Skillfulness.
As householder Anton might have been fallen into hellish states, anger and pain, it's at this point good to remember the Buddha's teaching, that attracting one's leaders, authorities, Brahmans and contemplatives, leads to hell, and low realms, or being "voiceless", not respected and heard at all.
By the way, seeking refugee into the Gems is a refuge that serves long time happiness, which others could not provide.
It's good to receive what is given without strings in the worlds, better then seeking for taking what one wants, believing that such increases not mostly huge further debts in the wrong direction, and maybe householder like to follow such gifts of goodness, yet tending toward good or bad, foolish or wise, is still up to his own choice.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainments that binds one here, but as a means for release.)

I didn't understand "...the Buddha's teaching, that attracting one's leaders, authorities...". Did you mean to write, instead, "attacking one's leaders"? Which specific teaching were you thinking of, could you reference that? Thank you.

attacking, yes. On kamma, Nyom Chris.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What do Birth, Age, and Death mean in the first noble truth?
Below is from Ariyapariyesana Sutta

"Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search.
  And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being
  subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise
  subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness...
  death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is
  likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.
"And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves...
  goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares...
  gold & silver [2] are subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to
  them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being
  subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging...
  illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.
"And what is the noble search? There is the case where a person,
  himself being subject to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, seeks
  the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Himself being
  subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, seeing
  the drawbacks of aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement,
  seeks the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, undefiled,
  unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. This is the noble search.

When this is closely read, it seems the word Birth which is relevant to  Buddha's noble search (and this comes in the first Noble Truth of Dukkha as well)  is not about birth from a mother -- because if it is, then how come the gold & silver are there?
Although this footnote 2 says ...

The Burmese, Sri Lankan, and PTS editions of the Canon exclude gold and silver from the list of objects subject to illness, death, and sorrow, apparently on the grounds that they themselves do not grow ill, die, or feel sorrow.

... however it's not excluded in Sri Lankan editions of the Canon, no it is not. And who can do such a change? Only Buddha or Arhat only can understand this totally, isn't it?
And in the last paragraph, it's very clear that noble search is concluded to unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding. Is it unbinding from birth? Yes (because that's told). But birth of what? it's not the someone's birth is it? It should be birth of Yoke.
And this yoke is generated on the mentioned objects (Spouses & children... men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver) thinking they are worth or nice.
Then what we should think: Birth is dukkha, or Yoke is dukkha? Because birth, ageing or death can be a pleasurable things for some people, while some other people suffer (Dukkha) on that (e.g. death of a terrorist is not a suffer, birth of a baby is not a suffer to his parents, ageing is not a suffer to 17 years old boy...)
What do you think, am I mistaken on this? If so please explain why the gold & silver is there? And why Birth, Age, Death are treated as Dukkha?

Here, "X is subject to birth, aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement" - means that X has beginning and end, that X changes with time and slowly falls apart, that X depends on external conditions to be just right for its existence, - and that therefore X is not 100% reliable, so you can't use X as foundation for building 100% stable peace and happiness. That X is never really what it looks like, so if you build your happiness on top of X, it will betray and disappoint you. Even if association with X may seem like bringing happiness on the short term, on the long term it will definitely bring eventual suffering. That's what this means.
Gold and silver are there as examples of worldly pursuits and worldly possessions. No matter how much you have, you can't buy happiness, can't buy health, and can't buy eternal life. At their best they can only bring intermittent short-term happiness mixed with troubles and pain, ending in eventual destruction.
So Birth here is coming together of any form (samskara) - and Aging-and-Death is its falling apart. Bhava is the continuity and cohesiveness we imagine in between the two.
Births and Deaths are not dukkha if there is no attachment: craving, grasping, denying - either "for" or "against". Attachment, in turn, comes from getting stuck on a certain mental context. If you stop getting stuck you can learn to be free. This is what they call Unbinding.
Not being stuck means things are just such, regardless of births and deaths. Being wrong against some definition of right is the nature of dukkha. Being just such is the nature of peace.

It seems according to your answer, Gold can't fit in X. So it's contradictory. And what you written here is straight forward any elderly man can understand this nature of the world. Buddha is not appearing in the world to Say this, it has more deeper meaning, which you've tried to explain in the latter part. But the problem is you haven't mentioned what's the reason fo binding. When something is giving happiness why we are asked to unbind from it. Eg: eating a chocolate. Now chocolate's Birth and Death that you are worrying about?

"when something is giving happiness" - this is crazy talk. Chocolate doesn't give happiness. Happiness comes from the mind. To think that happiness comes from chocolate etc. is ignorance and binding. Then you suffer either due to your unsatisfied craving for chocolate, gold, wife, family etc. (=birth) or due to your worry about running out of chocolate, gold, time etc (=death). This is "subject to birth and death". When we focus on mind, we can see that unconditional peace of mind is the purest happiness and it is not "subject to birth and death" -it's limitless, it doesn't depend on anything.

So simply according to this, making a chocolate (=birth) is a suffer, isn't it?

If there is attachment to the beans, which are crushed in order to make chocolate - then yes, in that case the birth of chocolate is dukkha :)

This is the surface meaning. And how come the chocolate is born? and how chocolate is dukkha? Read below sutta.
http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than_en.html

Enough. If you want to learn, ask more questions. If you want to teach, answer others' questions. Comments are not to be abused.

Sorry I didn't mean to abuse. Let's stop here. And thanks for the advise. With Metta.

I think that Ven. Sariputta defines birth, ageing, and death -- as an analysis of the first noble truth -- in MN 141

Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful.[2] In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.
"And what is aging? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging.
"And what is death? Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.
"And what is sorrow? Whatever sorrow, sorrowing, sadness, inward sorrow, inward sadness of anyone suffering from misfortune, touched by a painful thing, that is called sorrow.

There are other translations.

