text:
Is it possible and good to know and/or talk about other/more details about the way out of suffering than the Buddha did?
(One of the reasons for asking this question is that I thought that maybe some people needed some extra/other knowledge/insight in order for the Noble Eightfold Path to become more accessible to them.)
Not necessarily to be "better" in knowledge and understanding than the Buddha overall, but to have a better understanding or additional explicit knowledge of some things or see certain things in more detail or accuracy with regards to certain aspects about the way out of suffering, and that may also address particular, "extreme" types of ignorance, mental illness, psychosis.
To be able to answer other questions related to the way out of suffering that the Buddha was never asked.

Given your recent edit something like this too might be relevant: How to explain what Buddhism is?

In the parable of the Simsapa leaves in SN 56.31, the Buddha took some Simsapa (Indian rosewood) leaves in his hand and said that the leaves in his hand were far less in number than the leaves in the forest. Similarly, he had realized far more than he taught. However, that which he taught is all that is needed for the path to end suffering. That which he did not teach is not relevant to the path to end suffering.
Meanwhile, in DN 16, he declared that he did not hide (in a "closed fist") any teachings from his disciples. He said he did not separate some teachings as being exotic or esoteric.
Based on these statements, we can say that more details regarding the path is unnecessary. Also, since the Shakyamuni Buddha was the last Sammasambuddha (or Buddha with full perfection), it is unlikely that anyone else coming after him would know more of the path than he does, unless they too achieve the same level of perfection.
Hence, it is plausible that primarily relying on the Buddha's original words (Buddhavacana or the Buddha's Words) in most of the Sutta Pitaka (and the corresponding Mahayana Agamas) is sufficient for understanding his teachings and the path. I say "most", because there are parts of the Sutta Pitaka which contain teachings or writings from other people e.g. Sariputta, Ananda, Mogallana, elder monks, elder nuns, a few advanced householders etc. Some parts of the Sutta Pitaka like some books in the Khuddaka Nikaya even come from later periods, like the Milindapanha. You can find more scholarly information on the authenticity of the Buddha's original words in the book "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali.
But this does not mean that it's wrong to elaborate or expand on the Buddha's teachings, while not contradicting the original teachings. In fact, I think teachers over the ages would definitely try to explain the teachings using new methods and analogies. However, such elaborations or expansions should be considered secondary sources, which are less important compared to the Buddha's original teachings.
Many traditional Theravadins say that the Abhidhamma was taught by the Buddha, but academic scholars say that this is a later work by disciples. To me, I would consider the Abhidhamma as a secondary source, that explains the Buddha's original teachings in the Sutta Pitaka. The many carefully collated lists in the Abhidhamma are useful.
The Visuddhimagga (or Path of Purification) written by Buddhaghosa in the 5th century in Sri Lanka is another useful secondary source that expands on Buddhist meditation practice and doctrine. It can be downloaded here.
Also many traditional Mahayanists say that the Mahayana sutras were taught by the Buddha in the second and third turning of the wheel, but academic scholars say that these are later works by Mahayana authors. To me, I would consider these as secondary sources too. Nagarjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā contains an expansion on the Buddha's original definition of emptiness. I tried to analyze the link between Madhyamaka emptiness and Theravada emptiness in this question.
Of course, I understand that there will be traditional Theravadins and traditional Mahayanists who will disagree with some of my opinions above.

The Buddha is omniscient. His knowledge is unobstructed. There is no knowledge that is hidden to him once he sets his mind on the subject. The Buddha has no peer except other Sammasambuddha in the past. So what you are saying is technically not possible.

Obviously as with any non-trivial teaching or practice there is infinite amount of real life situations, and infinite amount of mistakes the students can make.
So while Dharma was presented both in summary and in details by the Buddha, there is always room for explanations about how this teaching should be applied in practical situations, and how to differentiate between mistaken understanding and valid understanding of the teaching.

Householder (my person "guesses" Upasaka already) Angus, interested,
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
To answer in short: Yes, it is possible for the individuals situation, that someone else then the Buddha offers the Dhamma in "better" ways that the Buddha could, yet it's nevertheless the Buddha that one would have met.
While surely there is no teacher more advanced then the Buddha himself right view is gained on two things, hearing the good teaching, and yoniso manasikara.
When one of it is not present, it would not work that it would arise. While it requires the Dhamma of the Noble Ones, Arahats, best formulated by the Buddha, it does not necessary require to be spoken by a Buddha, meaning that even a worldling could transmit it, if remembering it, heard before.
It also does not require to be 1:1 a repetition of what the Buddha said, since, as he told, "what ever good told, is the word of the Tathagata.

...“But is this Ven. Uttara's own extemporaneous invention, or is it the saying of the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Rightly Self-awakened One?”
“Very well, then, deva-king, I will give you an analogy, for there are cases where it's through an analogy that observant people can understand the meaning of what is being said. Suppose that not far from a village or town there was a great pile of grain, from which a great crowd of people were carrying away grain on their bodies, on their heads, in their laps, or in their cupped hands. If someone were to approach that great crowd of people and ask them, 'From where are you carrying away grain?' answering in what way would that great crowd of people answer so as to be answering rightly?”
“Venerable sir, they would answer, 'We are carrying it from that great pile of grain,' so as to be answering rightly.”
“In the same way, deva-king, whatever is well said is all a saying of the Blessed One, the Worthy One, the Rightly Self-awakened One. Adopting it again & again from there do we & others speak.”...  - Uttara Sutta

In that sense, "is the teaching of a Buddha required?", if categorical answered, one needs to say "yes and no". While it might be said by one not at the stage of Buddhahood, it still would be the word of Buddha (awakened one).
Now in relation of proper attention. To be able to listen to someone requires certain Upanissaya (strong conditions). It might be, that out of inclination toward certain kind of people, one would be not able to listen to the Buddha himself, the kind of speech, not used to it, and so not lower ones position to be able to receive it and maintain proper attention. Even at the Buddhas time there have been many arising to path and fruits by listening to the Sanghas member, someone near and dear, in words used to.
So also in relation of ones own giving into, while hearing the Dhamma, it could be that another then the Buddha is the one able to offer so that one can receive.
People have certain Nissaya with each other, remember the many cases where the Buddha invested much effort to convince leaders of sects. The members would never have been able to escape from there certain relation. One they heard the Dhamma or approve from those thwy are bound to, they could and many ordained on the account of following their leader.
The same works today as well. As long leaders of bond groups are not turning toward the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, their folk would not pay much attention. That's for example one reason why there is still no Sangha in the West and dies of even in the most old countries since leaded by democracy, the opinion of the many folk, which has naturally less access to the Gems.
This being the reason, Upanissayapaccaya (strong condition causes), incl. people and food, here to mention, people need to meet the right group, the right teacher for them. Being the case, it's again not so that someone else then the Buddha speaks, althought another might utter, since who ever sees/hears the Dhamma, sees/hears the Tathagata.
And that is why one owes much to them, as actually living Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha next to them, once they could receive their gift.

Has done much

"Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to a person. Which three? Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person takes refuge in the Enlightenment, in the Teaching and the Community of bhikkhus.

"Bhikkhus, the person gone to whom this person knows as it really is, this is unpleasant, this is the arising of unpleasantness, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and this is the path leading to the cessation of unpleasantness.
"Again, bhikkhus, the person gone to whom, this person destroys desires, releases the mind and released through wisdom, here and now abides having realized. Bhikkhus, these three persons have done much to this person.
"Bhikkhus, it is not possible that these three persons could be thoroughly repaid with gratitude, by this person revering him, attending on him, clasping hands towards him and honouring him with robes, morsel food, dwellings and medicinal requisites."

This is how people, even today, gain rightly their living Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
This here taught is the reason why may do not good, really not good, when approached by commentaries, later uttering, even taught here, when not just cited, and neglect them categorically, neglect the Elders and those with directer relation as well as their advice.
Nevertheless it's important to remark that there, on account what the Buddha specifically had taught, are two people who sander the Tathagata: "One who explains something further which does not require further explaining and one who does not explains something further, what requires further explaining." So even one who simply just recite the Buddhas words, could, on certain occasions, in certain situations, or in and of itself, slander the Tathagata with it. And also the other way around.
However, in relation of the message here given: "Today" there are many who like to neglect this fact, thinking they do not owe anybody something, where defilement argue it was by the Tripple Gems, not any particular person... that is not only an indicator that they haven't arrived at the path, a sign of ingratitude, but also of a lot of demerits, holding wrong views, possible even cut off in their self-over-estimation, having made themselves to islands, islands which are drifting out into the open sea and bound to sink for away form borderlands to the Noble Domain.
This here taught is the reason why may do not good, really not good, when approached by commentaries, later uttering, even taught here, when not just cited, and neglect them categorically, neglect the Elders and those with directer relation as well as their advice.
A possible extended and improved answer, as well as given space to give into, how ever one feels inspired, can be found, also open for discussion, here: [Q&A] Could someone teach the Dhamma better then the Buddha?
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

Many people do not understand the difference between the Path and the Noble Path.
From a child to adult and every person in all walk of life follow the Eightfold Path. Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path.
Eightfold Path has different variations.

