text:
What is the difference between householder and renunciation equanimity?
The thirty-six states (6 x 6 classes of contact) to which beings are attached are described in Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta; I have made a caricature while reading each state as below, states 1, 2, 4 & 5 are easy to understand, however, I'm straggling to clearly identify the two type of equanimity and how they differ.
Quoted below is the definition given for each equanimity states in the Sutta, but it’s not clear to me how the foolish deluded householder equanimity is any different from the other. How do these two people react to a given situation?
I will give an example for the householder equanimity and If possible please try to use the same situation to represent the state of the renunciation equanimity and if possible beyond renunciation equanimity (atammayata) in which there is no act of intention, not even the intention underlying equanimity is said to be present.
For example, a householder loses his beloved son or a wife he could reason and say ‘I know I was only in love with a mortal and what has happened is natural’ and he remains calm without suffering. This equanimity, I take it, doesn’t go beyond form. With a wide open eye as I caricatured his state, he looks into pain and pleasure even death with equanimity without reasoning beyond form. Let them change he is just looking.
Many thanks.

"And what are the six kinds of household equanimity? The equanimity
  that arises when a foolish, deluded person — a run-of-the-mill,
  untaught person who has not conquered his limitations or the results
  of action 2 & who is blind to danger [3] — sees a form with the eye.
  Such equanimity does not go beyond the form, which is why it is called
  household equanimity. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile
  sensations, & ideas.)
"And what are the six kinds of renunciation equanimity? The equanimity
  that arises when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms,
  their change, fading, & cessation — one sees with right discernment as
  it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant,
  stressful, subject to change: This equanimity goes beyond form, which
  is why it is called renunciation equanimity. (Similarly with sounds,
  smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)
"And what is equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on
  multiplicity? There is equanimity with regard to forms, equanimity
  with regard to sounds...smells...tastes...tactile sensations [& ideas:
  this word appears in one of the recensions]. This is equanimity coming
  from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity.
"And what is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on
  singleness? There is equanimity dependent on the dimension of the
  infinitude of space, equanimity dependent on the dimension of the
  infinitude of consciousness... dependent on the dimension of
  nothingness... dependent on the dimension of neither perception nor
  non-perception. This is equanimity coming from singleness, dependent
  on singleness.

It's good to get aware of issues of different kind of equanimity not only because most modern, especially lay teacher, even whole "schools" actually teach the dangerous "household-equanimity". The differernt is btw. actually drawn out in the notes and also in the translators intoduction of the sutta:

A person who "has not conquered his limitations or the results of action": this passage seems related to the passage in AN 3.99, which defines a person of limited mind, prey to the results of past bad actions, as one who is "undeveloped in contemplating the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in concentration, and undeveloped in discernment; restricted, small-hearted, dwelling with suffering." As AN 3.99 points out, such a person suffers more intensely from the results of past unskillful actions than does one whose awareness is unrestricted. SN 42.8 recommends the practice of the four sublime attitudes as a way of developing an unrestricted awareness that weakens the results of past unskillful actions.

A person who is "blind to danger" is one who does not see the drawbacks of sensual pleasure or attachment to the body. For such a person, moments of equanimity are usually a dull spot in the midst of the quest for sensual pleasure. This is why such moments do not go beyond the sensory stimulus that generated them.

Ordinary equanimity is based on gross ignorance/moha.
The two illustrations here might also provide for an understanding:
Ignoring the truth & Bhaṅgañāņa and bhayañāņa.
Some "provoking" questions for an understanding in this regard may be also found here: Freed of Fivefold Fear.
Typical outwardly indicators for people dwelling in household-equanimity is total lack in basics like gratitude, goodness, generosity and virtue. Once such states a reached, people are merely hopless lost which is one reason the Buddha often nearly "fighted" against teachers leading in such directions while other teachings, even if not much of benefit have been merely tolerated as current wishes for certain destinies of others.
The immense danger of giving rise to firm household-equanimity is also the reason why in Bodhisatta-vehicles the teaching of emptiness of immature people is a grave fault and breach of the root vows, knowing that they are walking on a tiny edge and althought propably even understood as encouragement to act wrong.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, given for release, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]

Here is my interpretation of what's written in that sutta.
Householder equanimity is clueless equanimity. It is equanimity of someone who does not realize the three marks of existence and the three types of suffering. Basically, equanimity of a fool who does not realize the house is burning.
Buddhist equanimity comes in a different sequence altogether. First, Buddhist practitioner feels distress due to aversion towards the world and longing for Nirvana. Then, Buddhist practitioner feels joy from having realized the real meaning of three marks of existence, Emptiness, and the unity of two truths. And then, with cessation of that joy, because s\he understands that even this joy is subject to impermanence, and even this realization has a character of Emptiness, however compassion still has its role and Buddha-Dharma is still useful and valid -- the Buddhist practitioner attains equanimity. So Buddhist equanimity is not just equanimity of wisdom, it is equanimity of wisdom having understood its own limits!
Finally, if I drew a graphical representation of that sutta, I would not focus as much on the states themselves, as on relationships between them, as explained in the text
            NF
            ^
            |
            ES
            ^
            |
RD => RJ => RE
^     ^     ^
|     |     |
HD    HJ    HE

Here, HD/HJ/HE stands for householder's Distress/Joy/Equanimity.
RD/RJ/RE stands for Buddhist (Renunciation) Distress/Joy/Equanimity.
ES stands for Equanimity Of Formless Jhanas (Signlessness).
And NF stands for Non-Fashioned Equanimity (what's known as aniketa-cari, atanmayata, non-abiding Nirvana, tathata)

What do you mean by "... a fool who does not realize the house is burning" ? Could you please also give a typical example of the state of the renunciation equanimity as i dead for the householder equanimity.

Householder is equanimous precisely because everything is quiet and seems good for now. It seems that things will go on like this for ever. It seems to the householder he knows what has to be known and can control what needs to be controlled. But in actuality householder is caught up in an illusion of the peaceful moment. Householder is clueless and helpless, but is blissfully unaware of his own ignorance and helplessness.