Piya Tan's

(1) And what, avuso, is birth?
  Being born, becoming, descending [into a womb], [arising,]25 generating, manifesting of the
  aggregates, obtaining the sense-bases of various beings, in various groups of beings, here and there.
  —This, avuso, is called birth.26
(2) And what, avuso, is decay?
  27
  Ageing, decaying, broken teeth, grey hair, wrinkled skin, the dwindling away of one’s years, the
  weakness of the sense-faculties, in various beings, in various groups of beings, here and there.28
  —This, avuso, is called decay.
(3) And what, avuso, is death?
  Falling away, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, death, dying, one’s time being up29
  [completion of one’s time], breaking up of the aggregates, discarding of the body, [uprooting of the
  life-faculty,]30 in various beings, in various groups of beings, here and there.31
  —This, avuso, is called death.
(4a) And what, avuso, is sorrow?
  One’s being touched [affected] by one thing or other of a painful nature, by any kind of misfortune, sorrow, grief, distress, inner grief, inner woe, here and there.
  32 [D 2:306]
  —This, avuso, is called sorrow.

Ven. Sujato's

And what is the noble truth of suffering? Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress are suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
And what is rebirth? The rebirth, inception, conception, reincarnation, manifestation of the aggregates, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings. This is called rebirth.
And what is old age? The old age, decrepitude, broken teeth, grey hair, wrinkly skin, diminished vitality, and failing faculties of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings. This is called old age.
And what is death? The passing away, perishing, disintegration, demise, mortality, death, decease, breaking up of the aggregates, laying to rest of the corpse, and cutting off of the life faculty of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings. This is called death.
And what is sorrow? The sorrow, sorrowing, state of sorrow, inner sorrow, inner deep sorrow in someone who has undergone misfortune, who has experienced suffering. This is called sorrow.

As for "gold" being subject to birth, I assume that means that the existence of "gold" in an aggregate (e.g. as a sense-object etc.) depends on birth.
The bit you quotes says (with my emphasis added):

And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to birth.

I take that as saying that gold is an "acquisition" (and/or is the object of an ignoble search) -- and that "acquisitions" are subject to birth and death.
That interpretation more-or-less fits with the footnote 2 which you quoted, which says,

The Thai edition of the Canon includes gold and silver in the list of objects subject to illness, death, and sorrow in the sense that any happiness based on them is subject to change because of one's own illness, death, and sorrow.

There's another sutta, SN 12.67, in which Ven. Sariputta clarifies that "birth" etc. isn't a characteristic that's inherent in a thing -- that birth is a result of clinging and becoming.

I think that people also say that (notwithstanding Ven. Sariputta's seemingly-physical definition) "birth" is used to describe the arising of self-views -- for example, "I am the owner of this gold" is a self-view, the arising of that view might be considered a "birth" (and is subject to illness and death and so on).
It might be helpful to remember that the world according to Buddhism is maybe more subjective than today's view -- it's the world of experience -- in which gold may not have an independent existence of its own, but exists as an (impermanent) experience.

Incidentally, in this version of the sutta, gold and money are listed as being subject to corruption -- but not as being subject to "birth... aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement".
My guess is that's because of the way in which suttas are memorised and recited -- perhaps they ...

List a lot of things subject to birth
List again the same lot of things subject to aging
List again the same lot of things subject to illness
Etc.

... without noticing that automatic repetition may not entirely make sense, is perhaps less readily understood, for one of the things in the list.

This question may be related to your answer & Sujato quotations: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/26516/does-abhinibbatti-mean-reincarnation-in-the-pali-suttas

The answer to the question is self-evident in the sutta quoted, as follows:

these acquisitions (upadhi) and one who is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen
  for them, being subject to birth

The word "upadhi" ("acquisitions") is substituted for the words "attachment", "becoming" & "birth ("jati") in SN 12.66. Therefore, "birth" occurs when there is the "acquisition" or imputation of "ownership" over something, such as believing "This is my gold & silver; the gold & silver is mine".

Here, bhikkhus, when engaged in inward exploration, a bhikkhu explores thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the
  world headed by aging-and-death: what is the source of this suffering,
  what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When what
  exists does aging-and-death come to be? When what does not exist does
  aging-and-death not come to be?’
As he explores he understands thus: ‘The many diverse kinds of suffering that arise in the world headed by aging-and-death: this
  suffering has acquisition (upadhi) as its source, acquisition as its origin; it
  is born and produced from acquisition. When there is acquisition,
  aging-and-death comes to be; when there is no acquisition,
  aging-and-death does not come to be.’
SN 12.66

The words "jati" ("birth"), "aging" and "death" ("marana") are defined in SN 12.2. If reading SN 12.2 with diligence & respect (rather than with heedlessness, stupidity & lust for reincarnation), it will be found SN 12.2 refers to the birth, aging & death of "a being" ("satta") or "beings" ("sattānaṃ") in the various "group classifications of beings" ("sattanikāye").
SN 23.2 and SN 5.10 define "a being" ("satta") as merely "strong clinging" or "a view", "word" or "convention".
'
In other words, "birth", "aging" and "death" do not refer to something physical but to the production of (abhinibbatti) & attachment to "self-views" about the physical.
In summary, the 1st noble truth summaries (saṃkhittena) all suffering as "attachment", as follows:

saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā
in brief, the five aggregates subject to attachment/taken as one's own are suffering

Since gold & silver are both an aggregate & something attached to & taken as one's own, gold & silver are subject to "birth", "aging" & "death".
Therefore, Birth, Age and Death in the first noble truth mean the idea of "my birth", "my aging" & "my death". "Birth", "aging" & "death" are types of "attachment" ("upadana"). They do not refer to "physical birth, aging & death" but to views or ideas of "persons", "selves" or "beings" being born, aging & dying.
For example, if you see a corpse of a stranger, you do not suffer. But if you see the corpse of your mother or another loved one, you suffer. You suffer because you impute a selfhood born of love, craving & attachment upon that corpse. When your mother dies, instead of thinking: "Five aggregates have died", you think: "My mother has died". What is born, ages & dies is the idea or thought construction of "my mother".

