text:
What are the main differences -- in meditation practice and discipline -- between different schools of Theravada?
Wikipedia lists schools in this section ...

Schools of Buddhism (Theravāda subschools)

... but, those pages which describe each school focus on doctrine or philosophical aspects (and don't always emphasise the differences with other subschools).
I am interested in aspects that have more to do with practice and disciplines, e.g.:

What are the main differences in how monastic life is led in each of these subschools?
What does meditation practice focus on and how does that change from one school to the other?

For instance: I know that in the teaching of Mahasi Sayadaw there is an emphasis on verbalising whatever is taking place in the present moment; whereas Ajahn Chah focuses on "opening the heart". I expect other subschools to neglect walking meditation of discourage verbalisation, others not to allow nuns, etc.

Edit --
an answer mentioned that Wikipedia also has another page ...

Theravada (Monastic orders within Theravāda)

... which discusses nikayas rather than subschools and so which is more pertinent to my question. Unfortunately, those pages too don't discuss, detail, nor compare, the discipline and meditation practice.

The question quoted Theravāda subschools on Wikipedia.
There's another list on Wikipedia -- i.e. Monastic orders within Theravāda -- that identifies specific characteristics of various "monastic nikayas", which is part of what the question is asking about.

Unfortunately, both that section of Wikipedia and the pages linked by it do not go into any detail about practice and discipline.


text:
Vipassanā Without Samatha?
I have heard it stated that vipassana can be practiced without samatha. Since samatha leads us to the early jhana factors of vitarka and vicara, how is it possible to do vipassana with wandering undirected and unsteady mind?
"The Buddhist commentarial tradition, as represented by the contemporary Theravada, interprets vitarka and vicara as the initial and sustainted application of attention to a meditational object, which culminates in the stilling of the mind." - wikipedia ----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitarka-vicara

Even for those dry-insight practitioners, there's still a certain degree of samatha present thru what's called momentary concentration/khanikasamadhi. See Ven. Gunaratana's "The Jhanas" for further details (ref: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html )

The Dhammapada says:

There is no meditative concentration for him who lacks insight, and no insight for him who lacks meditative concentration. He in whom
are found both meditative concentration and insight, indeed, is close
to Nibbana.

There are at least two suttas (AN 4.94 & AN 10.54) that refer to vipassana without samatha. However, personally, I don't believe them. Suttas such as the 2nd sermon (SN 22.59) & the Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118) say the seeing of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self results in dispassion (viraga). Therefore, if the mind has dispassion (viraga), obviously it must also have tranquility (samatha); because "viraga" means "without lust". Further, those suttas also say  dispassion (viraga) results in nirodha (cessation). It follows having true vipassana without samatha appears impossible.

Please imagine there are hundred people sitting around the Buddha, and the Buddha must choose the compatible Dhamma, Dana/Sila/Samatha/Vipassana, with the listener's habits to let the listener attain LokuttataJhana.
According to the eldest Tipitaka manual, Netti:

Unwholesome Habitual Person, TanhaCarita, needs to meditate Samatha to stop the present arising unwholesome because they can't control their mind arising to be just wholesome. Their unwholesome mind will arise instead of the wholesome, then the meditation will not develop uninterruptedly therefore Neyya's LokuttataJhana can't arise.
Wholesome Habitual Person, DitthiCarita,  don't need to meditate Samatha. However, they still meditate Samatha if they still have enough lifetime to meditate it. However, for the wholesome Habitual Person who has not much left lifetime, the Buddha will let him meditate only Vipassana, without Samatha.

For the unwholesome habitual person, he can meditate pure Vipassana, but its risk for him to die before he attains LokuttaraJhana because it is harder, almost impossible, to attain LokuttaraJhana around unwholesome arising.
What is wholesome meditation?
In short, an attainment/enlightenment (of both LokiyaJhana and LokuttaraJhana) is a graduating moment of wholesome mind development/meditation, so if some passion, unwholesome mind, still able to arise and interrupt the meditation, it can not be called "attainment/enlightenment".
In detail,  a wholesome mind arises without any passion and causes at least the present and future resultants. In LokuttaraJhana context, wholesome mind causes of attaining the cessation of all sufferings as well. The 30-36 wholesome factors have to arise together with each mind moment depend on the compatibility with the environment and situation. The arising of wholesome mind moment will interrupt an arising of the unwholesome mind moment because the mind can arise only one per time (but it arises super fast more than a trillion times per second), so wholesome arising without unwholesome and wholesome arising without unwholesome.
All kinds of meditation are developing above wholesome mind to arise continuously uninterruptedly.
The Freshy Vipassana, TarunaVipassana, still has unwholesome minds, passion, arising around the present wholesome mind arising.
The proficient Vipassana, BalavaVipassana, has only wholesome minds arising for a long time continuously uninterruptedly without any passion, unwholesome.
The graduating Vipassana, AriyaMagga, is the perfectly completely ceasing moment of the passions by the powerful enough BalavaVipassana. The graduating Samatha can stop only present unwholesome mind arising but the The graduating Vipassana can let the passions ceased forever.
The attainment/enlightenment (of both LokiyaJhana and LokuttaraJhana) is a graduating moment of wholesome mind development/meditation, so if some passion, unwholesome mind, still able to arise and interrupt the meditation, it can not be called "attainment/enlightenment".

If one say Netti or Tipitaka conflict each other, it means that one doesn't know the right way to deconflict their misunderstood, wrong reading, by a lot of evidence, supporting each others. It doesn't mean Tipitaka or Netti actually conflict each other.

This begs the question as to what is wholesome?

@brothereric I added a reply into the answer because it's overlong for the reply box.