Renunciant has realized what is to be realized, he is clearly aware of impermanence, of his place in the world, of the limits of his knowledge. Renunciant's equanimity is despite all that and due to the fact that Renunciant makes his own mood. He is no longer dependent on the circumstances for his equanimity, because with his wisdom he has realistic expectations, and realistic awareness of his own limits, so when things change, as they always do due to impermanence, Renunciant is ready and embraces the change with equanimous lucidity.

I learned in another thread the householder equanimity is being NON-JUDGMENTAL towards the dangers of sensuality; to regard all manner of sexual perversions as "normal & ordinary".

There's a Tibetan Buddhist saying: "Have your view as high as the sky, have your conduct as fine as the flour". This means the realization of non-duality applies to not judging others, while your own conduct is still governed by sila.

I suppose most people distinguish between "sensuality" and "ethics" in their own lives -- see little wrong in "sensuality" (what else is there but sensuality?) but (by definition) see what's "wrong" in being unethical. And that most people, whose view isn't as high as the sky, will also be judgemental about other people's actions and whether "they" are ethical.

One way to approach the question is from the perspective of meditative practice. This answer is based on my meditative experience and discussion with Theravada teachers.
It's important to keep in mind that the Buddha was not teaching meditative practice to householders, it was for renunciants alone. So the renunciant equanimity is an equanimity which arises from a trained mind. The renunciant would have awareness of mind as separate from forms. The quality of equanimity of the renunciant is a mind that does not move, it is not drawn out to meet the sense objects, but stay collected in "singleness". It is "beyond form". Also, there is no intent required to achieve this state, it's just there and emerges as consequence of training (and seeing into the three characteristics).
On the contrary the householder mind will go out to meet objects, and establishing equanimity will then require intent to work with the feeling consequences of the contact. The householder would not have that awareness of mind, but only understand equanimity in term of feeling after contact with the object, so it is not beyond form.

(E) Therein, what are the 6 kinds of equanimity of the household life (cha gehasitā upekkhā)?
(25) On seeing a form with the eye, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
Such an equanimity as this does not transcend form.
Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(26) On hearing a sound with the ear, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
Such an equanimity as this does not transcend sound.
Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(27) On smelling a smell with the nose, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
Such an equanimity as this does not transcend smell.
Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(28) On tasting a taste with the tongue, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
Such an equanimity as this does not transcend taste.
Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(29) On feeling a touch with the body, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
Such an equanimity as this does not transcend touch.
Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
(30) On cognizing a mind-object with the mind, equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
Such an equanimity as this does not transcend mind-object.
Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
These are the 6 kinds of equanimity of the household life.
...
(F) Therein, what are the 6 kinds of equanimity of renunciation (cha nekkhammasitā upekkhā)?
(31) When, by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away and ending of forms,
  one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom
those forms both in the past and now are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature,
one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom those forms both in the past and now
  are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature—equanimity arises.
An equanimity such as this transcends form.
Therefore, it is called equanimity of renunciation.
(32) When, by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away and ending of sounds,
  one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom
those sounds both in the past and now are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature,
one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom those sounds both in the past and now
  are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature—equanimity arises.
An equanimity such as this transcends sound.
Therefore, it is called equanimity of renunciation.
(33) When, by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away and ending of smells,
  one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom
those smells both in the past and now are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature,
one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom those smells both in the past and now
  are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature—equanimity arises.
An equanimity such as this transcends smell.
Therefore, it is called equanimity of renunciation.
(34) When, by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away and ending of tastes,
  one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom
those tastes both in the past and now are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature,
one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom those tastes both in the past and now
  are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature—equanimity arises.
An equanimity such as this transcends taste.
Therefore, it is called equanimity of renunciation.
(35) When, by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away and ending of touches,
  one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom
those touches both in the past and now are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature,
one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom those touches both in the past and now
are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature—equanimity arises.
An equanimity such as this transcends touch.
Therefore, it is called equanimity of renunciation.
(36) When, by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away and ending of mind-objects,
  one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom
those mind-objects both in the past and now are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature,
one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom those mind-objects both in the past and now
are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature—equanimity arises.
An equanimity such as this transcends mind-object.
Therefore, it is called equanimity of renunciation.
These are the 6 kinds of equanimity of renunciation.

Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta
The difference

On seeing a [___] with the [___], equanimity arises in a foolish, confused, worlding,
  in an untutored worldling who has not conquered his limitations
nor conquered his karmic fruits, who sees not danger.
Such an equanimity as this does not transcend [___].
Therefore, it is called the equanimity of the household life.
...
When, by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away and ending of [___],
  one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom
those  [___] both in the past and now are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature,
one sees, according to reality, with right wisdom those [___] both in the past and now
are all impermanent, suffering, changing by nature—equanimity arises.
An equanimity such as this transcends [___].
Therefore, it is called equanimity of renunciation.

The householder has not overcome karma or accumulation of karma. On each experience, the householder creates new karma has he does not see the reality and how to react to them. The person who has renounced see impermanence, suffering, changing by nature, according to reality, with right wisdom, hence can transcend the worldly experience.

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings

Pahāna Sutta
So the neutral feeling or equanimous feeling experienced, in the case of a householder leads to ignorance whereas the person who renounces this does not lead to ignorance, as he sees with wisdom and right understanding. The recluse must have wisdom and right understanding for this to be true.

Where are (many) householders who have overcome karma (arahats), Upasaka Sirinath? Maybe he speaks of kama (sensuality). Also it works as well for homeless.