Householder, being a spoiled prince, relaying on old merits, one has to leave ones castle, home, stand to get known the 1. Noble Truth.

The Lost Wallet
It's as if you leave home and lose your wallet. It fell out of your pocket onto the road away back there, but as long as you don't realize what happened you're at ease — at ease because you don't yet know what this ease is for. It's for the sake of dis-ease at a later time. When you eventually see that you've really lost your money: That's when you feel dis-ease — when it's right in your face.
The same holds true with our bad and good actions. The Buddha taught us to acquaint ourselves with these things. If we aren't acquainted with these things, we'll have no sense of right or wrong, good or bad.

Meeting the Divine Messengers, by Bhikkhu Bodhi (1998; 3pp./10KB)
  It was the sight of the four "divine messengers" — an old man, a sick man, a corpse, and a wandering ascetic — that propelled the young Bodhisatta from his complacent and luxurious princely life into the homeless life of a serious seeker of spiritual freedom. Then as now, these messengers appear all around us, not merely to incite us to discover how to cope with life's difficulties and dangers, but to inspire us to transcend them once and for all.

The King of Death
"We" live like a chicken who doesn't know what's going on. In the morning it takes its baby chicks out to scratch for food. In the evening, it goes back to sleep in the coop. The next morning it goes out to look for food again. Its owner scatters rice for it to eat every day, but it doesn't know why its owner is feeding it. The chicken and its owner are thinking in very different ways.
The owner is thinking, "How much does the chicken weigh?" The chicken, though, is engrossed in the food. When the owner picks it up to heft its weight, it thinks the owner is showing affection.
We too don't know what's going on: where we come from, how many more years we'll live, where we'll go, who will take us there. We don't know this at all.
The King of Death is like the owner of the chicken. We don't know when he'll catch up with us, for we're engrossed — engrossed in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas. We have no sense that we're growing older. We have no sense of enough.

The rest are considered as merely donkeys, not much hope for them: The Goad-stick
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainments but as a means out of this wheel)

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


text:
Why do Buddhists believe in reincarnation?
What makes a person believe in the idea of reincarnation? It can’t be “because the books/teachers say so”, given the Buddhist ideology of “come and see by yourself”

There are several explanations of or justification for belief here: Is rebirth a delusional belief?

Also, please be aware that "Why objects of class X do act Y" is a hard question to answer objectively as it requires understanding the motivation of an undefined number of objects belonging to X, when even their membership in X is hard to ascertain with confidence.

This is not enough for a full answer, but keep in mind that some people consider rebirth as a tentative working hypothesis, not necessarily getting attached to the idea, "having it there". If you ask me, it is always useful to acknowledge one's own ignorance and limits, and to humbly say "I don't know, yet, and maybe I'll never know". Kind regards!

Because it's considered a "safe bet" approach (see the "Safe Bet" sutta for more details: https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html

Good question. I don't see a straight answer here as yet, which is odd. I'd guess we believe (where we don't know)  because rebirth is taught by so many accomplished masters, and because it makes sense of the world.

I've added a personal experience in my answer have a look.

There is rebirth in Buddhism, for sure, but rebirth of what?
When we say "rebirth", we mean that something that we can peg onto as YOU, is born again after physical death. But what is YOU? The soul or self or the SAME consciousness that wanders on throughout this lifetime?
The Buddha taught that all phenomena is not self. The Buddha also taught that all conditioned and/or compounded things (including consciousness) is impermanent. It is not the SAME consciousness that wanders from childhood to old age. It changes. (See MN 38)
So, in Buddhism, there is no rebirth of the self or consciousness.
In fact, if a person injures his brain or experiences dementia or amnesia or coma, then his personality, his memories and even his consciousness could be impaired or non-existent for the remainder of his physical life. In this case, even in his lifetime, we cannot guarantee that he is totally present at every moment. Then, what more for the next lifetime?
So, if a soul or self or consciousness is not reborn, then what is reborn?
There is definitely rebirth in Buddhism, but what is reborn?

Suffering. The continuity of suffering, regardless of physical death, is rebirth.
The continuity of conditioned processes when the condition for them to exist continues, is also rebirth. For e.g. karmic cause and effect, and its relationship to an individual's perceived continued existence in this lifetime. Also, the physical and mental processes of the five aggregates, for e.g. the "stream" of consciousness (MN 38) and the thought "I am the thinker" (Snp 4.14). The continuity of conditioned processes doesn't necessarily end at the death of the physical body.

The Theravada perspective is that at every moment there is death and rebirth. In between, we have the continuity of conditioned processes, that bridges every moment. With the continuity of conditioned processes, we have the continuity of suffering, so long as ignorance is present.
When ignorance is permanently ended, craving is permanently ended and suffering is permanently ended. This permanent ending of ignorance is referred to as enlightenment in Buddhism.
In this answer, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu wrote:

... the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in
  rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death - the latter being merely
  a concept referring to the change from one set of experiences to
  another. True death only occurs either at every moment or at the
  experience of nibbana.

Usually when people talk about rebirth, they imply that the SAME consciousness wanders on in this lifetime and onto the next lifetime. In the following quote from this answer, we read a nice explanation by Damith, of why this is not true.