Yeah it is funny. Those people always call their books and doctrine something like ''the real teaching of the buddha'', instead of telling the truth which would make title their books like ''what I understand from the visuddhimagga and other people who copy the visuddhimagga''.
THen they try really hard to match their experience with whatever is written is in the visuddhimagga and they try to match whatever is written in the visuddhimagga with whatever is written in the suttas... It gets ugly very quickly.
Mahasi is famous for that and for his huge book Manual of Insight. In this book he has half a page  on your topic,

and oddly enough, he removed a little paragraph before his quote,

“And what, Ānanda, is the path, the way to the abandoning of the five
  lower fetters? Here, with seclusion from the acquisitions, with the
  abandoning of unwholesome states, with the complete tranquillization
  of bodily inertia, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded
  from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first
  jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with
  rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception,
  formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as
  suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an
  affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He
  turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the
  deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime,
  that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all
  attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation,
  Nibbāna.’ If he is steady in that, he attains the destruction of the
  taints. But if he does not attain the destruction of the taints
  because of that desire for the Dhamma, that delight in the Dhamma,
  then with the destruction of the five lower fetters he becomes one due
  to reappear spontaneously in the Pure Abodes and there attain final
  Nibbāna without ever returning from that world. This is the path, the
  way to the abandoning of the five lower fetters.

This little extra paragraph just before the long one destroys the whole book by mahasi.
Their mistake leads them to confuse ''living in the present moment'' with nibanna. It is actually the classical mistake form the puthujjanas who are addicted to the senses.
Plenty of people before made this mistake, like Dzogchen,  and even in the sutta people confuse jhanas with nibanna https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.008.nypo.html
But with the puthujjanas like Dzogchen and the people who invented vipassana mediation, it is worse because they they identify sampajanna with satisampajanna, satisampajanna with samadhi and samadhi as awakening, whereas the people in the sutta above only confuse samadhi with nibanna.

I interpret that the sutta is saying enter jhana, then bask in paññā.

Some people says that it is difficult to practise vipassana without samatha. I think it is about the person's experience. I started my practise after reading Eckhart Tolle's books and If anyone really investigated Tolle's teachings they will realize that Tolle is teaching mindfulness  in essence and lead people to little bit mix it with Samatha-especially for the beginners. So I followed Tolle's teachings but I gradually realized that Samatha is kind of a vacation so I was predominantly practising mindfulness. After practising this way with nearly 2 years, I started to practise with the wonderful teachings of Ven. Yuttadhammo, completely leave Samatha like practises and that was perfectly doable, wonderful and that also helped me a lot.
In the beginning the practise is difficult for everyone, even you mix it with Samatha the situation is not so much different. Even that I "was" in the same category of the "mixing Vipassana with Samatha" in the beginning, I think that it is perfectly doable to just start and continue with Vipassana. Many people report positive results who starts and goes this way, many people reports that they are doing formal meditation for many hours a day this way, and I think that many or some of them-If not all-continues to practise this way in daily life after doing formal meditation. If it wasn't working, people would report that it wasn't working for them.
I think the best way to understand the root of the spiritual things is to experience them. Since Buddha gave many approaches, methodologies for the people who want to go in the direction of Nibbana, a person can't prove that Buddha only tought one or even few way to people who wants to go towards enlightenment. And with experience people would easily understand that the root/essence of Buddha's teaching is mindfulness.

I find that doing straight up Samatha to be rather difficult, but also that even the depths of samadhi nothing seems to be gained, you can't integrate it, it's not clearly remembered. Ideally, one reaches one-pointedness and equanimity, then begins Vipassana, where all phenomena are seen with an essential sameness, yet clearly each thing is utterly unique.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to Practice After Stream Entry as Opposed to Before?
I follow the notion that when the false view of an independent, permanent "self" is annihilated for the first time this is Stream Entry. The Dharma no long is merely a question mark, and it's not dependent on rituals, or merely following rules. These first three fetters can't continue in the face of such an experience.
But how is the practice after Stream Entry different that before?

"In Buddhism, a sotāpanna (Pali), śrotāpanna (Sanskrit; Chinese: 入流; pinyin: rùliú, Tibetan: རྒྱུན་ཞུགས་, Wylie: rgyun zhugs), "stream-winner", or "stream-entrant" is a person who has seen the Dharma and consequently, has dropped the first three fetters (saŋyojana) that bind a being to rebirth, namely self-view (sakkāya-ditthi), clinging to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa), and skeptical indecision (Vicikitsa).
The word sotāpanna literally means "one who entered (āpanna) the stream (sota)", after a metaphor which calls the noble eightfold path a stream which leads to nibbāna. Entering the stream (sotāpatti) is the first of the four stages of enlightenment."
-- Sotāpanna (wikipedia)

Also see Agataphala Mahānāma Sutta (A 6.10) -- The Discourse on Mahānāma (on the fruition-attainer)

Hi Eric! I asked a similar question a while ago on the DhammaWheel forum. You may like to take a look at it: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33326&p=496481#p496481

A Sotapanna has seen the Path but s/he still need to "walk" the Path. See the chain smoker analogy on DW for further details (ref: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=17821&start=20#p252314 )

SN 55.3 wrote:
"Therefore, Dighavu, when you are established in these four factors of stream entry, you should further develop six qualities conducive to clear knowing. Remain focused on inconstancy in all fabrications, percipient of stress in what is inconstant, percipient of not-self in what is stressful, percipient of abandoning, percipient of dispassion, percipient of cessation. That's how you should train yourself."