Lokiya Eightfold Path
Alokiya Eightfold Path
Run off the mill Eightfold Path
Noble Eightfold Path.

Buddha explained all of above but in an indirect way. Many people do not see this.

About the 1st Noble Truth, the Buddha said: "this suffering is to be comprehended". If we question or doubt the completeness of what the Buddha taught, it simply shows we have not comprehended what suffering really is.
The Buddha summarised all suffering as attaching to the five aggregates (as "self"). When the peace & freedom of non-attachment & not-self is discerned, there will be no doubt this is the only way to end suffering, completely.
This said, worldly Buddhism and other religions offer other ways to end suffering, such as believing in life after death. But these faith methods are not completely reliable.
While the non-attachment method is completely reliable when operative, many people can't actually practise it because the "self" instinct can be difficult, often impossible, to remove.

Maha Satipattana Sutta has a very detailed definition on the Four Noble Truths, and the first one in more detail. It would be hard to break it down further. One is better off just finding an example for each instead.


text:
Memories of previous lives
I think I have to tolerate memories of previous lives. And I know many of which memories are combination of true and false memories.Part of the memories are scientifically superimposed by army or any research department of the government.It is pointless to try to get rid of these memories.Are scientific memories good or bad for me? or are these  cinematic experiments artificial intelligence based?

If you're asking about implantation of false memories by the government through technological means, I think this is off-topic for Buddhism.SE.

I have asked the question on "science" tag.The reference of computer,aero-dynamics automatically comes if one wants to elaborate.In our age no one can ignore role of computers in one"s life user 26375

I think this is a good question. The ability of a Buddhist, particularly a meditating one, to identify memories whether true or false and classify them as good or bad is vital in the path to understanding The Four Noble Truths. Bhaddekaratta ghaatha is a good example of such mental balance.

It's good to remember birth, aging, sickness and death, the suffering again and again. So actually perfect when the proper attention to see the first Noble truth and more perfect then, if having heard the others as well.

@ Samana johann  iN  BENGALI LANGUAGE THESE ARE CALLED  BITAN[S] .SO AM CITING  THIS BITANS AS HAVE BEEN CREATED BY MILITARY INTELLIGENCE-:ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE USER 26375

Investigate of what was told, Nyom @ABHIJITBAGCHI . The rest: why, where... real, artificially... is not importand, brings no benefit and would be ever wrong taken.

since half of the the question was based on  science ,i apologize for if i am not nice but I hoped that  an answer based on science is given.user 26375

It's all science, but the real one, the one on can see for himself. So why playing around with fake science? Or was anything really till today, @ABHIJITBAGCHI ?

Does memory change? Is it real? Or not?

Homesickness,longing for the past,nostalgia.if these are beneficial for one he should put up with that.This depends upon how old is the person.I think my question is not weird,because we can say Military also helped creating the world with the help of artificial intelligence which machines have.Such asElectric lines are not the works of any single individual or country.but my question is if I can not get rid of the memories permanently  created by military by visual computer graphic,cinematic experiments,what is the good of practising yoga or meditation after many years @Samana Johann?

Again: look at aging, sickness and death with any birth, with any memory, there is nothing to fear that all grasped will break apart but this, and no other phenomena should be seen to let go of what is not real, @ABHIJITBAGCHI . Even more foolish is to hold on what is past. Good actions now, will result in good fruits, so one keeps the focus there and bad things can not arise.

via: http://chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php/The_Six_Supernatural_Powers_of_Buddha
PUBBENIVASA - POWER OF KNOWING PREVIOUS EXISTENCES.
The All-knowing One further elucidated thus: "If a monk should frame a wish as follows:- Let me call to my mind many previous states of existence, to wit one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, one hundred births, one thousand births, one hundred thousand births, many destructions of a world cycle (Kappa), many renovations of a world cycle, many destructions and many renovations of a world cycle: I lived in such a place, had such a name was of such a family, of such a caste, had such a maintenance, experienced such happiness and such miseries had such a length of life. Then I passed from that existence and was reborn in such a place. There also I had such a name, was of such a family, of such a caste, had such a maintenance, experienced such happiness and such miseries, had such a length of life. Then I passed from that existence and was reborn in such a place. There also I had such a name, was of such a family, of such a caste, had such a maintenance, experienced such happiness and such miseries, had such a length of life. Then I passed from that existence and was reborn in this existence." Thus let me call to my mind many former states of existence and let me specifically characterise them," then must he be perfect in the precepts etc. -
This power is sorely attributable to the expounding of the "Theory of Rebirth" and 'Samsara' by the Buddha for all living beings in the entire Universe.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why meditate. . .?
Back to basics. If asked, “why meditate,” perhaps responding with the question, “why breathe,” may get to the heart of the question?
Recalling some worthwhile answers:
— In order to properly respond when required
— So as not to miss the tiny flowers on one’s walk
— To see things as they truly and actually are

If one were to contemplate how to get rid of birth, aging, decease and death, one might discover realizing the Four Noble Truths is the way and meditation is part of the methodology in such realization.

There are 3 types of knowledges to be gained.

Sutamaya Panna - knowledge gained by listening or reading
Cintamaya Panna - knowledge gained by analytical thinking.
Bhavanamaya Panna - knowledge gained by meditation

Out of these three types, only the knowledge gained by meditation is sharp enough to cut through defilements. More specifically speaking, one needs to see impermanence, suffering and non-self through direct knowledge to cut off craving. Hearing about them or logical thinking is too weak to overcome craving.

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


text:
How does killing bear consequences?
How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences?
This person started saying: "old hunter-gatherers, had no consequences nor problems with hunting". If I tell them this is the Buddhist point of view they are going to label it as religious mystical nonsense.

You can accept an answer if one of them is helpful.

How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences?

Kamma is intention. The intention dictates the mental and physical consequences.

This person started saying: "old hunter-gatherers, had no consequences nor problems with hunting".

Correct. They hunted for food; to feed their children; following the cycle of life; how nature created them.

If I tell them this is the Buddhist point of view they are going to label it as religious mystical nonsense.

The above appears to be your personal point of view rather than a Buddhist point of view. If the above idea was Buddhist, there would be specific quotes from scriptures to support this idea; where the Buddha instructed people to not kill for food. Obviously, in the Buddha's time, people would have asked him the same questions about how to gather food. Obviously, the later monks decided such questions did not warrant inclusion in the scriptures. We know the Buddha never taught vegetarianism because he allowed monks to eat meat from almsfood. The Buddha appeared concerned about killing with wanton violence (rather than about how people feed themselves).

OP: How can I explain to a non follower of the Dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical
consequences?

Here, I assume that the non-follower of the Dhamma might be persuaded by scientific research output and professional opinions in the field of psychology and medicine.
Robert T. Muller, a professor of psychology, wrote in the article "Death Becomes Us: The Psychological Trauma of Killing" (Feb 21, 2014):

Killing is often misrepresented in film as far easier than it is. In
reality, the “duty” is mentally taxing, leaving most soldiers
physically ill in the moment and often haunted by nightmares for a
lifetime. Being responsible for ending the life of another human is a
significant source of trauma ...
Apart from about two percent of individuals classified as
“psychopaths,” who, because of deeply rooted personality flaws are
unphased by the act of killing, most soldiers are unprepared for the
task of ending the life of another human being. Many veterans report
that ending even one life is enough to haunt them with painful
memories and sometimes flashbacks.
Soldiers who have engaged in close combat are left with a much higher
likelihood of developing post traumatic stress disorder then their
counterparts who did not.

Stella Compton-Dickinson, a professional clinical therapist wrote in the article "The Psychology of Killing" (Aug 1, 2017):

My work with mentally disordered offenders who have killed,
demonstrates how instinctual, mindless impulses result in high-risk
behaviours. These become observable in body language and symbolic
gestures, which can be explained and understood.

Dave Grossman, retired U.S. Army personnel and former West Point Psychology Professor, wrote together with Bruce K. Siddle in the article "Psychological Effects of Combat" (1999):

... To truly understand the nature
of this resistance of killing we must first recognize that most
participants in close combat are literally "frightened out of their
wits." Once the bullets start flying, combatants stop thinking with
the forebrain, which is the part of the brain which makes us human,
and start thinking with the midbrain, or mammalian brain, which is the
primitive part of the brain that is generally indistinguishable from
that of an animal. ....
Among Vietnam veterans in the United States, PTSD has been strongly
linked with greatly increased divorce rates, increased incidence of
alcohol and drug abuse, and increased suicide rates.