There is nothing difference between equanimity, but the difference appear in householder and renunciation.
Don't judge a book by its cover.
For your example: the 3rd and 6th case react the same action. But one by unwholesome mind, another by wholesome mind. That's the difference.
However, because of the very difference between the mind factors of them. If the householder equanimity person doesn't try to fake, lie. He react by  most of these mind factors: lobha, dosa, moha, diṭṭhi, māna, issa, macchariya, uddhacca, kukucca, vicikicchā,ahiri, anottappa, thīna, middha.
However, the wholesome action can react like that, too, such as the householder equanimity fall to sleep by thīna and middha. But the renunciation equanimity fall to sleep by sati-sampajañña. The householder equanimity may show or not their sleepy action. But the renunciation equanimity must not. However, the renunciation equanimity may have the tired-action which is physical, but it may looks like the physical action by thīna and middha as well.
So, don't judge a book by its cover.

Gehasita feeling (householder feeling; gehasita=with lobha) means the feeling going together with attaching the 12 āyatana, and 6 contacts (18 manopavicāra). The feeling and attaching are called taṇhā (samudayasacca;caving) and 18 manopavicāra are called 18/60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa in MN Mūlapaṇṇāsaka,
 mahāsatipaṭṭthānasutta.
Nekkhammasita feeling (renunciation equanimity; nekkhamma=without lobha) means the feeling going without attaching the 12 āyatana, and 6 contacts (18 manopavicāra). The feeling and non-attaching are called nekkhamma-sammāsaṅkappa (right thought in maggasacca) which appear in nirodha-sacca of MN Mūlapaṇṇāsaka, mahāsatipaṭṭthānasutta. as attachment cessation from 18/60 piyarūpa/sātarūpa.

(the kehasita = taṇhā-paṭiccasamuppāda)
And what, bhikkhus, is the dukkha-samudaya ariyasacca? It is this
  taṇhā leading to rebirth, connected with desire and enjoyment, finding
  delight here or there, that is to say: kāma-taṇhā, bhava-taṇhā and
  vibhava-taṇhā.
...
(6 inner-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda)
The eye ... ear ... nose ... tongue ... Kāya ... Mana in the world is
  pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when
  settling, it settles.
(rūpa-paṭiccasamuppāda; 6 inner-āyatana-paṭiccasamuppāda's objects; outer-āyatana)
Visible forms ... Sounds... Smells ... Tastes ... Bodily phenomena ...
  Dhammas in the world are pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.
(6 viññāṇa-paṭiccasamuppāda)
The eye-viññāṇa ... ear-viññāṇa .. tongue-viññāṇa ... Kāya-viññāṇa ...
  Mana-viññāṇa in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.
(phassa-paṭiccasamuppāda)
The eye-samphassa ... ear-samphassa ... nose-samphassa ...
  tongue-samphassa ... Kāya-samphassa ... Mana-samphassa in the world is
  pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when
  settling, it settles.
(vedanā-paṭiccasamuppāda)
The vedanā born of eye-samphassa... vedanā born of ear-samphassa ...
  vedanā born of nose-samphassa ... vedanā born of tongue-samphassa ...
  vedanā born of kāya-samphassa ... vedanā born of mana-samphassa in the
  world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises,
  there when settling, it settles.
(nāma-paṭiccasamuppāda)
The saññā of visible forms ... saññā of sounds ...saññā of odors ...
  saññā of tastes ...saññā of bodily phenomena ... saññā of Dhammas in
  the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising,
  arises, there when settling, it settles.
(kamma-bhava-paṭiccasamuppāda; saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda)
The intention [related to] visible forms ... intention [related to]
  sounds ... intention [related to] odors ... intention [related to]
  tastes ... intention [related to] bodily phenomena ... intention
  [related to] dhammas in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there
  taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.
(kehasita taṇhā)
The taṇhā for visible forms in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it
  settles. The taṇhā for sounds .. odors ... tastes ... bodily phenomena
  ... dhammas in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.
[Mana = vitakka in saḷāyatana-vibhaṇgasutta because of upavicāra (vicāra often appear with vitakka), sammā-saṅkappa(right vitakka), and
  miccha-saṅkappa (wrong vitakka). So, the context force us to translate
  mana(of mana-upavicāra) as vitakka in saḷāyatana-vibhaṇgasutta]
(kehasita vitakka; kehasita mano)
The vitakka of visible forms in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it
  settles. The vitakka of sounds in the world is pleasant and agreeable,
  there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.
  The vitakka of odors in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there
  taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles. The
  vitakka of tastes in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā,
  when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles. The vitakka of
  bodily phenomena in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā,
  when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles. The vitakka of
  dhammas in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.
(kehasita upavicāra)
The vicāra of visible forms in the world is pleasant and agreeable,
  there taṇhā, when arising, arises, there when settling, it settles.
  The vicāra of sounds ... odors ... tastes ... bodily phenomena ...
  dhammas in the world is pleasant and agreeable, there taṇhā, when
  arising, arises, there when settling, it settles. This is called,
  bhikkhus, the dukkha·samudaya ariyasacca.
(See nirodhasacca-niddesa in the same way for nekkhammasita)
(Below word "saṅkappa" ofthen use "vitakka" instead in variant sutta, so this is nekkhammasita-vitakka)
And what, bhikkhus, are sammāsaṅkappas? Those, bhikkhus, which are saṅkappas of nekkhamma, saṅkappas of abyāpāda, saṅkappas of avihiṃsā, those are called, bhikkhus, sammāsaṅkappas.

This is not good enough explanation for abhidhammist, abhidhamma has more detail than I told above, but I think it is enough for you.

Thanks for your detailed answer, but the question is specifically about upekkhaa, what attachment does gehasita upekkhaa have when compaored with a peronse with nekkhammasita upekkhaa?

I already answered above. It looks like the same but I think your question is about the physical action. So, perhaps, there is nothing difference between them. Don't judge a book by its cover.


text:
What is rhys david dictionary's license for now?
What is  rhys david dictionary's license for now?

Pali-English. Dictionary. EDITED BY. T. W. RHYS DAVIDS F.B.A. D.Sc.
  Ph.D. LL.D. D.Litt and WILLIAM STEDE Ph.D. Personal scientific use
  only. [1921-1925]

The blurb on Amazon.com says (about the PTS dictionary specifically),

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.