Not different. If one wishes, one has to do an effort to turn the Wheel of Dhamma, develop the eightfold Path, as before.
One who has reached such stage knows this, having lost all doubts in regard of the path.

there is zero difference of practice between a puthujjana and a sekha.
THe problem for a puthujjanas is that  the actions are tainted by 3 flavors of karma and they mostly do actions with bad karma, which is why those people get reborn in hell sooner or later...
The problem for a sekha is that the action is still tainted by karma, but at least it is only the good karma.
This is why those people do not get reborn in hell, ever.
Their task is to stop making their action meritorious and practice the path of non-dark non-bright karma, ie the noble path, ie lots of sati, sampajanna, samadhi, but of the highest kind, ie "samadhi with vipassna", ''dana+vipassana'' to say it badly, see here for the various intentions that people have towards dana and only the last one is relevant to reach nibanna
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.049.than.html
Same thing with samadhi, for the sekhas, samadhi is more about right samadhi than abiding ''in the here and now'' to get sukha and merit.
In daily life, the only difference is that the sekhas are worthy of merits, contrary to the puthujjanas, so when people know some sekha is indeed a sekha (by hearing it from some non-puthujjana), they have to deal with people (ie mostly puthujjanas) offering them stuff, especially stuff considered valuable by puthujjanas, but really worthless for non-puthujjanas... It is a good opportunity for them to have sati.

There's also this topic which asks what "an adornment for the mind, a support for the mind (AN 7.49)" might mean.

"Stream-entry" requires three fetters to be cut, which include the fetter of doubt about the path and the fetter of identity-view.
Also, the Pali suttas define the both "sakkāya" (sat + kāya; "existent body/group" or "identity") & dukkha and the arising of identity & dukkha the same way, namely:

Pañca upādānakkhandhā sakkāyo. These five grasped aggregates are identity.  MN 44
Saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā. In brief, the five grasped aggregates are suffering. SN 56.11
The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This is the
origination of self-identification. MN 44
Now this is the noble truth of the origin of suffering. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight,
relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure,
craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming. SN 56.11

"Sakkāyadiṭṭhi" is to regard/view the five aggregates as "self", as follows:

How does identity view come about?
Kathaṃ sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī
It’s when an uneducated ordinary person has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones.
They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in
the teaching of the good persons.
They regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form.
They regard feeling …  perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in
consciousness.
That’s how identity view comes about.
Evaṃ kho, āvuso visākha, sakkāyadiṭṭhi hotī
MN 44

It follows, for stream-entry to occur, at least two experiences must occur, namely:

Seeing clearly "identity" is not a real permanently existent thing, which cuts the fetter of identity-view.

Seeing clearly the ending of attachment to the aggregates (sakkaya) and the ending of identity view (sakkaya ditthi) ends dukkha, which cuts the fetter of doubt about the path.

Therefore, at stream-entry, it is known without any doubt that "non-attachment" towards the five aggregates is the Path to Nibbana. Thus, whatever phenomena or experiences occur, such as "jhana", these experiences/phenomena are not attached to or regarded as being or connected to "self".

If the ending of identity is experienced (such as by Sam Harris says when taking LSD) but the correlated insight into the ending of dukkha is not experienced & maintained (such as by Sam Harris who, when not on drugs, has been accused of promoting war & nuclear genocide) then stream-entry has not been attained.
"Doubt" is not doubt about "anatta" ("not-self') but is doubt about "anatta ending dukkha". This is how fake gurus & fake dharma are known; when deeds do not equate to claimed realisations. When the fetter of "sakkaya ditthi" is cut, so are myriad unwholesome selfish deeds; because it is discerned abandoning "sakkaya" results in peace (Nibbana).

The difference is, after the first realization of Nibbana(which would repeat many times in time) the person is kind like being sucked to a black hole which means spontaneously the person is going towards complete and permanent freedom from suffering. This stream is constantly carrying the person forward, by cutting more defilements, having more realizations/insights to reality and being spontaneous backround mindfulness. Also stream-enterer is absolutely in the "higher training", really learning/training the dhamma that was not possible before the realization of Nibbana.

a 'noble learner', a disciple in higher training, i.e. one who pursues the 3 kinds of training (sikkhā), is one of those 7 kinds of noble disciples who have reached one of the 4 supermundane paths or the 3 lower fruitions (s. ariya-puggala), while the one possessed of the 4th fruition, or Arahatta-phala, is called 'one beyond training' (asekha, lit. 'no more learner').

http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sekha.htm
That being said stream-enterer is not complete enlightenment because an experience and even many experiences of Nibbana can't immediately make a person super enlightened(in most cases). That's why a person must fully internalize the effects of Nibbana and the following insights that comes from it and cut more defilements. Keeping formal meditation and other things to intensify the process can be helpful.
And it is possible that some people can confuse some glimpses of emptiness experiences with Nibbana and think that they are stream-enterers so it is better to understand what stream-entry really is. I realized that many people confuse their situation and think that they stream-enterers or beyond. It is possible that these people are good or even very good meditators but I think this misunderstanding is a big issue among Buddhist or non-Buddhist meditators. Having a "noble one" ego is dangerous and can make people stop practising and can stop avoiding unwholesome actions that is required to have that unique experience that would change their entire existence. And "not accepting to be a puthujjana" or not knowing that they are not beyond puthujjana yet can be the last hindrance for these people to have a breakthrough. Just drop the ego temporarily and see what happens.
Note: Even If this is kind of a "game" for them it's still harmful.
Informative links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkmLYAl1p7w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/9424/700

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


text:
Perfectionism in Meditation
When I first started metta bhavana, everything went very well and I generated a strong feeling. Ironically, I am now anxious in doing this meditation (i.e. I skip some) because I feel I might not recreate the same quality as before. I feel this is definitely the wrong way of seeing, but I can almost not help it.
Are there any suggestions towards this type of anxiety/perfectionism?

Metta bhavana's supposed to be a selfless dedication practice, ie. there's just metta flowing without "I", "mine", or "myself" as the source of generation. As long as there's the notion of "I" am generating this metta, there'll be anxiety/perfectionism there. So, when there's metta, there's just metta, not "I am generating this metta".