Stream of consciousness OR Continuity of consciousness means
  individual consciousness which arises (uppada), exists (titi), ceases
  (bhanga) rapidly as an effect of many causes. It's just a stream, not
  a long lasting single one.
Think of a stream of water. When you look at a single point in the
  stream, you see many water droplets appear, exist, and disappear. Take
  a single droplet out of it which passed by(*) that point. If you
  consider the past, present, and future of that droplet, you'll see a
  stream. In reality, it's not the same droplet nor another droplet you
  see in the past, present, and future. Stream of consciousness is
  analogous to this example. Please try to understand it in that way.
(*) Note: "passed by" - This phrasal verb can be only used when we
  talk in conventional truth. The reader may think that rūpa
  (form/matter) can move in space which is not a true in ultimate
  reality. Neither any nāma (name) nor rūpa can move. What happens is
  the arose rūpa existed and ceased then and there. After that new rūpa
  arise nearby. This is called "Deshāntarotpatti".

I'm not saying that there is no YOU (self) at all. There is a YOU, but it's not a permanent YOU. It's changing from moment to moment, depending on conditions, and compounded by different mental and physical processes.

Thank you for this answer. I was confused for years - now I think I begin to understand :-D

Real Buddhists don't believe in things. Because buddhism or its concepts are not to believe as buddhism is not a religion. Followers can experiment and make sure the concepts / ideology are true. Ofcourse there are things which only buddha can see eg: universe, to know some one is arhanth or not, etc.
So real buddhist don't believe in reincarnation, but it doesn't mean Buddhism does't accept reincarnation.  It's proven to them with ñāṇa. If you want to experience it you can meditate and develop your mind to see your previous lives. Or else, theoretically you can understand it by learning Pratītyasamutpāda.
To answer the question of Why do Buddhist believe in reincarnation: It's because it's true. That's the truth of the world. Everything happens in according to the Pratītyasamutpāda, and everything has a cause. We see the results. Buddhist understand the cause and stop the cause and as a result they attain Nivana.
Update:
Personal experience of a women can be found in this link. Watch from 1:40 minute from there it's English. At 14th mins she explains about previous life story.

Who ever down vote this, could you please explain the reason. Just down voting an answer doesn't make any sense for the community.

I think there's a user on this site who doesn't "believe in reincarnation" (i.e. believe that reincarnation is "true"), and who will tend to downvote any answer which says otherwise.

I gather it isn't strictly a binary decision.
It's tempting to say, "if it isn't A then it must be B", but maybe A and B are both true, or maybe neither are.
There are some problems with not believing:

The books/teachers say so
It would seem to be "annihilationism" -- which the suttas explicitly identify as a wrong view
It may be associated with immoral behaviour (e.g. of the "nothing matters" or "no future" variety)

There may be some problems with believing, too:

E.g. that it's a "mundane" doctrine rather than super-mundane
It may be associated with self-views
It has historically lead to questions like, "if it's not the 'self' that's incarnated, then what is, and via what medium?" -- so metaphysical (and not necessarily useful or practical) questions

I once thought that this answer was one of the clearer answers I had read -- and fairly easy to accept.

People who believe in "Reincarnation" are sort of missing the point of Buddhism.  It is all about living your best life now.  If you start worrying about what happens in the next life then you are going to be living this life for all the wrong reasons.  Especially as you will never know the results.

Buddha rejected both eternalism and nihilism. He taught dependent origination. What Buddhism teaches is the Dependent Origination based on birth.
Re-birth cause suffering hence it is an important part of Four Noble Truth is based on the re-birth idea.

I don't know what Buddhists personally believe but I know what the sammasambuddha Gautama believed.
He did not believe in the popular media portrayal of reincarnation as in "rebirth only as a human over and over again".
He instead posits five destinations (nibbana is not included):

"Sariputta, there are these five destinations. What are the five?
  Hell, the animal realm, the realm of ghosts, human beings and devas"
  (MN 12)

He had actually debunked the popular media portrayal of reincarnation in the Pansu suttas stating that the vast majority of humans after death go to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death instead of being reborn as a human or deva.
Birth as a human is extremely rare and usually more pleasant than other existences.
The majority of humans will waste their existence and go to hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death including many people perceived as good people.
I personally believe in the Buddhist concept of rebirth because it makes the most sense to me out of any other explanations of the afterlife and also somewhat matches into personal observations.
Gautama the sammasambuddha was the greatest teacher ever in history in my opinion with over 10,000 suttas, many debates and detailed explanations.
But Right View is part of the Eightfold Path and viewed as the forerunner:

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
  resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
  are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
  who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
  next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
  is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
  acquisitions." (MN 117)

I don't blame people for doubting during this time-period seems like there aren't any real arahants skilled interacting with people that exist.
If uncertain then practice metta (loving-kindness):

“Bhikkhus, whatever grounds there are for making merit productive of a
  future birth, all these do not equal a sixteenth part of the
  mind-release of loving-kindness. The mind-release of loving-kindness
  surpasses them and shines forth, bright and brilliant." (Iti 27)

But the real purpose of Buddhism is to achieve arahantship or enlightnment here and now, to finally be able to enjoy this moment.

A person may believe in the idea of reincarnation for many reasons, such as:

They lust for life & they fear death. The suttas say, for the unenlightened, "death is suffering".
They are unable to take refuge in the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha, namely, the Dhamma is “come and see by yourself” ("sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti").
They misinterpret Dependent Origination and the Noble Truths according to their defiled lusts, as explained in SN 46.55 . It does matter how many times Dependent Origination and the Noble Truths are explained to them with clear references from the scriptures, their lust for reincarnation & rejection of impermanence cannot be abated.
Due to the above realities, there are (later) teachings placed into the Buddhist scriptures that literally teach reincarnation for those people who are unable to abandon self-view or upadhi (MN 117). These teachings raise donations for monks & are supposed to nurture morality (MN 117). However, many people are so sinful they start to claim it is not "me" that is reincarnated; thus they negate all moral responsibility for their own deeds. Heretically, they start to teach the opposite of what the Buddha taught, which was "beings are the heirs to their actions".
In summary, Buddhism is something that has became degenerate; that narcissists that promote sexual promiscuity preach a Protestant-style "reincarnation without morality". Such is their lust for sensuality. There is a sutta that clearly states those that lust for sensuality fear death.
The suttas (eg MN 26; Dhp 174) say the majority of people are unable to realise the Truth.
In conclusion, reincarnation is believed by "thick" people the Buddha called "puthujjana".