The above articles talk about the psychological effect of humans killing humans. What about the psychological effect of humans killing animals?
Ashitha Nagesh wrote in the article "The harrowing psychological toll of slaughterhouse work" (Dec 31, 2017), quoting those who have worked as butchers:

Former slaughterhouse workers who have since spoken out about their
time in the industry have described feeling this change within them,
and experiencing PTSD symptoms for years afterwards.
One hog sticker, Ed Van Winkle ... describing ... the
dissociation slaughterers had to force upon themselves. ...
‘The worst thing, worse than the physical danger [of on-the-job
accidents] is the emotional toll,’ Winkle said. ‘Pigs down on the kill
floor have come up and nuzzled me like a puppy. Two minutes later I
had to kill them – beat them to death with a pipe. I can’t care.’ ...
Another such man was Virgil Butler, who worked in a poultry plant in
the US .....
‘The sheer amount of killing and blood can really get to you after a
while,’ .... ‘Especially if
you can’t just shut down all emotion and turn into a robot zombie of
death. You feel like part of a big death machine. [You’re] pretty much
treated that way as well. ...
.... ‘Many people who do this commit violent acts,’ he wrote. ‘They commit
crimes. People who already are criminals tend to gravitate towards
this job. You can’t have a strong conscience and kill living creatures
night after night.

So, how does this relate to the Buddhist precept of not taking a life? The Buddha taught in SN 42.3:

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already
seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be
struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not
exist.' If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus
striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the
body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those
slain in battle."

Also, from AN 10.92:

"When a person takes life, then with the taking of life as a requisite
condition, he produces fear & animosity in the here & now, produces
fear & animosity in future lives, experiences mental concomitants of
pain & despair; but when he refrains from taking life, he neither
produces fear & animosity in the here & now nor does he produce fear &
animosity in future lives, nor does he experience mental concomitants
of pain & despair: for one who refrains from taking life, that fear &
animosity is thus stilled.

And what's the purpose of virtue (which includes the Five Precepts)?
From AN 10.1:

“Thus, Ānanda, (1)–(2) the purpose and benefit of wholesome virtuous
behavior is non-regret; (3) the purpose and benefit of non-regret is
joy; (4) the purpose and benefit of joy is rapture; (5) the purpose
and benefit of rapture is tranquility; (6) the purpose and benefit of
tranquility is pleasure; (7) the purpose and benefit of pleasure is
concentration; (8) the purpose and benefit of concentration is the
knowledge and vision of things as they really are; (9) the purpose and
benefit of the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is
disenchantment and dispassion; and (10) the purpose and benefit of
disenchantment and dispassion is the knowledge and vision of
liberation. Thus, Ānanda, wholesome virtuous behavior progressively
leads to the foremost.”

moderator message: FYI: I'm a bit concerned about the amount of non-Buddhist content in your answer, but not to the point of cutting it out.

I'll reduce some non-Buddhist content.

As someone who has practiced Zen for 15 years and both hunts and raises most of his own meat, let me put in my two cents on the matter.
First of all, that person you were talking to is full of shit.  But that's to be expected.  Few modern people realize the deep bond that begins to form between the hunter and his quarry or a farmer and his flock.  It is an interspecies intimacy that most will never know outside of a religious practice like Buddhism.  By the time you find yourself aiming your arrow 20 yards from a deer, most of the time you know where she eats, where she drinks, where she sleeps, and who she hangs out with.  You probably also know how old she is and how old some of her children are.  She probably knows you too.  The same goes for raising animals.  When I kill chickens at nine weeks, I've raised them from the time they were one day out of the egg.  I've fed them, cared for them, kept their shelter clean.  Some will even demonstrate undeniably unique personalities.  When I kill something, the experience is truly face to face.  I'm not killing an animal, I'm killing a unique individual.  And it hurts a little.  That person you were talking to clearly never had a comparable experience.  My guess is that most of the meat he/she has eaten has come in a little shrink wrapped package.  They never felt the warmth of that animal's blood or felt the softness of its fur.  If they had, they'd know full well why so many hunter-gatherer cultures have thanksgiving practices that they perform for the animals they've harvested.
So what does this mean in the context of Buddhism?  Buddhism is all about developing intimacy.  When we become truly intimate with the world around us, we don't have to raise animals to develop that kind of connection.  We feel it viscerally because we directly experience our unbreakable connection to the world around us.  We feel the bond that the farmer feels and what the hunter feels without needing to become hunters or farmers ourselves.  This isn't mystical nonsense.  The more we practice, the more these feelings arise...ultimately becoming just as obvious to us someone hitting us over the head with a sledgehammer.  Ultimately, when we kill, it is 100% clear that we are killing ourselves.  No one who feels that way can go through that action without experiencing mental or even physical duress.

How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences?

The law of kamma is like the natural law of physics. For any action, there will be a re-action in return. If you throw a ball up in the air, sooner or later the ball will fall back down. Similary, if a person kills someone, he'll face the risk of the victim's loved ones to exact their vengeance upon him in return. In the case of hunters, one day their luck will run out and they'll die from the same kind of wounds they used to inflict upon their preys. And even in the event they don't get the exact kind of retribution, the natural law will always find a way to turn around and bite back when the time is right, in this life or the next, the killer's life will be cut short in countless other ways: freak accidents, incurable painful diseases, mental disorder leading to suicide, etc.

One perspective is that, by refraining from hurting/killing other living beings you're not actually abstaining from something, but rather enabling others to live their lives (and if one wishes to act even more skillfully, enabling others to a life in happiness and/or less/no suffering). The argument is that skillful conduct is conducive to your own - as well as others - wellbeing and peace of mind. In the suttas, this is considered a gift:

There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.039.than.html
Conversely, killing is considered an unskilled action leading to ill-being to yourself and others (obviously). If the metaphysical arguments about different realms/hell seems far fetched, one can look at them as metaphors for different states of mind/wellbeing:

When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.003.than.html
Lastly, and perhaps a bit offtopic: laypeoples notions about buddhism can be considered their own responsibility, not yours. In buddhist terms, how they perceive buddhism is their sankharas, and they ultimately owns the vipaka (consequences) according to whether their actions/notions are helpful or not. If they like to put your message to trial, the onus is on them to try it out or carry on with their lives as usual...

old hunter-gatherers, had no consequences nor problems with hunting

Early hunter-gathers' life expectancy was low. There was a lot of mortality due to various reasons, not necessarily from old age. Also, their quality of life was low. Partly maybe due to karmic consequences.
Probably in these societies also there as consciences of action. Though working of karma in hunting many not be readily apparent. Say if you attack another tribe or kill someone within one's tribe there were visible consequences in terms of retribution and justice. This again attributed to karma.

How can I explain to a non follower of the dhamma that killing living beings intentionally has mental and physical consequences?

You can explain in common terms:

what goes around comes around
one reaps what one sows
things catch up with the person

Essentially this is what is mentioned below:

Short life
“Here, young brahmin, a certain woman or man kills living beings, cruel, bloody-handed, given
    to violence and killing, merciless to living beings.
Through such karma, thus accomplished, thus undertaken, with the body‟s breaking up, after death,one re-appears in a plane of misery, an evil destination, a lower realm, in hell.
And if, with the body‟s breaking up, after death, one does not re-appear in a plane of misery, an evil
    destination, a lower realm, in hell, if one returns to a human state, then wherever one is reborn, one is
    short-lived.
This, young brahmin, is the way leading to a short life, namely, one harms living beings, is cruel,
    bloody-handed, given to violence and killing, merciless to living beings.
But here, young brahmin, a certain woman or man has given up harming living beings, refrains
    from harming living beings, laid down rod and sword, conscientious, merciful, one dwells beneficial and
    compassionate to all living beings.
Through such karma, thus accomplished, thus undertaken, with the body‟s breaking up, after death,
    one re-appears in a state of joy, in a happy destination, in heaven.
And if, with the body‟s breaking up, after death, one does not re-appear in a state of joy, in a happy
    destination, in heaven., if one returns to a human state, then wherever one is reborn, one is long-lived.
This, young brahmin, is the way leading to a long life, namely, one has given up harming living beings, refrains from harming living beings, laid down rod and sword, conscientious, merciful, dwells
    beneficial and compassionate to all living beings.
2 Sickliness
Here, young brahmin, a certain woman or man habitually injures living beings with a clod of
    earth, with a stick, or with a sword.
Through such karma, thus accomplished, thus undertaken, with the body‟s breaking up, after death,
    one re-appears in a plane of misery, an evil destination, a lower realm, in hell.
And if, with the body‟s breaking up, after death, one does not re-appear in a plane of misery, an evil
    destination, a lower realm, in hell, if one returns to a human state, then wherever one is reborn, one is
    sickly [constantly ill].
This, young brahmin, is the way leading to sickliness, namely, one habitually injures beings with a
    clod of earth, with a stick, or with a sword.
But here, young brahmin, a certain woman or man is not of the nature of injuring beings, refrains from harming living beings, laid down rod and sword, conscientious, merciful, one dwells beneficial and compassionate to all living beings.
Through such karma, thus accomplished, thus undertaken, with the body‟s breaking up, after death,
    one re-appears in a state of joy, in a happy destination, in heaven.
And if, with the body‟s breaking up, after death, one does not re-appear in a state of joy, in a happy
    destination, in heaven, if one returns to a human state, then wherever one is reborn, one is healthy.
This, young brahmin, is the way leading to health, namely, one has given up harming living beings,
    refrains from harming living beings, laid down rod and sword, conscientious, merciful, dwells beneficial
    and compassionate to all living beings.