Looking at Wikipedia's descriptions of copyright durations (USA and UK) suggests that may be so (though I'm not a lawyer).
If you access it via a web site or other publisher, they may (I don't know) have other terms of use.

A PTS news page says,

10 May 2013
Following the generous donation of a long-standing member of the Society, the Pali Text Society is pleased to announce that the following works, whose copyright is owned by the Pali Text Society, are now issued under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 licence (CC BY-NC 3.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
The Pali Text Society retains all commercial rights, but permission is granted to reproduce, reformat, transmit and distribute these works for non-commercial use without further need to contact the Society.

So it's CC BY-NC 3.0 at least, and some sources (perhaps not the PTS) suggest it's public domain.
Its content exists (sometimes remixed with other content) on various web sites, which I use for free (i.e. gratis), so I suppose these are "non-commercial" sites which publish it noncommercially.

Young householder,
since you work on Dhamma and it just bears fruits for one self and others if it is in line with Dhamma, others then the "ordinary" peoples way watching out for fruits and not proper ways at first place:
Release and freedom of remorse can be expected when things are given without string to the world personaly.
If thinking on "taking on trust" it requires some factors:

BMC1: To rightly take an object on trust, Mv.VIII.19.1 states that five conditions must be met:
a. The owner is an acquaintance.
b. He/she is an intimate.
c. He/she has spoken of the matter. (According to the Commentary, this means that he/she has said, "You may take any of my property you want.")
d. He/she is still alive.
e. One knows that he/she will be pleased at one's taking it.
The Commentary to this rule states that in practice only three of these conditions need to be met: the fourth, the fifth, and any one of the first three.

(Note that the story also reports of a need in mv viii)
a, b, c) are seldom met as background of this days deeds. d) is an importand fact that wordly laws even contradict, assuming that beings deeds have to been seen for certain societies benefits. And the fact that something written is most far away from intent and mind quality, if investigating e) and give reality a prove by directly asking, will quickly found out and one will see how less thoughts on licences or thinking in terms of rights actually holds and will bring longer lasting joy.
As for a householder there is no real hindrence to simply ask and even a proper deal for a gain is nothing wrong.
But if one holds wrong view, thinks in ways of rights, does things with a "Robin Hood" mind setting, putting fruits or expected aims higher as silas, acts in overestimating oneself, without gratitude, even gives to harm others, derive others of their possession, stubborn, in anger, ill willed, attached and with many desireds, in short based on wrong view, and grave moha, what ever material results might be gained, it will neither turn out as real benefit for oneself nor for others but works destructive in many ways for many. How ever pleasant it will appeare for fools.
Many do "Dhamma-work" in this way this days, even monks in action and by encouragements in doing so, many are the fools using the Dhamma to uphold their fight and very very less are wise enought to do not either sacrify their potencial either toward their childish defilements nor for those not really worthy of gifts and not even signed for such.
If Upasaka Volapor is willing to sacrify toward the Sangha and those following them, in that case here, he may feel given to make a use of it in a proper way. Some infos can be found here and if needing contact emails of certain people proper to ask, Volapor known how and where to approach.
Aware that it's not easy to keep an effected mind from touching fire, my person again leave it like this up to ones possible rest of wisdom and goodness. If prefering to be smarter then those walking in front or having arived, it's not possible to help.
Generally a maybe useful story for more understanding of how degenerated and similar the standards of hunters an collectors, forest people, modern ways are: Giving, taking and the "new" world
Best wishes and success for your good undertakings and actions with good mind setting will naturally have their equivalent results. Something good to trust into rather into defiled visions of fruits and higher aims, serving for actions excuse.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Cessation of Taṇhā through not giving a f*ck
Sorry for the phrase 'not giving a f*ck'. I was thinking about using the word anger. But that doesn't cover what I am about to write.
Last weekend I noticed some strong internal movements. I was soo tired of seeking/craving/desiring brought forth by some imagined future goals and self, that a voice in my mind awoke that crushed every motion that was doing this seeking/craving/desiring. E.g. 'Shall I make a coffee', was responded to by 'I do not need to feel happy. F#ck happiness I am tired of this all'. The same with a hot shower. The "aahh... this is nice" moment of a hot shower that I used to have was not allowed by this voice. So the shower was ice cold. And more of this, no cookies anymore, f*ck the nice taste of chocolate, fat and sugar. I do not need it. There was a lot of hate and anger involved. Not towards people or the world around me, but directed to a part of my self.
I knew this was not equanimity. This could not last. Though there were moments where there was no craving, nor the presence of the voice that crushed them. And in these moments, although very briefly, I experienced a level of detachment and freedom I have never experienced before. And it was full of joy. Although the joy was quickly picked up by the craving crushing voice, which seemed to be afraid of any joy. While it should only target the (sensual pleasing) joy, like sugar, coffee, chocolate, etc, you get the point. I felt like I woke up, literally. No coffee anymore wakes the mind up to produce activity that induces wakefulness, because there is no other way. No eating just for pleasure drove me towards sports to feel content. No hot shower, but just an ice cold one, to get the job of washing myself done, woke by body up intensely, etc.
With everything newly learned, I see sort of a sinus wave moment, where there is almost all the time under- and overshoot. And with time, it stabilizes to an equilibrium because learning is involved.
Although the craving crushing voice is tiring me as well, it has a positive effect.
The question
I can't find any literature on this process. I can imagine that the process to reach the cessation of Taṇhā is quiet similar among people. In other words, the not giving a f*ck attitude is probably experienced by a lot of people before Taṇhā ceased. Is there any literature that zooms in on this? And with zoomed in I mean, not the noble eightfold path that covers a whole lot. But specifically this attitude?

If you are experiencing sporadic highs and lows going back and forth between depression and joy you might consider talking to a therapist about the possibility of bipolar disorder. I am not a therapist, I do not have any professional training, but while reading that it felt like reading bipolar

Everything not in equilibrium with its surroudings, and thus has energy stored is bipolar by its very nature when put into action. Pop a cap of a bottle that has vacuum and measure the pressure inside. You will see see a sine wave going up and down a few times before it reaches equilibrium. Now my mind is not as much connected to its environment (or reality) as could be. It is sealed (or partially) like the capped bottle, and therefore is not in equilibrium with its environment. Engaging reality more with an open mind will bring equilibrium. That is how I see it. Thanks for your concern.