St. Augustine said, "Faith is to believe what we do not see, and the reward of this faith is to see what we believe." This is the reason why Right View is the first path of the Eightfold Path: to have an idea of what reality is and to believe in it is helpful for attaining direct knowledge of it. Sages have the ability to remember their past lives: this is one of the psychic abilities. While it is true that you must gain insight for yourself, there is no reason to disbelieve the teachings of those who have gone beyond birth and death.

I will try to answer with the help of philosopher Kapil. Kapila  denied  the  theory  that  there  was  a  being  who  created  the  universe. In  his  view  a  created  thing  really  exists  beforehand  in  its  cause  just  as  the clay  serves  to  form  a  pot,  or  the  threads  go  to  form  a  piece  of  cloth. 10.  This  is  the  first  ground  on  which  Kapila  rejected  the  theory  that  the universe  was  created  by  a  being. 11.  But  there  are  other  grounds  which  he  advanced  in  support  of  his  point of  view. 12.  The  non-existent  cannot  be  the  subject  of  an  activity  :  There  is  no  new creation.  The  product  is  really  nothing  else  than  the  material  of,  which  it  is composed  :  the  product  exists  before  its  coming  into  being  in  the  shape  of  its material  of  which  it  is  composed.  Only  a  definite  product  can  be  produced from  such  material  ;  and  only  a  specific  material  can  yield  a  specific  result. 13.  What  then  is  the  source  of  the  empirical  universe  ? 14.  Kapila  said  the  empirical  universe  consists  of  things  evolved  (Vyakta) and  things  that  are  not  evolved  (Avyakta). 15.  Individual  things  (Vyakta  Vastu)  cannot    be  the  source  of  unevolved things  (Avyakta  Vastu). 16.  Individual  things  are  all  limited  in  magnitude  and  this  is  incompatible with  the  nature  of  the  source  of  the  universe. 17.  All  individual  things  are  analogous,  one  to  another  and,  therefore,  no one  can  be  regarded  as  the  final  source  of  the  other.  Moreover,  as  they  all come  into  being  from  a  source,  they  cannot  constitute  that  source. Further,  argued  Kapila,  an  effect  must  differ  from  its  cause,  though  it must  consist  of  the  cause.  That  being  so,  the  universe  cannot  itself  be  the final  cause.  It  must  be  the  product  of  some  ultimate  cause. 19.  When  asked  why  the  unevolved  cannot  be  perceived,  why  does  it  not show  movement  which  would  make  it  perceivable,  Kapila  replied  : 20.  "  It  may  be  due  to  various  causes.  It  may  be  that  its  fine  nature  makes,  it imperceptible,  just  as  other  things  of  whose  existence  there  is  no  doubt, cannot  be  perceived  ;  or  because  of  their  too  great  a  distance  or  proximity  ; or  through  the  intervention  of  a  third  object,  or  through  admixture  with similar  matter  ;  or  through  the  presence  of  some  more  powerful  sensation, or  the  blindness  or  other  defect  of  the  senses  or  the  mind  of  the  observer." 21.  When  asked  :  "What  then  is  the  source  of  the  universe  ?  What  makes  the difference  between  the  evolved  and  unevolved  part  of  the  universe  ? 22.  Kapila's  reply  was:    'Things  that  have  evolved  have  a  cause  and  the things  that  have  not  evolved  have  also  a  cause.  But  the  source  of  both  is uncaused  and  independent.' 23.  "  The  things  that  have  evolved  are  many  in  number  and  limited  in  space and  name.  The  source  is  one,  eternal  and  all-pervasive.  The  things  evolved have  activities  and  parts  :  the  source  is  imminent  in  all,  but  has  neither activities  nor  parts." 24.  Kapila  argued  that  the  process  of  develop-ment  of  the  unevolved  is through  the  activities  of  three  constituents  of  which  it  is  made  up,  Sattva, Rajas  and  Tamas.  These  are  called  three  Gunas. 25.  The  first  of  the  constituents,  or  factors,  corresponds  to  what  we  call  as light  in  nature,  which  reveals,  which  causes  pleasure  to  men  ;  the  second  is that  impels  and  moves,  what  produces  activity  ;  the  third  is  what  is  heavy and  puts  under  restraint,  what  produces  the  state  of  indifference  or inactivity. 26.  The  three  constituents  act  essentially  in  close  relation,  they  overpower and  support  one  another  and  intermingle  with  one  another.  They  are  like the  constituents  of  a  lamp,  the  flame,  the  oil  and  wick. 27.  When  the  three  Gunas  are  in  perfect  balance,  none  overpowering  the other,  the  universe  appears  static  (Achetan)  and  ceases  to  evolve. When  the  three  Gunas  are  not  in  balance,  one  overpowers  the  other,  the universe  becomes  dynamic  (sachetan)  and  evolution  begins. 29.  Asked  why  the  Gunas  become  unbalanced,  the  answer  which  Kapila gave  was  this  disturbance  in  the  balance  of  the  three  Gunas  was  due  to  the presence  of  Dukha  (suffering). 30.  Such  were  the  tenets  of  Kapila's  philosophy. 31.  Of  all  the  philosophers  the  Buddha  was  greatly  impressed  by  the doctrines  of  Kapila. 32.  He  was  the  only  philosopher  whose  teachings  appeared  to  the  Buddha  to be  based  on  logic  and  facts. 33.  But  he  did  not  accept  everything  which  Kapila  taught.  Only  three  things did  the  Buddha  accept  from  Kapila. 34.  He  accepted  that  reality  must  rest  on  proof.  Thinking  must  be  based  on rationalism. 35.  He  accepted  that  there  was  no  logical  or  factual  basis  for  the presumption  that  God  exists  or  that  he  created  the  universe. 36.  He  accepted  that  there  was  Dukha  (suffering)  in  the  world. 37.  The  rest  of  Kapila's  teachings  he  just  bypassed  as  being  irrelevant  for  his purpose. Buddha do believe in rebirth that's why he found the way to unbinding. Unbinding of what ? Unbinding of Vyakta from Avyakta and merging to their relative source. Then there is nothing you can call as self. That's Nirvana.