Cūla Kamma Vibhaṅga Sutta

So you'd say that what one did in one's ''alleged'' earlier life, determines the quality of the present one? I think we must be careful to whom this sutta was  referred to & whether the Buddha hasn't tailored this teaching to the Brahmin's beliefs (for pragmatical purposes)

Some karma gives results in this life. This Sutta was preached to Subha Todeyya Putta who believed his father may be born in Brahma world according to the teaching of the Brahmins. So the way Buddha taught about Karma is different from what he has learned.

Killing without necessity is never justifiable. In modern times for example, the majority of people are meat, diary & egg eaters, but they aren't aware of how the food is made & what the animals had to go through. Since humans can thrive without animal products, it's somewhard to justify supporting those industries.
Similarly, discrimination or killing isn't moral because one doesn't want to be discriminated or killed (due to arbitrary standards). So it's always best to put oneself in the shoes of the victim. Tell them. A lot of people pay lip service to compassion & never really practise it  because it sounds like a nice concept.
There are internal consequences to be experienced  & external conseaquences, although the latter is somewhat less under your influence as the former.

Ask them ;if the pursuit of happiness isn't the goal of beings.
When they admit that the pursuit of happiness is the goal of beings;
Ask them if there are not paths worthy of pursuit generally approved of by society and successful people?
When they admit that there are paths generally approved of as having good destinations.
Ask them then if it is generally held that any path leads to any destination or if it is generally held that specific paths have specific outcomes according to development?
When they admit that it is generally held that paths produce specific consequences according to development;
Ask them if paths are not developed by behavior, achieved and brought to culmination by the merit of actions of one pursuing the path?
When they admit that happiness is thus pursued by behavior and actions have specific consequences;
Here you can then say that there is a claim of highest happiness and that it has been proclaimed by the Buddha as the most worthy pursuit and that the action of killing is dispersive of it's attainment because it's attainment relies on development of sympathy.
You can say you think Buddha was the smartest person and you want to align yourself with the best and that the masses can not be expected to comprehend that which is genious, therefore you don't want to follow the cultural system your are brought up with and want to do like the Buddha.
He won't be able to refute the legitimacy of your strategy and at most will say he does not believe in Nibbana and the highest good but either way he will have to admit that you have a strategy and a worldview based on conviction that he can not disprove there and then.
If he was to develop conviction in that your strategy is the correct system of knowledge he would need to learn the Dhamma and come to agreement after reflecting on it.

Why don't you kill? Maybe because you don't like to be killed either? It would be good if Nyom Daniel gives an answer here himself.

Well I don't kill since the intention to do so is a total lack of compassion to other beings that are present in the wheel of samsara. Killing bears mental agitation that is crearly perceptible.

What about bad guys or a bloody hornet Nyom @DanielC or if you have nothing to eat? Or someone wishing to kill all bears?

well approach like that: puthujjanas always do their things from greed, aversion or ignorance. greed and aversion typically refer to kama [opinions, thougths, ideas included],  and ignorance to ''non pleasant and non dis pleasant'' feelings, like the non-puthujjana puts it https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html, or even better to equanimity, especially the 4th jhana. Typically puthujjanas knows nothing about non-kama,and killing  ties up to clinging to sensuality [at this point puthujjanas love to talk about their moronic idea of ''survival instincts'' to ''make reasonable'' their toxic deeds and their binary thinking ''it is the other one or me'', ''it is a matter of life or death''] and that clinging to sensuality makes for a miserable life and clinging to sensuality is the only way to not get jhanas and the joy.
Now, the puthujjanas will talk about building something with their life, in order to realize their pathetic fantasy of transcendence, precisely in order to counter the rut and misery of life, precisely because they have zero idea of what they are doing [no matter what they claim] besides following their desires and clinging to kama, to transmit something to '''futur generations'', a society, a lineage, a career and all their idiotic stuff that they build and claim they are good people for building their stuff. The easiest counter point is to make them say that sometimes all the stuff they build is a burden for them, so if it is a burden even one time, then it is not worth doing it [but puthujjanas have no problem with the idea of doing something that does not work, so if this does not work, still no worry, at least one of you two will get tired to talk about that and move on].


text:
What tools does a Buddhist have to engender others to take a wiser approach?
Mum is regularly woken in the night by panic attacks which bring on uncomfortable physical sensations that she takes so seriously she has been known to ring the paramedics (always unnecessarily). After many months I am still unable to get her to even entertain the notion of 'staying with the discomfort, just as it is'. Does a Buddhist have any tools (metta/prayer/mantras - sorry I don't know the words) to manifest/stir-up a change in someone else’s approach? Or do I have to work on cultivating my own acceptance of the situation - however resigned that might make me feel?

I'm sorry to hear about your mother's discomforts. I used to have similar panic attacks that would bring on hyperventilation, taking Xanax and in extreme cases calling the paramedics as well, even though I had studied Buddhism academically for many years and I "knew" it should be able to help me.
It was only when I actually started practicing in stead of studying the attacks subsided, mostly because I had learned to recognize their arising in my mind and the cascade of thoughts, feelings and physical reactions that followed out of them.
The best recommendation I can give you from personal experience is not to start with "staying with the discomfort", as this already requires a person to be able to "witness" the arising and setting of thoughts in the mind. I suggest you start with simple breath counting in a comfortable position and once she is comfortable doing this, ask your mother to observe the space in between thoughts. Doing so will allow these spaces to grow and allow your mom to see the arising of thoughts and sensations, in stead of them being constant and unstoppable, like we usually perceive them. Once you get to that stage, you can start focusing on "staying with" the discomfort, as she will no longer experience it as inevitably leading to the subsequent discomfort in her mind.
Hope this helps, best wishes to you and your mother.

Metta practice, toward all beings seriously, by heart, in action: The Healing Power of the Precepts. Once even right view and right thinking is established, there is no more falling into low states and the path to final liberation opened.
That's by the way the only way to pay the goodness of ones mother, parents back. Good if giving best try and walk the path in front to know it. Mudita, Nyom Robin.
That might be an answer to the text-part. As for the header, it does not really fit to the rest. So maybe good if dividing and make two questions.
One has actually not really any tool to "change" others as beings are heirs of there own actions at least. Much faith in you might help others to take of what you give (and provide just good). If having learned to read mind (formost your own), it might help to provide at more proper time, but also this has it's limits.
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]


text:
Defilements or misperceptions that arise because of correct insight attainment
Like subtle "conceit"? I can't  think of any others. I think there is a
Sutta that is something like, "10 misperceptions of a somewhat  achieved insight meditator". Bhante Yuttadhammo explained  it somewhere. I thought I already asked this but I couldn't find it, maybe it was another forum.

Defilements or misperceptions do not arise because of correct insight attainment. There might be some left. Maybe defiled insights, or "Gecko - Samadhi [vipassanupakkilesa]"

...To practice concentration without correct understanding may lead to wrong concentration, from which the person develops abnormal perceptions, the so-called vipassanupakkilesa... You may have heard that samádhi can cause mental abnormality. When it happens, all perceptions arising from the wrong samádhi are abnormal. This is the case when the practice is without wisdom, bringing about misunderstanding in the mind. ...[have you heard?]

was meant.
And! Be clear that the question and previous perception is act-ually exactly a case-sample for such.
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

Perhaps, you are thinking of the ten fetters (samyojana):
Lower fetters (according to SN 45.179):

Identity view
Doubt or uncertainty, especially regarding the Buddha and his teachings
Distorted grasp of rules and vows
Sensual desire
Ill will

Higher fetters (according to SN 45.180):

Lust for form
Lust for formless
Conceit
Restlessness
Ignorance

The Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89) is an example of how one could become free of identity view, but not yet free of conceit. One could become free of identity view through attainment of insight and right understanding, but would most likely still have conceit lingering. It's harder to overcome the higher fetters, compared to the lower fetters. This is also discussed in this answer.