I can only recommend looking up Ajahn Jayasaro's Dhamma talks. Some videos on meditation & wholesoms intentions.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTuBCCPJDWE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MNnxLmKe0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VoWjDEmIO6k
As you will notice, he explicitly points out that Buddhism is not just meditation. Buddhism is a holistic training, where Conduct (Sila) & what you are doing outside of the meditation cushion, shouldn't be neglected.

Ironically, I am now anxious in doing this meditation (i.e. I skip some) because I feel I might not recreate the same quality as before.

I can only recommend to be aware of ideas with "should", "must", "got to" etc. Usually we're not conscious of these rigid rules, but by seeing our thoughts (which are largely spawned by these rules), we can clearly see that every extreme emotions has a rigid "must". This is craving.
If "I must feel pleasant feelings in the next meditation session" doesn't happen, people often evaluate this as awful, that is, they think this is 100% bad &/or they say that THEY CANNOT STAND IT, but they can stand it if they are being honest with themselves, although it being a struggle.
You better stick to an attitude such as: "I would like to experience pleasant feelings, but it doesn't have to be the way I want. I can live perfectly without it".
Also, have an attitude of learning (from experiences). Meaning, see feelings and thoughts as transient phenomena.

Can you explain what you mean by things such as "musts" or "must nots" are linked with extreme emotionality? I feel I experience a lot of such extreme ways of approaching situations, but I never related this to emotion before.

If these musts get violated then you will experience 'extreme negative emotions', such as depression , anger, unhealthy jealousy, shame, guilt, hurt, anxiety.

If you want to know more about this let me know.

Yeah, I'd be curious to know

You can look up 'Windy Dryden' on Google Book. There are a lot of previews there. His ideas are all based on Albert Ellis, founder of Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT), the pioneering Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). What it all comes down to is the ABC, A= Activating Event (mentally or externally), B= Belief (either rigid or flexible), and C= Cosequences (in thinking, feeling and behavioural tendencies). Disputing irrational beliefs is one of the central techniques in REBT.

The perfectionism is required to attain Jhana.
The anxiety/worry can be ceased by the memory and understanding in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 14th(15th,16th,17th) of the path of purification. In short, the professor of Jhana at Pa-Auk can advise you.
People often worry about what they don't proficiently know the way to manage. It's called Vicikiccha and Uddhacca hindrances.


text:
If there be no soul or transmigrating entity that takes rebirth, who or what bears or enjoys the consequences or fruits of karma?
How can a religion or school of thought justify or rationalise the proposal that potential suffering could be inflicted on a subsequent rebirth - to all intents and purposes, a new individual, according to the anatta theory - because of the actions of a previous individual?
Why the threat of subjecting another to suffering, if that being cannot be held responsible for actions in a previous life?
If no soul or persistence exists, how can one suggest that performing positive karmic actions will improve the quality of life of a subsequent rebirth, if there is no element retained of a previous iteration to reap the reward and receive the incentive to continue to perform good karmic actions and/or continue in Buddhist schooling?

The Buddha adviced to answer on who experiances dukkha and sukha, "This person, with this and that name, is the carrier of the burden", good householer.

According to Buddhism, a being is depedently arisen. For each moment to moment arisen state there is no unchanging core which is transmitted. In contemporary religions, there was a notion of an unchanging essence.
Past karmic action conditions over expences. With this as input and unripened karmic effects create the next moment of a being.

This question is asked and answered in the suttas. Two citations which might prove helpful:
From: AN 3.22.82-Woodward trans.
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/03_kv/sn03.22.082.wood.pts.htm

"So then you say that body is not the Self;
  feeling is not the Self,
  perception is not the Self,
  the activities are not the Self,
  and consciousness is not the Self,
Then what self can those acts affect
  which are not self-wrought?"
Thereupon the Exalted One,
  with his thought reading the thoughts of that brother's mind,
  said to the brethren:
"It is possible, brethren, that some senseless fellow,
  sunk in ignorance
  and led astray by craving,
  may think to go beyond the Master's teaching thus:
'So then you say that body is not the Self;
  feeling is not the Self,
  perception is not the Self,
  the activities are not the Self,
  and consciousness is not the Self,
Then what self can those acts affect
  which are not self-wrought?'
That question, brethren,
  I have already answered thus and thus
  in those teachings that I have given you.

From SN 2.12.17-Rhys Davids: http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/02_nv/sn02.12.017.rhyc.pts.htm

"What then, Master Gotama,
  is one's suffering wrought by another?
"Not so verily, Kassapa,"
  said the Exalted One.
"What then, Master Gotama,
  is suffering wrought both by one's self
  and by another?"
"Not so verily, Kassapa,"
  said the Exalted One.
"What then, Master Gotama,
  has [the] suffering [which is] wrought neither by myself
  nor by another,
  befallen me by chance?"[5]
"Not so verily, Kassapa,"
  said the Exalted One.
"What then, Master Gotama,
  is suffering non-existent?"
"Nay, Kassapa, suffering is not non-existent;
  suffering is."
"Then Master Gotama
  neither knows nor sees suffering?"
"Nay, Kassapa, I am not one who knows not suffering
  nor sees it.
I am one that knows suffering, Kassapa,
  I am one that sees suffering."

"'One and the same person
    both acts and experiences [the results]'

-this, Kassapa, which you called at first
  'suffering self-wrought,'
  amounts to the Eternalist theory.