I'm puzzled about why you post e.g. the doctrine of Kapila and Adisankara as being "Buddhist" doctrine. Is it because, are they referenced in The Buddha and His Dhamma, by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, i.e. do people consider these doctrines/philosophers to be a part of Navayana?

When path is lost there is arise need to show it again. For that you have to go back to earliest findings. One needs the references of past philosophies. Buddha on way to his journey always listen to what others have to say like Kapila, Arada and Udraka. Path of relieving of suffering is univarsal, it's not sectarian. In buddhism there were many sects like Mahayana, Hinyana, sarvastivadin, sanghika, ajivikas. Which sect you belong and called Buddhism. I am not interested in sects but truth.


text:
What's the (mental) quality different between aversive leaving (vi-bhava) and renouncing (nekkhamma)?
Whats the different between leaving, abounding, letting go, push away, say out of aversion, anger, and renouncing?
Both seems to be combined with tanha (thirst), yet one is called ku-sala (bad-cutting away) and one a-ku-sala (not bad-cutting away). And/Or is renouncing combined with a-moha, not-not-knowing or moha, not-knowing/delusion root of aversive notion of desire for leaving, letting go?

If, by forsaking
  a limited ease,
  he would see
  an abundance of ease,
  the enlightened man
  would forsake
  the limited ease
  for the sake
  of the abundant.
— Dhp 290

Sound gready, that what gives rise to "aversion", like strong desire for refined pleasure, yet even 'enlightened' situation.
How is renouncing conductive toward and on the path, leaving and let go part of the path of liberation?

A realated topic with given space for discussion and possible answer can be found here.
(note that this question is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough the wheel here and liberation)

Vibhava tanha arises as a result of attachement, aversion and ignorance combined with the wrong view of Nicca, Suka , Atta and Subha.
Nekkhamma is a result of non-attachement, non-aversion and wisdom combind with the right view of Anicca, Dukkha ,Anatta and Asubha.

beside of right view and wrong view, there are no real differences to be traced, here, Upasaka Sarath. How could nekkhamma not be a rejection? So it seems to be more a matter of what to reject, in what way.

@SamanaJohann, the defining difference would be our intentions: If we expect to eliminate the pain completely (vibhava tanha), we are fabricating unwholesome sankhara. If we expect to accept the pain, and strive (chanda) for reminding us (samma sati) that it's impermanent (anicca) and not ours (anatta) we are renuncianting pain in a wholesome way.

well you said the difference, aversion is not samma sankappa, because aversion is devoid of dispassion from the knowledge of the worthlessness of whatever  is avoided.

And what, Brethren, is what is free from the asavas?
The destruction of lust, Brethren, the destruction of hatred, the
  destruction of illusion, - that is called what is free from the
  asavas.
And what, Brethren, is the path that goes to what is free from the
  asavas?
Herein, Brethren, a brother practises right aim, which is founded on
  singleness of heart, founded on dispassion, founded on cessation,
  whicb leads to giving up.
He strives, puts forth energy, exerts bis mind and strives.
That, Brethren, is called 'the path that goes to what is free from the
  asavas.'

singleness of heart translates weirdly viveka-nissitam
here is what happens with the the akulasa sankappa
http://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.096.wood.pts.htm

What are the quality differences of ku-sala-resolve and a-ku-sala-resolve, good householder? Singleness of heart can be akusala as well. Strives for what, "rejects" what, to get right singleness of heart?

Both seems to be combined with tanha (thirst)
I don't think they are "both combined with tanha (thirst)".
I think of tanha as always meaning "an unskilful craving" -- especially a craving "to have what you cannot have", or. "to keep (permanently) what you cannot keep".
Whereas a skilful version of that is more likely to be called chanda.
Anyway, the way I understand it is --

If you're an addict, addicted to something, then perhaps you "crave" it
Perhaps, after a while of experiencing being an addict, you begin to see the disadvantages (including "unpleasantness" and "suffering") of being an addict -- at that point you might "crave not to be" an addict
With additional right view and practice and skill, and other supporting factors (including perhaps some "good friends"), you might be able to renounce what you're addicted to -- that, then, might be called a "skilful desire", and not just an "unskilful craving"
Maybe after you have done that successfully, finished training, then there's no more craving and even no more desire -- see the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15) for example

I think I can say from personal experience that there are some things that I used to be accustomed to and attracted to, but which I no longer use, no longer crave (never think about), and no longer even feel averse to if I encounter/contact them -- that if I smell them, for example, it doesn't elicit craving or aversion -- it's just a smell, a recognisable smell -- perhaps that means perception (sañña) without much feeling (vedanā).
Even though I'm not averse to it I still renounce it -- perhaps because I still remember and feel aversion towards being an addict (and don't want to resume using the thing and becoming accustomed and addicted again). I don't think that type of aversion counts as "craving not to be", though -- because, given that I am already not, it's not a craving for something to be other than it is.
Still there are some "states" that I'm averse to -- e.g. social conflict -- and I might avoid situations which might give rise to that -- and, I don't know, perhaps my avoiding such situations isn't always "skilful". I think there's some Buddhist training about not being averse to e.g. social situation (perhaps it's more Mahayana or Vajrayana training though) -- see e.g. Aversion and Mahayana -- but I don't know a lot about that.