Perhaps you may find the answer in Path of Purification.
Sorry, I can't recall the Sutta.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf
The following sutta may some help.
"It may be, Cunda, that some monk, detached from sense-objects, detached from unsalutary ideas, enters into the first absorption that is born of detachment, accompanied by thought-conception and discursive thinking, and filled with rapture and joy, and he then might think: 'I am abiding in effacement.' But in the Noble One's discipline it is not these [attainments] that are called 'effacement'; in the Noble One's discipline they are called 'abidings in ease here and now.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.008.nypo.html


text:
Getting out of a rut when your sick and dying
What are the teachings and books that are good for inspiring  the sick and soon to be dying? If your brain is getting eaten away, what are the best practices for that? Anyone know of any Doctors who would understand all this insight meditation stuff? Doctors often seem to me far too  smart to be wise.

You might find some answers to these topics helpful: What do you do to prepare for death?, and, Buddhism and terminal illness

Buddha once visited an infirmary for monks and advised to practice satipattana (Maha Satipattana Sutta, Deega Nikaya)
Bojjangha Sutta is well known to be contemplated by monks who are sick and known to have already practiced dhamma (hence being able to cultivate them when recited to them)
There is an instance where Nakula pitha (anagami) visits Buddha and related he's sick where Buddha reminds him it's the body that gets sick and not the mind.
There is an instance Arhat Maha Sariputta visits a dying person who has proper faith in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. The priest asks the dying person to think of different realms of birth, starting from animals all the way to brahma realms.
I hope these help.

I had been trying to locate a video that I watched recently. It was about terminally ill patients who were being encouraged to read the Bardo Thodol (The Tibetan Book of the Dead) with the hope that they could retain the information therein and use it as a guide to liberate oneself from the cycle of rebirth during the bardo phase of consciousness. It was quite fascinating. I will keep searching for it. In the meantime maybe read the book here or listen to an audio version here.
Also, this guy explains the book quite well in his teaching.


text:
Perceiving or not perceiving?
My question is related to the quote below taken from Chapter 29 of The Diamond Sutra. Can you provide any references for other explanations for this quote or can you provide your own explanation?

“Subhuti, if any person were to say that the Buddha is now coming or
  going, or sitting up or lying down, they would not have understood the
  principle I have been teaching. Why? Because while the expression
  ‘Buddha’ means ‘he who has thus come, thus gone,’ the true Buddha is
  never coming from anywhere or going anywhere. The name ‘Buddha’ is
  merely an expression, a figure of speech.”

As I understand from my current practise, there have been many instances I've been walking and I am aware that there is nowhere I'm walking to, and nowhere I'm walking from and no reference for somebody walking. I can then only discern beyond forms and see that there is only what I perceive to be a stillness in which there is neither time, distance and dimension. I don't know what is doing the perceiving in this instance or if anything at all is being perceived. If I am able to put this into a language there must be a perceiver beyond all forms or that my conceptual mind is doing this perceiving. In the latter case I would be being fooled by mental perceptions.
Out of curiosity and using consciously directed thought I experimented with this experience by watching a seagull flying through the air. Within several seconds I removed the earth and the rest of the universe. The seagull was bouncing its wings and orienting on the spot. From this I deduced that form provides dimension, distance and time. Without form the seagull cannot move from one position to another and time seems intrinsically bound to distance and dimension. That's as far as I got.
It may seem that I'm bordering on nihilism here, but on the contrary: there is the use of form to make the deeper discovery. Form seems to be the substrate to depth of knowledge but in this case it seems like I haven't learnt anything.

Have a look at Hsuan Hua’s commentary on the verse @ page 186: https://web.archive.org/web/20140520233206/http://www.buddhisttexts.org/uploads/6/3/3/1/6331706/_vajra_prajna_paramita_sutra.pdf... I find his explanations often enlightening. Hope this helps!

@GabeHiemstra Please repost that as an answer instead of as a comment (see here for an explanation).

@GabeHiemstra - Thank you. I've saved it to the laptop for reading later. In the meantime, would you be able extract an excerpt that you are referring to? I'd be very grateful. I don't have a teacher and I'm doing this mostly through internet, books and most importantly my own effort. I don't resonate very well with my sangha members as they haven't a clue how to respond and I don't blame them as it's quite peculiar. I'm also living a domestic life with my child and 2 elderly people.

Ok I have added as an answer.

You seem have learned what the Upanishads teach, which is that the voidness of one one form is the voidness of them all. Seagulls, dimensions, distance, time, would all be empty of intrinsic existence. Your 'perceiving' this may be a mistaken identification since it cannot be perceived. I would suggest your feelings about this come from a place beyond perception and perceptible form.    ,

@PeterJ - this is an issue for me at this point. Words seem to just reduce the events. It seems the very act of giving it words cancels it out because even the words themselves are concepts perceived by the conditioned mind and so I'm back in the realm of concepts. Onward I persist.

@Suchness - As the bard would say, there's the rub.

Another more precise and concise translation of the Diamond Sutra renders it differently, Chapter 29:

“Subhuti, if someone said the thus-come comes, goes, sits, or reclines, this person doesn’t understand the meaning of what I taught. Why is that? What thus-come is, that is from nowhere comes nor anywhere goes, hence called the thus-come.

I think you have quite good intuition to come to conclude that ...From this I deduced that form provides dimension, distance and time. Without form the seagull cannot move from one position to another and...
This chapter, on the meaning of Tathagata, is touching on the Tathagatagarbha. Tathagata, generally renders as thus-come. What is Tathagatagarbha? It is formless, but from it form arises; it is emptiness, but it contains everything - the seeds. Hence is called the Tathagatagarbha (如來藏), the womb of the treasure of suchness.
When you perceive form, by it defines space/time, that is activity of the mind, which is a "negation" from the suchness. The form doesn't exist independently from your mind. In fact it is your mind limited by the 5 senses, the intellect (6th consciousness), the subjectivity (7th consciousness/ mānas-vijñāna), hence it perceives the world as it created - the forms. But it is hindered by it's own creation - the activities it engaged. When you can remove from all these activities, you are abiding in the suchness. The Buddha is abiding in the suchness therefore called the Tathagata - he doesn't engage in any activity. There are many names referring to the same ultimate reality in different contexts for different significance: Alaya, Dharmakaya, Citta (mind), the 8th consciousness... etc.
It's too board to completely elaborate, especially a lot of Sutras to help understanding it are not available in English. But the above is the condensed favour hopefully you could enjoy :)
Just as a note, your linked English version of the Diamond Sutra is awfully translated, from the perspective of someone who is able to read the Chinese Classical Diamond Sutra. That appears the same as Red Pine's version but the site belonged to one called Alex Johnson. I wonder if the Alex Johnson has infringed someone's copyright. One the other hand, I hate to say this since Red Pine appeared genuinely liking oriental cultures, I read somewhere someone said Red Pine's translation can't be taken serious. He mixed the Tibetan text with the Chinese compiled as one. Not sure which 2nd language he is fluent in, Tibetan or Chinese?
Translation of Sutra is a very very serious matter, if it is translated wrongly, it causes severe defilement to oneself, for it misleads the Dharma seekers - this is the attitude all ancient Dharma masters taken.

What translation would you recommend for the Tathagatagarbha Sutra? I wondered if you could link this in your answer. I recall reading awhile back the diamond sutra was first translated into Chinese at around the 800's and is the oldest printed and dated book known. [When you perceive form, by it defines space/time, that is activity of the mind, which is a "negation" from the suchness] This quote paraphrases my whole question and brings to mind the zen koan about the flag blowing in the wind which I believe ends with "the flag is not moving, your mind is moving". Thank you.

Glad that you find something helpful in it :). Tathagatagarbha Sutra(s) is a whole genre comprised with many Sutras, Lankavatara, Avatamsaka, Saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra... etc. It belongs to the Third Dharma Wheel Turning. Diamond Sutra first translated in 400CE by Kumarajiva, the best translation, imho, is linked in the beginning of my answer. The problem is, most translations, from my fastidious examination, are just not ideal or even satisfactory. I don't know what to advise...

Have a look at Hsuan Hua’s commentary on the verse @ page 186. He has a detailled exposition on the verse. I find Hsuan Hua’s explanations often very illuminating. Here follows a short excerpt to his explanation.
First of all, the translation of verse differs a bit in name-choosing:

“Subhuti, if someone were to say the Tathagata either comes or goes, either sits or lies down, that person would not understand the meaning of my teaching. And why? The Tathagata does not come from anywhere, nor does he go anywhere. Therefore he is called the Tathagata.”