'One acts,
    another experiences [the result]'

this, Kassapa, which
  to one smitten by the feeling
  occurs as

'suffering caused by another,'

amounts to the Annihilationist theory.
To you, Kassapa, the Tathāgata,
  not approaching either extreme,
  teaches the Norm by a middle [way]:
Conditioned by ignorance activities come to pass,
  conditioned by activities consciousness;
  conditioned by consciousness, name-and-shape;
  conditioned by name-and-shape, sense;
  conditioned by sense, contact;
  conditioned by contact, feeling;
  conditioned by feeling, craving;
  conditioned by craving, grasping;
  conditioned by grasping, becoming;
  conditioned by becoming,
  birth,
  decay-and-death,
  grief,
  suffering,
  sorrow,
  despair come to pass.
But from the utter fading away and ceasing of ignorance [comes] ceasing of activities;
  from ceasing of activities ceasing of consciousness;
  from ceasing of consciousness ceasing of name-and-shape;
  from ceasing of name-and-shape ceasing of sense;
  from ceasing of sense ceasing of contact;
  from ceasing of contact ceasing of feeling;
  from ceasing of feeling ceasing of craving;
  from ceasing of craving ceasing of grasping;
  from ceasing of grasping ceasing of becoming;
  from ceasing of becoming ceasing of birth;
  from ceasing of birth,
  old age-and-death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, despair cease.
Such is the ceasing of this entire mass of ill."

(answer written by Mike Olds, which I posted on his behalf)

How can a religion or school of thought justify or rationalise the proposal that potential suffering could be inflicted on a subsequent rebirth - to all intents and purposes, a new individual, according to the anatta theory - because of the actions of a previous individual?

I think it's based on observation -- e.g. if you stick your hand in the fire now, then in future the hand will be conditioned by its having been burned n the past.
Also I don't think that "the anatta theory" says that there's a "new individual". I think it says there's "no" individual, no perpetual/unchanging "self" -- e.g. "I" might be known as "son" early in life, perhaps known as "husband" or "co-worker" later in life, and maybe known by some other name entirely in  future life.

Why the threat of subjecting another to suffering, if that being cannot be held responsible for actions in a previous life?

Thinking that, "this is me", and, "that will be another", is not anatta as far as I know.
They're examples of "self views" or "identity views" which we're advised to do away with -- e.g. because they result in "a thicket of views" i.e. confusion -- and result in suffering, if only because they're unsatisfactory -- and, I think, because they result from and perpetuate a sense of "attachment" and of "seeing the aggregates as self", i.e. the "clinging attachments" identified in the doctrine of the "four noble truths".

If no soul or persistence exists, how can one suggest that performing positive karmic actions will improve the quality of life of a subsequent rebirth, if there is no element retained of a previous iteration to reap the reward and receive the incentive to continue to perform good karmic actions and/or continue in Buddhist schooling?

Some people suggest that Buddhism was originally about liberation in this life, rather than about a fortunate rebirth in a future life.
Still, that was my first question on this site -- Is rebirth a delusional belief? -- for example ...

The Buddhist doctrine of "anatta" (there is no self?) and "anicca" (self is impermanent?) seem to me to be saying that, if (it is believed that) there is rebirth, that 'rebirth' is fairly meaningless, i.e. it is a rebirth of nothing in particular: why not just call it a "birth" instead of a rebirth?

... so you might want to read the answers to that.
It's a frequently-asked question.
I think I decided that the question may proceed from identity-view, which we're better off without, e.g. How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
And I think that some suttas -- perhaps A Safe Bet (MN 60) -- might suggest that Buddhist practice is "right" (or "safe"), whether or not there is a future existence.

Thanks for your answer Chris.

I can see your point about the view of rebirth as being open to interpretation, but I can't help feeling that without the concept of rebirth, Buddhism just becomes a certain kind of Nihilism, i.e everything is transitory, nothing lasts forever, existence is discontentedness or suffering or however you interpret the word for it. What would be the reasoning for investing time to follow a faith or school if nothingness is destined for all of us regardless?

I think it's based on observation -- e.g. if you stick your hand in the fire now, then in future the hand will be conditioned by its having been burned n the past. I wouldn't say that analogy really works in the context, as that would imply transmigration of state into a new lifetime.

Also I don't think that "the anatta theory" says that there's a "new individual". I think it says there's "no" individual, no perpetual/unchanging "self" -- e.g. "I" might be known as "son" early in life, perhaps known as "husband" or "co-worker" later in life, and maybe known by some other name entirely in future life. Perhaps, but doesn't the suggestion that "I" refers to a different situation, i.e. another name, imply a new instantiation and allotment of life experience? So would this new life would be subjected to the consequences of my actions in the here-and-now?

@NotThisAgain I think you're right that there's a risk that people may misinterpret Buddhism as Nihilism. I think there's even advice (for which a reference doesn't immediately come to mind, I suspect it's Mahayana) that it's a fault to teach the doctrine of emptiness to someone who isn't ready to take it well -- see also e.g. gradual training. And the suttas often and explicitly identify nihilism (as well as eternalism) as one of many types of wrong view.

I wouldn't say that analogy really works in the context, as that would imply transmigration of state into a new lifetime. It's not an analogy, I meant it literally. Where the statement might have holes in it is in whether it's "my" hand (anatta), whether it's "really" a hand (sunyata), and whether its having-been-burned is suffering (dukkha), but conventionally the idea that actions have a lasting consequences, which condition future states of being -- even though objects aren't permanent -- is maybe obvious. And true not only of/in  the "physical" world but of the mental/moral realm too.

doesn't the suggestion that "I" refers to a different situation, i.e. another name, imply a new instantiation and allotment of life experience? I'm inclined to take that whole category of argument as a reductio ad absurdum, which successfully suggests that "I-making" -- e.g. that there are different "I" in different lives -- is kind of not entirely sound. But the premise that it's same "I" in different lives is also pretty dubious. So maybe the flaw is in the idea that there is any certain "I" at all.

And I think a classic (e.g. Abhidhamma -- I'm not sure how this is derived from the suttas) is that "being" (in some sense) is moment after moment more so than life after life. And maybe Buddhists don't entirely believe in separate lives -- i.e., "don't believe in death".