What the definition of kusala, akusala, Nyom Chris. What greed, what aversion, is kusala?


text:
Vanna-maccharia, stinginess in regard to one's reputations: What to practice in order to get rid of it?
Vaṇṇā-maccharia, stinginess in regard to one's honor, reputation, not't letting make others use it, envy to lose it, is one of the five kinds of maccharia, based on ingratitude, wrong view, and a quality not only absent in all Noble Once, but also a hindrance to attain whatever Jhana, path or fruit.
What are practices to train to learn not being stingy in regard of ones honour, beauty, sublimity?
What and where to give into?
What traditional practice is done by faithful followers in that regard?

A/the realated topic with given space for discussion and possible answer can be found here.
(note that this question is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Perception of impermanence

Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of impermanence and abiding much in it, gain, honour and fame keeps away, it shrinks and rolls away. The mind stretches out and gets established in equanimity or loathing

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of impermanence? Here, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty hut, a bhikkhu reflects thus: ‘Form is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, volitional activities are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent.’ Thus he dwells contemplating impermanence in these five aggregates subject to clinging. This is called the perception of impermanence.

Perception of impermanence in all conditioned things;

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of impermanence in all conditioned phenomena? Here, a bhikkhu is repelled, humiliated, and disgusted by all conditioned phenomena. This is called the perception of impermanence in all conditioned phenomena.

These too will be helpful;
Perception of all formations as undesirable;

Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of unpleasantness in impermanence and abiding much in it, a keen perception of fear, for laziness, distraction, negligence and non-reflection gets established, like to a slayer with raised sword.

Perception of non-delight in the all worlds;

Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of non-attachment to all the world and abiding much in it, the manifold beauty of the world, keeps away, it shrinks and rolls away. The mind stretches out and gets established in equanimity or loathing.

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of non-delight in the entire world? Here, a bhikkhu refrains from any engagement and clinging, mental standpoints, adherences, and underlying tendencies in regard to the world, abandoning them without clinging to them. This is called the perception of non-delight in the entire world.

Perception of non-self;

Bhikkhus, to the bhikkhu practicing the perception of lacking a self in unpleasantness and abiding much in it, whatever distinctions arise as superior, inferior or equal in the sixfold conscious body and all external signs, are appeased and well released.

“And what, Ānanda, is the perception of non-self? Here, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty hut, a bhikkhu reflects thus: ‘The eye is non-self, forms are non-self; the ear is non-self, sounds are non-self; the nose is non-self, odors are non-self; the tongue is non-self, tastes are non-self; the body is non-self, tactile objects are non-self; the mind is non-self, mental phenomena are non-self.’ Thus he dwells contemplating non-self in these six internal and external sense bases. This is called the perception of non-self.

At the surface, you can look at how we do unskilled bodily, verbal and metal volitional formations due to stinginess for reputation (vanna maccariya). For example, one utters false speech to maintain a status. One kills, steals, etc. (all 10 can be looked at this way).
But to understand this in the Noble sense, you need to first understand the arising phenomena of stinginess. As explained in the Vattupama Sutta (Simile of the Cloth) it can be understood that it is because of Disparaging (palaso); and underneath that is difference in volitional formations (sankhara). For example, the person who lies to maintain a reputation have given different values to such statuses and disparage one status over another and holding on to that idea now doing even immoral acts (dussilam) to maintain it. This way we roam in samsara.
In order to go further deep, you need to understand how the stream of consciousness flow. You may not understand that without the pre-requisite dhamma therefore I won't try to explain it here.
Stinginess for reputation is connected with misapprehending feeling as pleasure but it has to be understood with above flow of consciousness and how the five-fold stinginess attributing to each other to maintain the flow.
Person who has destroyed all cankers (i.e. an arahat) does not have stinginess.
If you are interested in learning more, take a look at discussions in English stream on this website: https://visuddhimagga.info/

Good to try to overcome stinginess here and risk some lose of vanna. two quick things, householder: 1. starting from streamenter, Noble ones are free of stinginess, so all not only the Arahat. 2. Householder did not provide much of practice toward it, eg. generositie, sila and it's special kinds in regard of vanna-maccharia. Most deals with break of precepts to gain vanna. Holding on vanna, maccharia, itself does not necessary requires break of precepts.

(1) At a gross level one might think the a stream enterer has removed maccariya but that is not the case. It gets more subtle but as long as you have the idea of a self, to that extent all 5 maccariya can arise. (2) The practice leading to the complete removal of maccariya is the Noble Eight Fold Path. In the Noble dhamma, when you realize the origin & cessation of something, that's when you realize it can be removed. Therefore contemplate on how one misapprehends feeling as pleasure and as a result mental volition happen.

And as a result we say "it is pleasure" when it is really suffering (dukka). Now one utters false speech, etc. (remember: vitakka-vicara is verbal volitional formations - doesn't necessarily speak out loud).
This might help to understand this: https://visuddhimagga.info/download.php?file=https://anaalaya.blob.core.windows.net/dhamma2018/M_E_HaliddakaniSutta_30_03_2018.mp4

So  ahtisarw is wiser then the elders and the Buddha? -> see own answer at 2. Is householder ahtisarw wake and able to listen or is there running a loop sequence. A Noble Person might still grasp after things, but since knowing by himself that sense and objects are no refuge, would not grasphold on them => void of maccharia. See Vissuddhimagga for details as householder seems to like it. So again, what are the specific practices toward this kind of maccharia.

As example: as for training to let go of material things (lābha maccharia) people do engage into Dana. What about listening in lowered position when possible knowledgeable tell something? Isn't vanna macchariya most hindering?