Then follows the core of his commentary on verse 29:

After having spoken the previous section of text, Sakyamuni Buddha realized people might have doubts and become attached to the mark of the Tathagata’s comings and goings. Therefore he said to Subhuti, “If someone were to say the Tathagata either comes or goes, either sits or lies down, that person would not understand the meaning of my teaching.” It seems as if the Tathagata, the Thus Come One, comes and goes but the coming and going is only illusory. Anyone who thinks he really comes or goes has failed to understand the principle the Buddha teaches. The Tathagata has no place from which he comes and no place to which he goes; therefore he is called the Thus Come One. That means the Buddha’s dharma body neither dwells nor does not dwell. It pervades all places. If it fills all places, from where could it come? Since it fills all places, to what place could it go? Therefore it is said not to dwell and not to dwell.

Furhter on he explains the name Tathagata in relation with “stillness” as follows:

The Thus Come One does not come or go; Therefore he is called the Tathagata. Thus (Tatha) means non-movement. Come (Agata) means movement. Movement and stillness are one identical suchness. Movement does not obstruct stillness; stillness does not obstruct movement. That means in cultivating the Way you can investigate Dhyana while sitting quietly and can also investigate Dhyana while moving about. From morning to night in all comportments, walking, standing, sitting, and lying down, you can do the work of cultivation. It is not merely while sitting in meditation that you should appl y effort. At all times you should A General Explanation of the Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra 188 guard the body, collect the mind and cease from all confusion and scatteredness. You should return the light and illumine within.

There is more at the source link. Hope this helps!


text:
How do we help people who have wrong views?
There are lot of wrong views in other religions but there are even some Buddhist who have wrong views. They don’t believe in rebirth and karma. And they say that they are metaphors. They seems to be clinging to the annihilationist view. According to MN 117 and other suttas, right view is believing that there is the fruits of good and bad karma and this is this world and the next world. The next world is where you will go according to your karma after death.

"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? '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 wrong view.
"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents [asava], siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results 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 brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has effluents, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions.

How do we help them abandon wrong views? If the Buddha was still alive then he could perform some miracles to show that there are more than just what we see with the eye.

Why do you want to help them abandon "wrong views"? If the person doesn't want to abandon their view, then there is nothing you can do to make them abandon it, all you can do is explain your own view.

Since they are practicing Buddhism, wouldn’t it be a waste if they didn’t achieve any thing and at the break up of the body they go to an animal womb or hell.

The world isn't only Buddhist, there are parts of this world that have never heard of Buddhism, they believe in different ideas. Their culture and existence has survived for many years, without being hurt by ideas of "hell." You must also realize that even in Buddhism there are different opinions, different schools - just like any other idea. The best you can do is just make people see the present, not fear some uncertain future. If they are suffering right now and want help, help them. Sometimes that help means you have to go beyond Buddhism to explain things that they can understand.

You are not alone. I want to stop people with wrong views from spreading wrong views to those who are new to Buddhism

@Angus No, the Buddha didn't chase after people and try to convince them of his beliefs. People came to him, there is a big difference.The purpose isn't to change their mind, but just to show them.

@TheDBSGuy "I want to stop people with wrong views from spreading wrong views ... They don’t believe in rebirth and karma. And they say that they are metaphors ..." - should I be concerned that you're going to track me down and "stop"?

Before proceeding further, we should note that miracles should not play any role in convincing intelligent and rational people. Devadatta, the monk who tried to injure the Buddha and cause a schism in the monastic order, was reportedly able to perform miraculous feats. Buddhism does not teach that miracles are any kind of proof of correctness or enlightenment.
When you see people around you, you may think some of them hold wrong views and some of them hold right views, and you want to help them.
Of the people whom you think hold wrong views, I think we should separate them into two categories.
The first category are people who act in obviously unvirtuous ways, causing harm to themselves and others. For e.g. people who kill sentient beings, intentionally harm others, steal from others, deceive others etc. These are people who need urgent help, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of society.
If these people are close to you, like your friends or family members, you can try to help them. After all, sharing of Dhamma (the teachings of the Buddha) is considered the greatest type of sharing according to Itivuttaka 100.
You could gently influence them to think in this way (according to AN 5.57):

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
  this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
  should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
  kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
  resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

The second category would be those who you think do not understand the teachings of the Buddha, as well as you do. I think we should tread carefully on this, because it might lead to some Buddhists pointing fingers at other Buddhists, creating a culture of accusing others of heresy and having hostile debates, as we have seen even right here on Buddhism.SE.
According to MN 28, to understand dependent origination, is to understand the Dhamma fully. Also see this answer.
According to DN 15:

There Ven. Ananda approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting
  there he said to the Blessed One: "It's amazing, lord, it's
  astounding, how deep this dependent co-arising is, and how deep its
  appearance, and yet to me it seems as clear as clear can be."
[The Buddha:] "Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Deep is this
  dependent co-arising, and deep its appearance. It's because of not
  understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is
  like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and
  reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of
  deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.

Dependent origination or dependent co-arising is not a simple topic and many people who think they understand it, may not fully understand it. Without understanding dependent origination completely, it may not be possible to have complete and unblemished Right View.
But to gain a complete understanding of dependent origination and the Dhamma is a long journey that involves studying the Dhamma, practising the Dhamma and gaining insight into the nature of things. An afternoon of reading or discussion may not be sufficient.
With regards to the topic of rebirth, you can direct others to read the essays "The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice" by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and "Rebirth" and "Does Rebirth Make Sense?" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. I think they are clear enough. Also this answer on Buddhism.SE is pretty concise and accurate.

Buddhism can be practiced as a skillful method based on personal experience and accepting what works for you in your individual situation. Remember, the Buddha said in the Kalama Sutra:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā), nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu)
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon > another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not
blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and
observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and
abide in them.

Holding to scripture just because it is scripture and judging other people's experience or chosen path of the Dharma can therefore also be considered wrong view, or at least an attachment to the desire to have other practitioners adapt a particular view.
The belief in reincarnation is not central or essential to Buddhist practice for many lineages and many individual practitioners. In fact, from a socio-historical perspective it is clear it was derived from the Hindu cosmology, the predominant world view in the period of the Buddha's life. I'm not stating this fact to diminish the significance it can have to individual practitioners, but merely as a reason why for many people reincarnation does not fall into the category of "these things lead to benefit and happiness".
Karmic cause and effect in many lineages is therefore not seen as something that is primarily manifesting after death: it can be immediate or within a human lifespan. This view makes the need for feeling compassion and performing Right Acts immediate.
As for the miracles you mentioned: many lineages see the Buddha as an ordinary human being, who discovered a skillful method just by being an ordinary human being, without supernatural attributes. So again, for many practitioners miracles do not necessarily fall into the category of "these things lead to benefit and happiness", because if miracles were necessary to bring someone to the "right" view, it would mean we cannot experience the mind of a Buddha just by ourselves. We would be subject to supernatural intervention. Many lineages therefore hold the view that the mind of a Buddha can be experienced right here and now.

I disagree but respect your opinion

How does one come seriously to the idea having right view by oneself? eg. firm refuge, unspoted virtue, lack of the five kinds of stinginess and proper gratitude?
That might answer how and whom to help fist for those with sacca starting toward themselves. "Am I able to close the door from outside, leaving all kinds of keys inside?" "Do I still have doubt about the direction?" "Or do I just entertain my impure stand to wander on?".
If so, but and also to understand the foremost need for any gain one may take a view on How to address wrong view, an extend answer on this very importand question, and the first blessing toward the path: "Not assisting with fools, in association with the wise, this is the highest blessing/protection".
Touch alone, without giving strongly to it, is not sufficient enough. At least one has to dwell in borderlands and leave house to ever gain right view.
Upasaka Ryan was wise and quickly proceed toward higher path and fruits. One has to disapprove wrong view and if dwelling in association with people of wrong view, there is as good as no change for a wordling to be ever successful. What ever gained intellectual will be weakened and get lost by time as well, so confidence, virtue, concentration...
(People at large this days would not be impressed by miracles at all, cut such down to their small mind rationalisation, like an ant would not be impressed by being touched by a human, so no use for that at all)
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

It depends on the situation -- I'm not sure that you can plan it in advance.