I'm inclined to take that whole category of argument as a [reductio ad absurdum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum), which successfully suggests that "I-making" -- e.g. that there are different "I" in different lives -- is kind of not entirely sound. But the premise that it's same "I" in different lives is also pretty dubious.
I think I see your point.

So maybe the flaw is in the idea that there is any certain "I" at all. I suppose this would suggest a passing of condition and state if all is one and the same, as a sort of "life-pool". An interesting thought.

But again, if I was Buddhist, the desire for anything done now by me/the thing occupying my seat being "good" would, roughly speaking, be based on the desire to cease suffering, achieve Nirvana, and to end the cycle of rebirths. So the way I see it, either: the singular life-chain reaches (pari)Nirvana, no more rebirths occur, and the supposed "karma/life-pool, or the sum-total of karma and its results, get progressively smaller towards non existence as more people achieve this goal, hinting at Nihilism, or there is perhaps motivation for seeking a favourable rebirth outside of this goal.

See also https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/33145/254

The question is irrelevant because there are two levels of teaching in Buddhism (refer to two sorts of right view in MN 117). The Buddha generally did not teach about "kamma-vipaka" and "not-self" (anatta) together.
"Kamma-vipaka" is mainly for puthujjana (common village people who need to be taught morals so to avoid self-harm) and "anatta" is for Noble People. Only later heretics (such as the Brahman philosopher Buddhaghosa) taught "empty not-self phenomena are reborn in a Twelvefold Voidness".
When a Noble Person realises the reality of not-self (anatta), they no longer perform immoral actions because there is no longer selfishness or self-interest within their mind. Also, there is no self-referent to any past kamma. Refer to AN 6.63, which says:

Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma.

But for the common village people who have not realised not-self (anatta), the Buddha taught they themselves are the owners & heirs of their personal actions, as follows:

Bhikkhus, beings are the owners of their kamma, the heirs of their kamma; they have kamma as their origin, kamma as their relative, kamma
  as their resort; whatever kamma they do, good or bad, they are its
  heirs.
AN 10.216

The later is true because when kamma-vipaka occurs, the idea of "self" arises in the mind of the recipient of kamma, such as the regret: "Why did I do that bad deed? What did I do to myself? I have ruined my life".
In summary, whenever "rebirth" occurs, it is a "rebirth" of "self". Inwardly, it is never "not-self".

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

So why is it that karmic actions that could be considered bad result in rebirth in lesser domains? Or at you saying that the entire concept of Samsara and rebirth is an allegory for poor/stupid people and neither exist? If karma exists for the individual only as the excerpt from AN 10.216 suggests, how can a wheel of rebirth exist if it has no purpose as a "feedback loop" of sorts? Did the Buddha not remember accounts previous lives?

The Buddha did not remember any previous lives. The word "previous lives" is not found in the Pali suttas. The term falsely translated as "past lives" is "pubbe nivasa", which means "past abodes" or literally "past homes". SN 22.79 is the only sutta to explain the meaning of this. Read it here: https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi You can also read more of my opinon, here: https://dhammadhatu.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/past-lives-pubbe-nivasa/

@Dhammadhatu, In suttas, it's clearly written, how Gautama Buddha was given confirmation by the Dipankara Buddha (who was the previous Buddha) (niyata viwarana) it's about his previous life. And there are many suttas around 550, explains about his previous lives. So its not about past homes.
When Dewdath attack buddha, buddha got a scratch (wound) in his leg. And Buddha explains that's Karma due to some thing he did in past life. Buddha can see his previous life according to this. And pubbe nivasanussati is a Gnanam, which we can get by meditating.

Sorry but nothing in sutta is real unless it can be verified. Also, there are not 550 suttas about past lives. Please do not spam by answers with superstition. Thank you.

What is the transmigrating entity or soul experiencing moment by moment experience right now in you? There isn't any to be found. With some kind of good karma or good  practice one can see  one is  made up of formations  becoming born and dead every moment, there is no static soul, no static anything. Physical death is just another moment.

It's like the cloths you wore 10 years were referred to as 'your clothes', so the clothes you wear nowadays are referred to as 'your clothes' and the future clothes will be 'your clothes'; yet they are not the same clothes but are all called clothing and can be grasped with wrong view as self-referable.
Consciousness is to be understood(mn43), as according to the principle and function; arising as one ceasing as another, change is it's quality & characteristic.
Phenomena are mindmade and mindmade phenomena just come into play according to the principles of reason and are thought about as associated with this or that person.

The one who later enjoys / suffers the fruits of a prior action done
by an agent is neither the same nor different than that agent

If you believe in karma, then it is not entirely different. If you believe in no-self, then not the same. Working out in what way that can be the case falls to dependent origination and theories of consciousness. The standard response is, I think, that only some mental events (the ones I label "me" vs the ones "you") occur in a causal series. How that can continue after death is perplexing.

here its clearly answered
https://youtu.be/xjlBobj0iSA

2."Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?"
Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there?"
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html

It is very important to understand how rebirth or birth takes place.
There is ignorance, with ignorance as condition volitional formations come into existence , with volitional formations as condition consciousness comes into existence, with consciousness as condition name and form comes into existence, with name and form as condition six senses come into existence, with six senses as condition contact comes into play , with contact as a condition feelings come into play , with feelings as a condition cravings come into existence, with cravings as a condition clinging comes into play , with clinging as a condition attachments come into existence , with attachments as a condition becoming comes into play , with becoming as condition birth , ageing and death and whole mass of suffering comes into play.
This is how birth or rebirth occurs. Ignorance is at the beginning. What is ignorance? Ignorance is not knowing that birth , ageing, death is suffering… Ignorance is knowing that birth , ageing and death leads to happiness or gives some pleasure or is a divine purpose or solves any karmic problem ….
Now that I have told you how birth occurs , the answer should be clear to you.