The "craving-crushing voice" sounds like Nibbida, if that's what you're asking.
There's a lot written about it, including this introduction by Piya Tan.

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


text:
Request for explanation on heart sutta
This what I read part of heart sutta states;
So, in emptiness, there is no body,
no feeling, no thought,
no will, no consciousness.
There are no eyes, no ears,
no nose, no tongue,
no body, no mind.
There is no seeing, no hearing,
no smelling, no tasting,
no touching, no imagining.
There is nothing seen, nor heard,
nor smelled, nor tasted,
nor touched, nor imagined.
apparently it is about the death of being to me.Also this description perfectly match and experience in coma or unconsciousness state of an individual.
can I get proper and profound explanation for above?

I like your question. But looks like the words you got not accurate. The only surviving Heart Sutra translation is in Chinese, the Sanskrit back-translated from Chinese now kept in Japanese Museum; the original Sanskrit was lost unless by miracle from archaeological discovery we could retrieve... I may write a post, later if have time :)

Various translations of the heart sutra can be found here

Also can some one help to verify reliability of Heart sutta by giving proper link to refer it.

@danukashewantha Here is what Wikipedia says, if that helps.

@danukashewantha But you can not consider any kind of death or circumstances as a Nirvana. Accidental death, natural or as you said coma. But Nirvana is different you know. If someone is in coma, it is not empty as a person who reach Nirvan or person who is died in accident or natural one is not empty. So that's why it's called Nirvana.

As Mishu mentioned, the oldest copy we have is in Classical Chinese. Even though many of the characters of the sutra still exist in modern Chinese and Japanese, there are subtleties that are very hard to translate. The most difficult word to convey into English is the word translated as "no", 無 (wu in Chinese, mu in Japanese). It's not exactly as our word for "no" or "not", the character for this in Chinese is 不 (bu). Both appear in the sutra:

色不異空，空不異色
form does not differ from the void, and the void does not differ from form.

and

無眼耳鼻舌身意，無色聲香味觸法
no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, nor perception; no form, sound, smell, taste, tangible objects nor objects of mind;

So there must be a difference in meaning, otherwise they would have used the same character in both cases.
The origin of the character 無 is a pictogram of a man holding something in both hands:

This visible etymology is lost in the modern simplified version of the character: 无.
In Classical texts, it means a complete absence of anything, which in English we would equate with void.
The character in the earliest translations chosen for the Sanskrit shunya (emptiness) is usually 空, the etymology being a sky without clouds. It is therefore closer to describing the emptiness of a cup than total void. You may wonder why they chose 空 over 無, since the meaning of the latter is closer to shunya. The reason for this is probably because 無 was already used in Daoist texts, like the paradox of acting without intention (wu wei 無為). Zen (Chan) Buddhists in China borrowed this concept to help understand related ideas in Buddhism (specifically the limitations of language to capture meaning and the lack of substantial being in the cosmos). So Mu in Japanese has fundamentally this meaning: there is no substantiality to things, and language does not capture all possible descriptions of reality.
This is how it's used in the Heart Sutra: it doesn't literally mean there are no senses, it means something like:

無眼: seeing without conceptualizing it (like the difference between to see and to observe, the latter being a conscious action)
無耳: hearing without listening
etc.

The described emptiness is not death nor unconsciousness nor coma.
The verses before and after say:

"Sariputra, the  characteristics  of  the  voidness  of  all  dharmas
  are  non-arising,  non-ceasing, non-defiled, non-pure, non-increasing,
  non-decreasing
So, in emptiness, there is no body, no feeling, no thought, no will,
  no consciousness. There are no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no
  body, no mind. There is no seeing, no hearing, no smelling, no
  tasting, no touching, no imagining. There is nothing seen, nor heard,
  nor smelled, nor tasted, nor touched, nor imagined.
No  ignorance  and  also  no  ending  of  ignorance, until we come
  to no old age and death  and no ending of old age and death. "

This sutta is telling you that whatever this emptiness is, it is not it. It is neither death nor unconsciousness nor coma nor that nor that nor ... etc.
This is not death of being. The sutta says it is not:

"until we come to no old age and death and no ending of old age and
  death"

If you're still wondering what this emptiness is, you can only experience it. Impossible is to give an accurate definition of it, because whatever the definition, it is completely inaccurate.
It can only be explained by explaining it in extremes, so that you can experience it yourself by realizing the middle.
Everything is this emptiness and at the same time nothing is this emptiness.
First extreme, if you say this emptiness is something, for example you see a dead being and say "death truly exists", that would be an absurdity. Something cannot truly exist, because for it to exist, an infinite chain of causes-effects must truly exist leading to the final effect which is "death", but due to the chain being infinite, the final cause (which is "death") would never arise, thus "death" would not exist. In the same way when you read a passage in the sutta and say "this is death of being" or coma or unconsciousness, it really is not, because it cannot be. If it really were, it would be an absurdity, just as I explained.
The opposite extreme, if you say this emptiness is nothing, for example you see a dead being and say "death does not exist", that would be again an absurdity. Everything does exist, because if it would not, we would not be able to see it, not be able to perceive it, touch it, feel it, etc. In the same way if you ever say to something "this is nothingness", it really is not, because it cannot be. If it really were, it would be an absurdity, just as I explained.
It is because of the above observations that nothing truly (inherently) exists, BUT when it exists it exists untruly (conventionally) AND with a cause. Obviously there must be a cause.
The quoted verses of the sutta are trying to show you the middle.