Lord, when wise nobles or brahmans, householders or contemplatives, having formulated questions, come to the Tathagata and ask him, does this line of reasoning appear to his awareness beforehand — 'If those who approach me ask this, I — thus asked — will answer in this way' — or does the Tathagata come up with the answer on the spot?"
Abhaya Sutta (MN 58)

I realise that sutta appears to give permission to say things that are "unendearing & disagreeable to others" but I think that in practice there are limits to that:

For example the sutta says "the Tathagata [] has a sense of the proper time for saying them", which doesn't (in my opinion) necessarily mean that we are all as wise as that.
Perhaps too it implies that the appropriate time is "when they ask him".
I think the Dhammapada's verse 129 ...

All are afraid of the stick, all fear death. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others.

... can be extended to speech -- I say that because the suttas describe sectarian arguments as people trying to "wound with weapons of the mouth" -- and so for example I'd extend verse 129 to, also, "Don't say something that you wouldn't want to hear if you were in their situation."
And so, for example, I think that good advice may be welcome ... except that "negative criticism" (as opposed to e.g. "constructive criticism") may be (at best) ineffective.

I think that the suttas say that a main cause of sectarian arguments is conceit (a subtle or transient form of self-regard, manifesting as comparing people) and maybe attaching to views.
Assuming it's true that the Dhamma is intended to end suffering, then perhaps we "help people" by addressing their suffering. Are they suffering? How (if at all) does what we say help them to end that?
Incidentally, when I asked How to explain what Buddhism is? one of the answers suggested that if a person is (however temporarily) not suffering then perhaps we should feel mudita towards them (rather than, necessarily, criticising them).
I think it's probably important too to be good at listening to people (or, in a written medium, reading what they write). I think that a lot of arguments (perhaps most arguments) happen because the people involved are talking about different things, not talking about the same thing. In the OP for example you say, "don’t believe in rebirth and karma" which may be an example of your not listening to what they're saying -- for example perhaps they do believe in "karma" although not in "rebirth" -- specifically, believe that people inherit their own karma, but not that people are reborn. Perhaps this (listening) is related to what some people call "beginner's mind".
Finally, on this SE site in particular you're not required to correct people who (or to correct answer which) you may disagree with -- see for example Are we here to preach and make converts? also Answers vs Advice and so on. Answer any questions as best you can, ultimately every reader has to "know for themselves".
Also this site limits the form of what's permitted (e.g. limited comments and see also the Code of Conduct)

How do we help people with wrong view? This is very difficult due to their clinging to the (animal survival) self instinct. However, we can begin as follows:

Define the Dhamma Refuge to them, which is: "seen here & now, immediate, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the observant for themselves".
Explain the "annihilationist view" to them, which is believing a "self" ("atta") ends at the ending of life, as follows:

... since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this point
  the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim the
  annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being."
  (DN 1)

Explain the Pali language to them, such as: "paraloka" means "other world" rather than "next word"; the "world" arises within these five aggregates (AN 4.45); "opapatika" means "spontaneously arisen" rather than "reborn"; a "being" is a "view" and "verbal designation" (SN 5.10, MN 98, SN 23.2).
Explain to them an "asava" is a "dirty filthy pollution" and an "acquisition" is "slavery & bondage" and, even though MN 117 refers to a "right view" for "puthujanna" that sides with "merit"; this worldly right view is dirty, filthy, polluting, enslaving bondage that does not lead to liberation and is not a factor of the Noble Path.


text:
MN 137 - Directed only to Stream Entrants (and beyond)?

"And what are the six kinds of renunciation joy? The joy 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: That is called renunciation joy. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)

Is this achieved by intellectual pondering about the six senses (and meditative insight into the three characteristics) or just pondering alone?
I'd say the former, but then this Sutta is primarily directed towards Stream Entrants, no?

The way my teacher explained a crucial point about this was summarized with a single but powerful word: Immediacy!
At some point in our practice our familiarity with Dharma should go beyond it being something "over there" that we study and try to understand, and become something very personal that is happening "right here" in our own immediate experience, second-by-second.
This type of joy that arises in case of mature student, is part of this breakthrough to the Immediacy of Dharma. On the initial phases of the breakthrough, we keep discovering more and more real life microsituations that turn out to be perfectly described by some ancient scripture, and this gives a sense of wonder and joy. And then as we get used to this match, we get a kind of relaxed bliss of a traveler who reached the oasis, had enough food and water to recover, and is now resting in the shade (to give a traditional image of what "bliss" means in this context).
Specifically as it pertains to Transience/Inconstancy of all configurations, once you clearly see that every frustration you used to take seriously is a temporary arrangement of clouds that actually shifts beyond pain fairly quickly, as long as you don't hold on to it, -- this immediate observation gives a sort of deep peace and a sense of relief that you experience continuously as you interact with all kinds of situations.
So to answer your question explicitly, it's not just intellectual pondering nor is it meditative insight, as it is the immediate observation (directly seeing) it all in your own life.

You will not have joy, but aside of tee-break  stories of sectarians and householder it is the joy opposite householder-joy/satisfaction:

"And what are the six kinds of household joy [in MN137] ? The joy that arises when one regards as an acquisition the acquisition of idea cognizable by the intelect — agreeable, pleasing, charming, endearing, connected with worldly baits — or when one recalls the previous acquisition of such forms after they have passed, ceased, & changed: That is called household joy. (Similarly with form, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile & sensations).

It's archived when leaving home, having gained higher right view, and steady when gained non-return.
And once gained one does no more take what is not given and provides what is the deal to make use of something for ones gain.
The Sutta is given for distinction, that one knows the different intellectually and put it into prove, and certain explainings are given by the translator as well.

"'With regard to them, depending on this, abandon that': thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said?

As in regard of "To whom was the Sutta directed?": Those who have left home/house.
[Note: this is a gift of Dhamma, not thought for trade, stakes, exchanges or other gains subject toward decay and should be deleted if it's not giften to give in Dhammic conditions]

Is this achieved by intellectual pondering about the six senses (and meditative insight into the three characteristics) or just pondering alone?
I'd say the former, but then this Sutta is primarily directed towards Stream Entrants, no?

Intellectual pondering and/or meditative insight probably won't cut it. While there's no mentioning of the Sutta being directed only towards Stream Entrants, the Comy.'s explanation seems to suggest it does require one who has already established insight-knowledge:
Note. 1: [Six kinds of joy] “Based on the household life” means connected with the cords of sensual pleasure; [Six kinds of joy] “based on renunciation” means connected with insight.
Note. 2: "Herein, what are the six kinds of joy based on renunciation? When, by knowing the impermanence, change, fading away, and cessation of forms, one sees as it actually is with proper wisdom that forms both formerly and now are all impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, joy arises. Such joy as this is called joy based on renunciation." And explanation: "This is joy that arises when one has established insight and is sitting observing the breaking-up of formations with a flow of sharp and bright insight-knowledge focussed on the formations"


text:
What did Siddhartha really meant by ending suffering
I constantly hear from buddhists that "happiness is inside of you" and that thinking you can get away from suffering by wanting to be somewhere else, or wanting to be with someone else or stuff like that, stuff that comes from the outside, is only misleading and will generate more suffering because once you satisfy some particular need, since you are a human being, other needs will arrive and with that new forms of suffering, but then I wonder, how is it possible to end suffering if we will always desire for certain things, as long as we exist in this material world? Can someone clarify  this to me? I'm really naive into buddhism

"Ending suffering" is a red haring caused by older translations of the Pali word Dukkha.
It is a word which has not survived in Western Indo-European languages, but its antonym "Sukkha" is the root for our word "Sugar" in English, "Sucre" in French and "Zucker" in German, all meaning "sweet".
Later translators preferred to either leave the term untranslated or to clarify that translation with terms such as anxiety, distress, frustration, unease, unsatisfactoriness, etc. Many contemporary teachers, scholars, and translators have used the term "unsatisfactoriness" to emphasize the subtlest aspects of dukkha.
Buddhism focuses on developing insight into the nature of dukkha, the conditions that cause it, and how it connects & affects us all. This insight, bodhi is (also dubiously) translated as enlightenment. So what Siddharta actually meant would be closer to "ending the arising & conditions of unsatisfactoriness in one's mind", which also creates positive effects in reality (by actions based on understanding) and therefore to others.

Don't understand why the downvote. Good answer, +1. I think you meant "red herring"?

But aren't the conditions of unsatisfactoriness basic human needs like hunger or physical pain? How could we end dukka by any means other than satisfying or need for food or medicine?

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

@Mishu yeah, sorry bout that...in my language it's actually spelled "haring"

I wonder, how is it possible to end suffering if we will always desire for certain things

But then on the other hand, if one doesn't have any desire whatsoever, even the wholesome desire to end suffering, then one won't go anywhere. See Ven. Ananda's "going to the park" simile in SN 51.15 for more details.