This is a very profound question that begs a profound answer. Karma is said to be based on Thoughts, wholesome or unwholesome. Science tells us that Thoughts, generate Energy and form the basis of Information. Science also tells us that Information can never be destroyed. David Tong, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University in his discourse, ''Quantum Fields, the Real Building Blocks of the Universe" (utube) explains that even in a pure vacuum, there are phenomena that can never be destroyed ( minute 21 onwards). That seems to be the position of science today. Cosmologist and Physicist Jude Currivan (utube), is one of many modern thinkers, who advocate that "Information is at the Centre of Creation". This would imply that even if the Universe is destroyed, these phenomena will remain. I believe that these phenomena represent Information - Karma. Aeons of Information that can never be destroyed, also referred to as the Akashic record.  According to Buddhist Cosmology, when a Universe is destroyed, the Karma of the Universe becomes the cause for a new Universe to be born. Karma is therefore a very profound subject and the Buddha advised us against probing deeply into it. Suggest you read "The Dhamma Theory" by Professor Y. Karunadasa (pdf) to get a better understanding of these phenomena. The Buddha suggested that we develop insight, through meditation, to realize the truth of his Doctrine of Anatta. That will surely end your Noble Quest to find the Truth.

This seems to be a word soup that you mixed together blindly, as someone who actually knows the meaning of these words, it is gibberish...

Earlier, I was of a similar mindset. I disagreed with thoughts having energy or that information can never be destroyed. Had no idea that zero and ones, form the fundamental building blocks of IT. That Information is more fundamental than Energy in creating the physical world (wondered what happened to the 120 odd elements of the periodic table in the chemistry class). Who says that I'm not real? The thought that consciousness will become the spoil sport at the point of death, when this wonderful world will vanish, still lingers on!. Thanks to wise guidance from others, the fog is clearing.

@Muuski Thanks for your comment. Now and in future you can "vote down" the post -- there are up- and down-arrows near the number to the left of the post. The help says that voting is better than "Criticisms which do not add anything constructive ("-1, see previous comments you scallywag!"); instead, downvote (and provide or upvote a better answer if appropriate);"


text:
Wholesome is absence of passion?
A person told here, that wholesome (kusala) means absence of passion (desire, will..., raga, lobha, chanda...).
Is that right? If, why. Is it wrong? If, why?
No need to have passion to answer the question, of cause.
(note: this is not for entertaining, trade, exchange or stacks that binds, but to get attached to liberation and for a leave.)

A related question here, Upasaka @frankk : What's the (mental) quality different between aversive leaving (vi-bhava) and renouncing (nekkhamma)? and those interested in investigation of the path.

The way I understand, any action which benefits you and the other person or both are wholesome.

The benefits have 6 kinds: own, related people, universe society, present, future, cessation (Nibbana).
The wholesome require at least present and future benefits, the others are an option.
AndhaBālaPuthujana means puthujana who is blind in both present and future benefits. This Puthujana lose all benefits.

Sure? Killing, stealing... for ones benefit, others, both should be ku-sala, Upasaka Sarath? Better rephrase, thinking on the kamma a verbal traps...

Yes, I see your point. When you kill and steal you are punished in this life and next life. So it is not beneficial to you.

Killing, stealing for other's benefit still harms the victim of the deed. Therefore it is unwholesome.

Sutta Pitaka Vol 14 : Sutta. Aṅ. (3): pañcakanipātā SamaapattiSutta:

aṅguttara nikāya
the book of the fives
6.Entering
(1) “Bhikkhus, there is no entering upon the unwholesome so long as faith is securely settled in cultivating wholesome qualities. But when faith has disappeared and lack of faith obsesses one, then there is the entering upon the unwholesome.
(2) “There is no entering upon the unwholesome so long as a sense of
  moral shame is securely settled in cultivating wholesome qualities.
  But when a sense of moral shame has disappeared and moral
  shamelessness obsesses one, then there is the entering upon the
  unwholesome.
(3) “There is no entering upon the unwholesome so long as moral dread
  is securely settled in cultivating wholesome qualities. But when moral
  dread has disappeared and lack of moral dread obsesses one, then there
  is the entering upon the unwholesome.
(4) “There is no entering upon the unwholesome so long as energy is
  securely settled in cultivating wholesome qualities. But when energy
  has disappeared and laziness obsesses one, then there is the entering
  upon the unwholesome.
(5) “There is no entering upon the unwholesome so long as wisdom is
  securely settled in cultivating wholesome qualities. But when wisdom
  has disappeared and lack of wisdom obsesses one, then there is the
  entering upon the unwholesome.”

So does kusala mean absence of raga, chanda... desire, passion, Upasaka Varapol?

Keep in mind chanda, like "desire" in english, can be good or bad.
kāma-chanda, sensual or sexual desire, is different than the chanda infused with good in the four iddhipada for example:
chanda-samadhi-padhana-sankhara-samannagatam (desire based samadhi...)
Even rāga (passion), occasionally is used in a good sense. Dhamma-rāga, for example, even a non-returner can still have some passion for Dhamma-teachings.
So the question you asked is interesting, I'm not sure kusala or akusala has an airtight definition in the suttas.

Sadhu. "I'm not sure kusala or akusala has an airtight definition in the suttas.": Why Upasaka Frank?

complete absence of raga, dosa, moha, would be an arahant. A being who only did kusala actions, would tend to have good kamma consquences and rebirth in nicer realms. MN 61 describes the situation Sarathw mentioned, where kusala could be assessed by whether it leads to harm or well being, but that's kind of a fuzzy criteria. The only part that could be really airtight kusala, is whether one's intention behind an action (mental, verbal, physical) is free the 3 akusala roots.