In a gamified system like SE/SO reputation and score is a source of motivation.
In a Buddhist context, this can be both:

stinginess as to one's gains (Lābha-macchariya) - in this case, gain in reputation
stinginess as to one's status (Vaṇṇa-macchariya) - in this case, total reputations accumulated

But for this system to work gamified element is essential as this is tied to the privileges on getting on the site. Also, votes and acceptance can guide people who are not very knowledgeable in Dhamma to finding better answers. So one should vote on and accept answers which one sees as being in line with the Dhamma and downvote on ones which seam not being in line with the Dhamma. (Use this sparingly as it might agitate users.)
In the real world giving something has merit as it is useful to others. In this system, one can give to questions and answers as bounty. If one is attached to reputation then this may help reduce macchariya. But a better way is not to be bothered with the reputation gains. If you are mentally not attached then this will not hinder the achievement of Jhana. Having said it is better to put bounties more sparingly to questions which might attract great answers which are useful to the spread of dhamma. Also awarding a bounty may be en endorsement that one agrees with the answer and it is in line with the Dhamma. This should not be left to the system alone. People without much knowledge can use this to distinguish what is in line with the Dhamma and what is not using this as a cue.
To summarise, votes, accepting and bounties serve a purpose, even in spreading the Dhamma. One should explore how this works for oneself and use it wisely so that it aids the spread of the dhamma signalling to other users about the correctness and acceptability of what is being said. Also, look at the system like a hammer. If you are using it there is a particular way to use it. If you do not hit with the head it does not work. So try to put the system to work in a way which benefits the dhamma the most. This being backed by good volition would also mean positive karma.

Sadhu for effort. Here a relativation with causes: "in the real world giving"... huch!? Upasaka, what is kamma? What is real on the path? It's not a game but 100% kamma and by mind even much more of effects! "Real world" are the ideas of the Jains, may Upasaka take care here. MN56. Maybe Upasaka likes to investigate it inwardly and outwardly by reading first.

Let my person give an answer to it in practical ways, related to ones situation, for inspiring of better rhetorical answers by those skilled in such that many could grasp the essence easier and related to ones Nissaya and used bearable food, ways of speech:
Reputations are used to overcome all personal reputations, similar to conceit, so a requirement on the path, given by the three Governing principles, like the four prerequisites, good livelihood and use of food, nourishment. Without such, upholding such, one is not able to walk, has no joy and dies of another time yet not secured. So the Buddha advised on many places, in many ways, to act after merits and gain and to look after ones "beauty with care. Yet by sharing, giving one gain, yet by sharing , giving upwardly one gains ways upwardly. By sharing and giving to equal and lower, one stays where one is or falls of. Not giving, sharing, fire, foods, Kings, thieves and death will take them away and so decay.
The ignorant does not see the value of reputation and how to use them for a better. How much ever he gains by merits, he will waste them off by himself or give them, share them upwardly. He may look for some like a perfect one on not attentive observation of his way of actions related to reputations, received from either wise or fools.
A good householders way to use ones reputations, honor and estimate for better becoming is to invest them upwardly. One could use them equal to material gains:

25% for ones join and life from it
25% for security and bad times
25% for investments to gain more reputations
25% to make merits (best toward giving to the virtuous individuals, the Tripple Gems)

The last is usually done by Veneration, by giving reputations toward the Sangha.
An ordinary monks training is avoid accumulation of personal honor and to receive no personal reputations and if given forward them all to the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha. To give way reputations upwardly and outwardly intentional would be a violation of his rules.
A Noble Ones ways in regard of reputations is not to hold on them, being free from stinginess. Not free from greed yet, he might up and on take some personal but would not hold on them as soon as it can be given away. Of course such would never intentional give reputations upwardly.
A Perfect One, being free of taking anything personal, does neither accept reputations personal nor would he still hold on some. He shines by being ride of touch by reputations.
In regard of teaching the Dhamma, as the highest field for reputation:

Candūpama Sutta: Comparable to the Moon
..."There is the case, Bhikkhus, that a Bhikkhu teaches the Dhamma, thinking: 'Oh, may they listen to the Dhamma from me. Having learned my Dhamma, may they be settled in believe in it. Having been settled in believe in it, may they show their settlement in believe," this is a kind of Bhikkhu, Bhikkhus, who is giving teaching on Dhamma impurely.
There is the case, Bhikkhus, that a Bhikkhu teaches the Dhamma, thinking: 'The Dhamma of the Blessed One is well taught, direct visible, timeless, inviting to come and see, appropriate, to be self-experianced by the wise. Oh, may they listen to the Dhamma from me. Having learned the Dhamma, may they understand. Having understood the Dhamma, may they practice accordingly.' So he teaches the Dhamma because of the excellence nature of the Dhamma; he teaches the Dhamma out of compassion and kindness, out of concern. This is a kind of Bhikkhu, Bhikkhus, who is giving teaching on Dhamma purely.
Kassapa, Bhikkhus, teaches the Dhamma, thinking: 'The Dhamma of the Blessed One is well taught, direct visible, timeless, inviting to come and see, appropriate, to be self-experianced by the wise. Oh, may they listen to the Dhamma from me. Having learned the Dhamma, may they understand. Having understood the Dhamma, may they practice accordingly.' He teaches the Dhamma because of the excellence nature of the Dhamma; he teaches the Dhamma out of compassion and kindness, out of concern.

What are ways of sharing reputations:
After having proved and investigated, praising of what is worthy to praise, blame of what is worthy to blame, taking worldly loses, even that of friends, to bear. Practicing sharing merits, inviting, expressing joy in merits of others. Bowing, greeting, veneration, hospitality toward those worthy of such of all what has become natural by those having reached the Noble Domain. Putting higher always on higher place, knowing the foremost as foremost, the elder, the more advanced and always give to known such by words, signs and speech and in proper ways, never out for harming others with ones gift, never act deceitful with ones shares for favors.
Note that if using the reputations actually owned by the Tripple Gems, given by the Buddha, by using his heritage, his label, for others then liberation and toward to it, one does not only harm oneself but many by this thieving, fraud.
May it be of good inspiration and motivation to reflect further and possible start to practice it much for many.
(note that this gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)