Emptiness is Dependent Co-Arising. Meaning, top and bottom co-arise dependently on each other,  a reference point, and a sense of direction. Self and world co-arise dependently on each other and the activity of trying to acquire desirable objects over time. And so on. Nothing exists in the world as we see it. Reality is an interpretation we make. This interpretation is illusion. It's like a bush that looks like a dog, but when you get closer, it's no longer dog, because you see individual leaves. You see that you designating bush as dog was your interpretation based on incomplete information. Makes sense?
So when Heart Sutra says, "in emptiness, there is no body, no feeling, no thought, no will, no consciousness." - it just means that the five skandhas of Abhidharma are only abstractions, designated for their explanatory value. They don't actually exist as something tangible in some ultimate reality.
Same way, all that stuff we learn in Abhidharma, the six doors, the six realms, and all concepts of Buddhism without exception, including Enlightenment and Nirvana itself, are like that bush that looks like a dog. They only exist from afar, but once you get close you see that they are empty. You see the branches and leaves, not the dog.
Everything is like that. Understanding this is one greatest dissolutionment that a person can experience in their life. Everything is empty, nothing is what it seems, so nothing is absolutely reliable. No ground to stand on, no reference point to measure from.
In my understanding of Mahayana, breaking out into That while keeping one's sanity is the very door to Nirvana we were looking for.

There's no end of suffering because suffering is "a bush". Getting to see that is "Nirvana"

So if i say emptiness is duality of noting and everything what would be your respond?

I'd say you're using the word duality in a wrong way, not in a way it's used in Buddhism. Also, there's no nothing in emptiness.

You can read a very nice explanation of the Heart Sutra's emptiness teaching in Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh's writing "The Fullness of Emptiness", in which he also introduces the term "inter-being" which he coined:

If I am holding a cup of water and I ask you, “Is this cup empty?” you
  will say, “No, it is full of water.” But if I pour out the water and
  ask you again, you may say, “Yes, it is empty.” But empty of what?
  Empty means empty of something. The cup cannot be empty of nothing.
  “Empty” doesn’t mean anything unless you know “empty of what?” My cup
  is empty of water, but it is not empty of air. To be empty is to be
  empty of something. This is quite a discovery. When Avalokita says
  that the five skandhas are equally empty, to help him be precise we
  must ask, “Mr. Avalokita, empty of what?”
The five skandhas, which may be translated into English as five heaps,
  or five aggregates, are the five elements that comprise a human being.
  These five elements flow like a river in every one of us. In fact,
  these are really five rivers flowing together in us: the river of
  form, which means our bodies; the river of feelings; the river of
  perceptions; the river of mental formations; and the river of
  consciousness. They are always flowing in us. So according to
  Avalokita, when he looked deeply into the nature of these five rivers,
  he suddenly saw that all five are empty.
If we ask, “Empty of what?” he has to answer. And this is what he
  said: “They are empty of a separate self.” That means none of these
  five rivers can exist by itself alone. Each of the five rivers has to
  be made by the other four. It has to coexist; it has to inter-be with
  all the others. “Emptiness” means empty of a separate self. It is full
  of everything.
In our bodies we have lungs, heart, kidneys, stomach, and blood. None
  of these can exist independently. They can only coexist with the
  others. Your lungs and your blood are two things, but neither can
  exist separately. The lungs take in air and enrich the blood, and, in
  turn, the blood nourishes the lungs. Without the blood, the lungs
  cannot be alive, and without the lungs, the blood cannot be cleansed.
  Lungs and blood inter-are. The same is true with kidneys and blood,
  kidneys and stomach, lungs and heart, blood and heart, and so on.
When Avalokita says that our sheet of paper is empty, he means it is
  empty of a separate, independent existence. It cannot just be by
  itself. It has to inter-be with the sunshine, the cloud, the forest,
  the logger, the mind, and everything else. It is empty of a separate
  self. But, empty of a separate self means full of everything. So it
  seems that our observation and that of Avalokita do not contradict
  each other after all. Avalokita looked deeply into the five skandhas
  of form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness,
  and he discovered that none of them can be by itself alone. Each can
  only inter-be with all the others. So he tells us that form is empty.
  Form is empty of a separate self, but it is full of everything in the
  cosmos. The same is true with feelings, perceptions, mental
  formations, and consciousness.
Form is the wave and emptiness is the water. To understand this, we
  have to think differently than many of us who were raised in the West
  were trained to think. In the West, when we draw a circle, we consider
  it to be zero, nothingness. But in India and many other Asian
  countries, a circle means totality, wholeness. The meaning is the
  opposite. So “form is emptiness, and emptiness is form” is like wave
  is water, water is wave. “Form is not other than emptiness, emptiness
  is not other than form. The same is true with feelings, perceptions,
  mental formations, and consciousness,” because these contain each
  other. Because one exists, everything exists.

unconsciousness state of an individual

The title of the Sutra is "Prajnaparamita" 般若波羅蜜 which means Supreme Consciousness so how can it be unconsciousness
In Venerable Guan Cheng explanation below, the "no" statement is negated statement rather than affirmative statement as a guide to achieve supreme consciousness as example below
i.e.
negated statement - "Please DO NOT STOP" workout and practice everyday
affirmative statement - "Please" workout and practice everyday
Check out video at 14:20
There are no such thing as "no consciousness" too as a sentient but rather a negated statement guide. Consciousness is fall under Physic Science category. Basic physic law stated that consciousness is energy and energy can't be destroyed and it can be only be transformed.
While deeply immersed in prajna paramita - 行深般若波羅蜜多時 , means deeply practicing to transform into Supreme Consciousness in lay man English.

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


text:
Does consume eggs and fish oil violate the first precept?
Technically egg is a singular cell. it doesn't feel pain.So does break egg violate the first precept?
Most often doctor prescribe fish oil(cod liver oil) as a medicine for rejuvenate brain cells as it contain omega -3? Doses it violate first precept?

When you eat fish oil, what is it exactly that you kill? Omega 3 is simply a fatty acid, which is simply a molecule.

to extract fish oil,one has to kill the fish. That's what I meant?