It's kinda super-straightforward. If you keep thinking that whatever your life looks like is WRONG because you're lacking something or on the contrary, because it has something you don't want - as long as you keep thinking like that, you're unhappy (aka suffer). Whenever there's this mental conflict between IS and SHOULD, there's suffering. Once you learn to keep the two in sync, there's no suffering for you. That's it. It's all about the way our mind evaluates the experience.
Is it possible to keep IS and SHOULD in sync? Yes, absolutely. It's all in your head, isn't it?
I mean, you can have plans, sure - but a healthy plan is different from a bitter SHOULD, see what I mean?

What did Siddhartha really meant by ending suffering
I sort of understand "happiness is inside of you" -- but I think that's a result of applying Buddhist doctrine (see e.g. this question with this answer) -- that phrase is a description of an effect of doctrine, it isn't the doctrine itself -- and if I didn't know the doctrine (which you say you don't, "I'm really naive into buddhism") then I don't think I could understand how it works.
I might mention there are different schools of Buddhism with different ways of explaining things; but you're asking about how Gautama Buddha explained it so I'll try to answer that.
Regardless of what he 'really meant', a canonical version of what he 'really said' is the so-called "four noble truths" -- so it's up to us to read (or hear from a teacher) what he said and then understand that for ourselves.
Here is a version of the sutta in which he describes the four noble truths: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta -- Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dhamma. The English is on the right-hand side, and words (like dukkha) which don't have an easy/obvious/single-word translation are left in the text as-is with a hyperlink to a dictionary entry (like this one). I like that because normally, when you translate something, you have to translate one word into another word, which loses some/several of the meanings of the original word.
If you want a simpler (word-for-word) translation, see e.g. here or here.
To paraphrase:

What he means by "suffering" or "unsatisfactoriness" is more-or-less defined in the "first noble truth", e.g. the following are included in the list of what's unsatisfatory: birth, old age, sickness, death, association with what's disliked, separation from what's liked, not obtaining what's liked, the aggregates of attachment.
Elsewhere it's said that "all compound things" are impermanent and dissatisfactory.

The cause of this "suffering" is "craving"

The cessation of "suffering" is the cessation of "craving", it's freedom from craving, it's dispassion

I guess there are endless objects of craving:

Sensuality (sexuality, music, pictures, tasty food)
Social status (money, fame, praise)
Physical security (money, health, youth, housing)
Spiritual state (peace of mind, certainty)

I constantly hear from buddhists that "happiness is inside of you"
I interpret that as "unhappiness is craving what's outside of you" (plus some understanding that there is no real self, so all craving is "outside").
Happiness (in contrast) is cessation of, detachment or disassociation from that craving.
The word for craving is also, I think, literally, thirst.
how is it possible to end suffering if we will always desire for certain things, as long as we exist in this material world?
Canonically the way to end suffering is the fourth noble truth, which says that it's the "noble eightfold path" -- which may be summarised as the Threefold Training.
Regarding the "material world", perhaps that's defined by Buddhism Middle Way doctrine:

... the middle way of moderation, between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification:

Monks, these two extremes ought not to be practiced by one who has gone forth from the household life. There is addiction to indulgence of sense-pleasures, which is low, coarse, the way of ordinary people, unworthy, and unprofitable; and there is addiction to self-mortification, which is painful, unworthy, and unprofitable.

So monks are expected to need (and to ask for) what's "needful", what's "necessary for the holy life" -- basically clothing, food, lodging, and (when sick) medicine -- maybe small sundries like an alms bowl, razor, toothbrush, sewing kit. It's not meant to be luxurious (clothing is strips of ochre cloth, food is whatever they're given and not after noon).
So by limiting what they're allowed to what they need, I suppose that monks can get used to not craving for what they don't need.
The situation may be more complicated for laypeople -- more "temptations", more "responsibilities" -- I suppose that's why some people (including Gautama Buddha himself) "go forth" (i.e. leave the householder's life and become homeless).
Even so I think that a little insight (e.g. as provided by an understanding of Buddhist doctrine, including the four noble truths) is better than none -- e.g. even if suffering keeps recurring (as a result of craving's recurring), it's helpful (and you may experience "internal happiness" as a result of) understanding their cessation.
I haven't mentioned "virtue" which is important -- I think that breaking the precepts (e.g. killing, lying, stealing) causes suffering, and (conversely) behaving ethically does (or helps towards) the opposite.
Also there are "afflictive emotions" (greed, anger, jealousy, pride, and so on) that a Buddhist might try to avoid.
But aren't the conditions of unsatisfactoriness basic human needs like hunger or physical pain?
Consider music, for example:

If you don't like it then it's "unsatisfactory" to hear it (it's "association with what's disliked")
If you like it then it's "unsatisfactory" to stop hearing it (it's "separation from what's liked")
If you want to hear it again and can't, that's "unsatisfactory" too (it's "not obtaining what's liked")
If you want to hear it again and can, that may be habit-forming, and only delaying or increasing the eventual "unsatisfactoriness", also maybe immoral and with unpleasant consequences (if you neglect your duties, and spend time, money, and/or attention on the new habit)

Ditto almost any other pleasure or desire. Hence trying to distinguish what's "needful" and to avoid "attachment".
How could we end dukka by any means other than satisfying or need for food or medicine?
Note that people die, sooner or later ("old age, sickness, death"), even with food and medicine.
Food and medicine may be "necessary" ("for the holy life"), but impermanent, maybe unreliable, not a "refuge". Food for example will last a day, and then what?
Another way to understand "happiness is internal" might be "happiness is mental" or "happiness is mind-made" -- perhaps it depends more on mental factors (like the following) rather than on physical possessions:

Remembering good that other people have done
Training your mind to abandon craving
Remembering good that you've done
Having kindly (rather than hostile, selfish) emotions towards others

If you (the mind) has sexual lust; this in reality is a form of tension, torment & suffering. When you find another person to relieve you of your sexual tension by engaging in the sexual act; this is pleasurable; this is a (temporary) release.
Similarly, when a meditator can calm and end sexual tension using meditation; this is pleasurable; this is a (permanent) release.

OP: ... once you satisfy some particular need,
  since you are a human being, other needs will arrive and with that new forms of
  suffering, but then I wonder, how is it possible to end suffering if
  we will always desire for certain things, as long as we exist in this
  material world?

Feeling the physical sensation of hunger, which arises from a purely biological reaction, leads one to crave for food. This craving is satisfied once you eat food.
But craving doesn't stop there. It leads to clinging or attachment. While you are eating, if someone tries to snatch your food away, you become angry. If you truly enjoy a certain food, you would long for it when it's not there, even when you're not hungry. The food that you enjoy eating, for e.g. chocolates - you might keep it hidden and avoid others from taking it away. Also see: "What is the difference between craving and clinging?"
Dukkha or suffering or dissatisfaction is your experience of being separated from what you enjoy, or encountering that which brings you pain, or not being able to get what you want. This is the first noble truth.
Dukkha is caused by craving. That's the second noble truth.
To end dukkha, you must end craving. That's the third noble truth.
You have asked a very good question, because your question implies that suppression of craving is the way to end suffering. That's a very good idea. The Buddha tried it too in the form of extreme asceticism, nearly starving himself to death, but found that it did not work. He said that if the string of a violin is made too tight or too loose, it won't produce music. The string of a violin must be adjusted just right. Similarly, ending craving is neither possible through overindulgence in craving, nor suppression of craving. This is also known as the middle way.
The answer to your question comes in the form of a journey from the third noble truth to the fourth noble truth.
The way to end craving (the fourth noble truth) is the noble eightfold path, which is a gradual path that ultimately leads to the perfection of wisdom. I discuss the gradualness of the method of practicing the noble eightfold path in this answer.
The enlightened one, perfected in wisdom, feels the sensations of hunger, but does not crave food. He nevertheless eats for sustenance. He does not lust after food. If he does not get food, it will not make him unhappy or agitated. Feeling hunger is different from craving for food. His perfection in wisdom leads him to be able to see through his experiences and not become overwhelmed by them.

Approach this on two levels, the doctrine level:
Desire is suffering. The 8-folds Paths helps you to end desires. There are Arahants that have ended desire hence ended suffering. Therefore it is possible to end suffering. Having said that, this doesn't mean you can do it in one life-time, as a human or other beings in other realms. Everything still depends on your parami from your many pass lives, your kamma, your practices, your free will to make decisions and judgments, and so forth.
The metaphysical/conceptual level:
When you mention desire, yes - the human realm is "Desire driven". In the Buddhism universe, there are realms different to the human realm and not driven by desire. If you have reached a certain stage of enlightenment, even not fully enlightened, you may/may not reincarnate into a realm/world that is not driven by desire. So, ending the desire in the human realm is possible. Otherwise, the idea about other realms would be impossible which contradicts to pretty much all of the concepts of Buddhism universe.