If this is what you meant, then there are plenty of questions on Buddhism SE which discuss vegetarianism or veganism and Buddhism.

there are plant based suppelmnts who contain omega3  (for example from sea weed which is the source the fish get their omega 3 btw)

i canot say for certain if eating fish or consuming omega 3 supplement made from fish oil does or dosnt break the first precept  - but i do think i can say that taking the effort to get a plant based omega 3 supplement instead of fish based is good kamma

See also Is eating fish eggs the same as killing?

It does not unless the egg is alive. Eggs sold in supermarkets are usually unfertilized. Fish oil is not an animal.

When people would always give me your answer about eggs, I would ask them what the intent of the egg is. It is to produce a life (a chick) not food for your stomach.

Egg  has no intent. It is just matter

Perhaps I stated it incorrectly. An egg does not have intent like you mention. But the reason an egg is produced is to produce a life, not to end up on a grocery store shelf to wind up in someone's belly. IMHO that is.

There's no such inherent thing called 'reason'. There are causes and effects. The egg is simply an effect of causes. We can assign a reason to anything but it's always going to be superficial.

majjhima nikāya
the middle length sayings
jīvaka suttaṃ

Discourse to Jīvaka

thus have i heard: At one time the Lord was staying at Rājagaha in Jīvaka Komārabhacca's Mango Grove. Then Jīvaka Komārabhacca approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, Jīvaka Komārabhacca spoke thus to the Lord:
“This is what I have heard, revered sir: that they kill living creatures on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and that the recluse Gotama knowingly makes use of meat killed on purpose and specially provided for him. Those who speak thus, revered sir: ‘They kill living creatures on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and the recluse Gotama knowingly makes use of meat killed on purpose and specially provided for him’, now, are these quoting the Lord's own words, revered sir, not misrepresenting the Lord with what is not fact, are they explaining in conformity with Dhamma, and does no reasoned thesis give occasion for contempt?”
“Jīvaka, those who speak thus: ‘They kill living creatures on purpose for the recluse Gotama, and the recluse Gotama knowingly makes use of meat killed on purpose and specially provided for him’, these are not quoting my own words, but are misrepresenting me with what is not true, with what is not fact. I, Jīvaka, say that in three cases meat may not be used: if it is seen, heard, suspected (to have been killed on purpose for a monk). In these three cases I, Jīvaka, say that meat may not be used. But I, Jīvaka, say that in three cases meat may be used: if it is not seen, heard, suspected (to have been killed on purpose for a monk). In these three cases I, Jīvaka, say that meat may be used.
As to this, Jīvaka, a monk lives depending on a village or market town. He dwells having suffused the first quarter with a mind of friendliness, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; just so above, below, across; he dwells having suffused the whole world everywhere, in every way, with a mind of friendliness that is far-reaching, wide-spread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence. A householder or a householder's son, having approached him, invites him to a meal on the morrow. The monk accepts, Jīvaka, if he so desires. At the end of that night, having dressed in the early morning, taking his bowl and robe, he approaches the dwelling of that householder or householder's son; having approached, he sits down on the appointed seat, and the householder or householder's son waits on him with sumptuous almsfood.
It does not occur to him: ‘Indeed it is good that a householder or a householder's son waits on me with sumptuous almsfood. O may a householder or a householder's son also wait on me in the future with similar sumptuous almsfood’, this does not occur to him. He makes use of that almsfood without being ensnared, entranced or enthralled by it, but seeing the peril in it, wise as to the escape. What do you think about this, Jīvaka? Is that monk at that time striving for the hurt of self or is he striving for the hurt of others or is he striving for the hurt of both?” “Not this, revered sir.” “Is not that monk at that time, Jīvaka, eating food that is blameless?” “Yes, revered sir. I had heard this, revered sir: Sublime is abiding in friendliness! The Lord is seen as my witness for this, revered sir, for the Lord is abiding in friendliness.”
“Jīvaka, that attachment, that aversion, that confusion through which there might be malevolence, these have been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence in the future. If this is the meaning of what you said, Jīvaka, I agree with you.” “This is the exact meaning of what I said, revered sir.”
“As to this, Jīvaka, a monk lives depending on a village or market town. He dwells having suffused the first quarter with a mind of compassion, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; just so above, below, across; he dwells having suffused the whole world everywhere, in every way, with a mind of compassion that is far-reaching, wide-spread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence. A householder or a householder's son, having approached him, invites him to a meal on the morrow. The monk accepts, Jīvaka, if he so desires. At the end of that night, having dressed in the early morning, taking his bowl and robe, he approaches the dwelling of that householder or householder's son; having approached, he sits down on the appointed seat, and the householder or householder's son waits on him with sumptuous almsfood.
It does not occur to him: ‘Indeed it is good that a householder or a householder's son waits on me with sumptuous almsfood. O may a householder or a householder's son also wait on me in the future with similar sumptuous almsfood’, this does not occur to him. He makes use of that almsfood without being ensnared, entranced or enthralled by it, but seeing the peril in it, wise as to the escape. What do you think about this, Jīvaka? Is that monk at that time striving for the hurt of self or is he striving for the hurt of others or is he striving for the hurt of both?” “Not this, revered sir.” “Is not that monk at that time, Jīvaka, eating food that is blameless?” “Yes, revered sir. I had heard this, revered sir: Sublime is abiding in compassion! The Lord is seen as my witness for this, revered sir, for the Lord is abiding in compassion.”
“Jīvaka, that attachment, that aversion, that confusion through which there might be malevolence, these have been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence in the future. If this is the meaning of what you said, Jīvaka, I agree with you.” “This is the exact meaning of what I said, revered sir.”
“As to this, Jīvaka, a monk lives depending on a village or market town. He dwells having suffused the first quarter with a mind of sympathetic joy, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; just so above, below, across; he dwells having suffused the whole world everywhere, in every way, with a mind of sympathetic joy that is far-reaching, wide-spread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence. A householder or a householder's son, having approached him, invites him to a meal on the morrow. The monk accepts, Jīvaka, if he so desires. At the end of that night, having dressed in the early morning, taking his bowl and robe, he approaches the dwelling of that householder or householder's son; having approached, he sits down on the appointed seat, and the householder or householder's son waits on him with sumptuous almsfood.
It does not occur to him: ‘Indeed it is good that a householder or a householder's son waits on me with sumptuous almsfood. 0 may a householder or a householder's son also wait on me in the future with similar sumptuous almsfood’, this does not occur to him. He makes use of that almsfood without being ensnared, entranced or enthralled by it, but seeing the peril in it, wise as to the escape. What do you think about this, Jīvaka? Is that monk at that time striving for the hurt of self or is he striving for the hurt of others or is he striving for the hurt of both?” “Not this, revered sir.” “Is not that monk at that time, Jīvaka, eating food that is blameless?” “Yes, revered sir. I had heard this, revered sir: Sublime is abiding in sympathetic joy! The Lord is seen as my witness for this, revered sir, for the Lord is abiding in sympathetic joy.”
“Jīvaka, that attachment, that aversion, that confusion through which there might be malevolence, these have been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence in the future. If this is the meaning of what you said, Jīvaka, I agree with you.” “This is the exact meaning of what I said, revered sir.”
“As to this, Jīvaka, a monk lives depending on a village or market town. He dwells having suffused the first quarter with a mind of equanimity, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; just so above, below, across; he dwells having suffused the whole world everywhere, in every way, with a mind of equanimity that is far-reaching, wide-spread, immeasurable, without enmity, without malevolence. A householder or a householder's son, having approached him, invites him to a meal on the morrow. The monk accepts, Jīvaka, if he so desires. At the end of that night, having dressed in the early morning, taking his bowl and robe, he approaches the dwelling of that householder or householder's son; having approached, he sits down on the appointed seat, and the householder or householder's son waits on him with sumptuous almsfood.
It does not occur to him: ‘Indeed it is good that a householder or a householder's son waits on me with sumptuous almsfood. 0 may a householder or a householder's son also wait on me in the future with similar sumptuous almsfood’, this does not occur to him. He makes use of that almsfood without being ensnared, entranced or enthralled by it, but seeing the peril in it, wise as to the escape. What do you think about this, Jīvaka? Is that monk at that time striving for the hurt of self or is he striving for the hurt of others or is he striving for the hurt of both?” “Not this, revered sir.” “Is not that monk at that time, Jīvaka, eating food that is blameless?” “Yes, revered sir. I had heard this, revered sir: Sublime is abiding in equanimity! The Lord is seen as my witness for this, revered sir, for the Lord is abiding in equanimity.”
“Jīvaka, that attachment, that aversion, that confusion through which there might be annoyance, through which there might be dislike, through which there might be repugnance, these have been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump that can come to no further existence in the future. If this is the meaning of what you said, Jīvaka, I agree with you.” “This is the exact meaning of what I said, revered sir.”
“Jīvaka, he who kills a living creature on purpose for a Tathāgata or a Tathāgata's disciple stores up much demerit in five ways: In that, when he speaks thus: ‘Go and fetch such and such a living creature,’ in this first way he stores up much demerit. In that, while this living creature is being fetched it experiences pain and distress because of the affliction to its throat, in this second way he stores up much demerit. In that, when he speaks thus: ‘Go and kill that living creature’, in this third way he stores up much demerit. In that, while this living creature is being killed it experiences pain and distress, in this fourth way he stores up much demerit. In that, if he proffers to a Tathāgata or a Tathāgata's disciple what is not allowable, in this fifth way he stores up much demerit. He who, Jīvaka, kills a living creature on purpose for a Tathāgata or a Tathāgata's disciple stores up much demerit in these five ways.”
When this had been said, Jīvaka Komārabhacca spoke thus to the Lord: “It is wonderful, revered sir, it is marvellous, revered sir. Indeed, revered sir, the monks eat food that is allowable; indeed, revered sir, the monks eat food that is blameless. It is excellent, revered sir, it is excellent, revered sir. It is as if, revered sir, one might set upright what had been upset, or might disclose what was covered, or point out the way to one who had gone astray, or might bring an oil-lamp into the darkness so that those with vision might see material shapes, even so is Dhamma made clear in many a figure by the Lord. I am going to the Lord for refuge, and to Dhamma and to the Order of monks. May the Lord accept me as a lay-disciple going for refuge from this day forth for as long as life lasts.”
Discourse to Jīvaka MN 55


text:
The four great elements and scientific equivalent
Science categorize physical world in to solid,liquid,gas and energy(thermal,kinetic,nuclear,radiation etc....) when it analyze, prove that nothing more than those three state of material and energy and science has already proven the interconnection of energy and matter(in nuclear technology). Also the three state of matter is conditioned by energy.E.g when you apply heat(energy) to ice (solid) it will convert into water(liquid) and further reach steam(gas). Once we consider four great elements patavi,apo,thejo,vayo; is it an equivalent of above scientific categorization?

There are several other topics about the four elements: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=four+elements+is%3Aquestion

Off topic for Buddhism, looks more like a Vedas / Hinduism question?

Those four elements you mentioned, it's not scientific categorization but more like to Hinduism or vedic...

This is not a question about Buddhism, but rather an ill-defined question about metaphysics and physics.

@YesheTenley I think it's asking whether the "four great elements" in Buddhism refer to the three states of matter plus energy, IOW it's a question about the meaning of terms used in Buddhist doctrine.

Earth,water,fire and air . These elements are also conditioned to energy. they can also change states on application of energy. A huge planet composed of all above elements in all forms reduces to no matter state when becoming black hole.How could we explain that? our science is still collecting admission form to get it admitted in nursery. Buddha few days prior to his nirvana ,while walking with disciples, suddenly stopped and bending down picked a fistful of soil from the ground and said 'If you consider that i have attained some thing then this is worth of this fistful of soil against the quantum of unknown which is whole of the soil of this earth". so enjoy.

That's alchemy, not science. No scientist pretends to know exactly what happens to matter when it passes the event horizon of a black hole.