Upasaka Frank. Merits dedicated toward Nibbana. My person "doubts", doesn't see actually, that there is only a small step toward Nibbana, which is/could be free from the 3 roots. Onetime this, then the other, fine, fines... but the path depends on kamma. Of what is kusala and akusala starts with the precepts, not harming, harming, ever finer. Maybe Upasaka remembers the "four kinds of kamma" and the fourth, kusala+right target, Nibbana via path.

Or if thinking on right effort, or balas, one time greed, one time aversion, accumulate, abound, ku-sala, a-ku-sala. And even "moha", in terms of equanimity, rest, is required, more or less, or? That was why it was asked "Why is Upasaka Frank here in his answer in doubt?"

I'm answering the question based on No need to have passion to answer the question, of cause. comment in the question. I might not have references to what I say in english, as the english Sutta are lacking some suttas. I'll try to point to the suttas anyway.

A person told here, that wholesome (kusala) means absence of passion
  (desire, will..., raga, lobha, chanda...).

.

Is that right?

Yes, This is correct, but instead of raga, lobha, chanda we can conclude everything to Thrushna = Thanha = Craving And it can be again divided to Ragha, Dwesha, Moha.
When you are uprooting these, it will become Kusala as its the only thing which helps to achieve Nivana = Enlightenment

If why?

How Nivana = Enlightenment is defined in Samyutta Nikaya - 4 -> Asankatha Sutta is: Not making the mind dirty with Ragha, Not making the mind dirty with Dwesha, Not making the mind dirty with Moha is Nivana = Enlightenment How its written in Pali is Raghakkhayoo Nibbanan, Dweshakkhayo Nibbanan, Mohakkayo Nibbanan.
So when there's Ragha, Dwesha, Moha occurs in our mind, it cause us to lose the Kusala.
Next If we look at why Ragha, Dwesha, Moha occurs in our mind? That's because of the Avijja = Ignorance And that remains bit hard to explain, as I can't give reference as the English translation is missing some sutta.
If I explains simply what we ignore about the world is, we think the world is worth, (car is worth, children are worth etc.) and we get attached to those. Actually there's no worth in external world. But thinking that out side world is worth we create our own world (five aggregates of clinging) and get attached to that.
Next why we think the outside world is worth? It's because with think the external world gives us happiness that's why we think it's worth. But actually external world behaves as the way its supposed to be (according to the Pratītyasamutpāda). But we get cheated thinking the external world is behaving the we want and get attached to that. (eg: when someone has car he thinks the car is worth and it behaves as he wants it, actually its not because he wants it, but it's how it supposed to happened according to the law of nature = Pratītyasamutpāda. Not knowing this behaviour is called Avijja)
Please don't just ignore this. This is the base of the Buddha's teaching. And it's not the way it's written, but its the way someone feels and understand it. (eg: addition of 1 + 1 = 2, is very proven to everyone, no matter the language, no matter Einstein says we know that is it, because we've realised it and proven to our selves. If someone asks us to believe that 1+1 is not 2 but 3, then it's not gonna happen, as we've clearly understand 1+1 = 2. Like wise, Aijja is as explained above. When you realise it, no matter what, you know it and understand it and you see that in the world : day-to-day action )
With Metta..!

"Not making the mind dirty with Ragha, ... Dwesha, ... Moha is Nivana = Enlightenment", Upasaka. First, the question was not about what is Nibbana, but what is ku-sala ("of what cuts of sala dirt ku") and whether there is ku-sala possible without will, desire, tending for... and second, taken Upasakas answer as proper, it would say Nibbana = kusala. 3., Upasaka, it's good if using Pali and not using Sanskrit, as more here are familar with the first. Ragha, Dwesha is Sanskrit (or Sri Lankan spelling as a mix), Pali= raga, dosa.

If one is trained that 0+0=1, told, holds on it, he would firm say it as correct. So maybe Upasaka likes to gives his formula here a prove, if 0+0=1 could work. Much joy and grow in preparing good gifts.

Understanding, and by-hearting are two things. 0+0=1 is by-hearting as it is a lie not a truth. One truth is said first u can by-heart then wise people will understand it with facts.

Because of the danger of leaving "a lie" behind, a trap, may could fall into and get hurt, to have freedom of remorse, the good improvement of the answer was suggested, Upasaka. But it would stay his anyway if not taken on by someone.


text:
No more kamma and vipaka for Noble Ones?
There is a (are) person(s) here, who advocate the denying of "person is heir of his action", advocate no-self, for whom who has reached the path already (Sekha).
In that case, do, and why, make Sekhas an effort toward good and liberating, if such would be the case?
What would happen to a person who would throw away the boot before crossing or in the middle (if such even would be possible to develope grave wrong view for a Sekha) of the sea?
It would be good if the "Noble Ones", "Emptinessdweller" and "Ahara-hats" here would elaburate their thesis of the use of kamma and self-denying for Sekhas and foremost worldlings since less Arahats might be in need for such tunings.
(Note: that is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but to make use to get out of the wheel of that)

The effort of Sekha is merely intuition of mind to remain empty. Only when mindfulness & wisdom of non-Arahant Sekha lapses is there thought of kamma-vipaka.
For Sekha with mindfulness, wisdom knows only the element of ignorance is the doer of kamma. For the mindful Sekha, "old kamma" is merely something "felt" (rather than identified with), per SN 12.37. In AN 3.61, it is said: "For those who feel, I teach the four noble truths" (of non-craving & non-identifying).

As the Sublime Buddha told: There is no place, no state in this world where the results of ones actions would not follow to, no escape aside of final release. Even an Arahat is still subject to effects of previous deeds till the break up of his body.

Not in the sky, nor in the middle of the ocean, nor in the cave of a mountain, nor anywhere else, is there a place, where one may escape from the consequences of an evil deed. (and story)

Now in regard of performing further kamma, only and Arahat does no more cause new kamma but runs out according remaining fuel. Even if having attained the path and Nobility, the producing of kamma is not only still going on but even required to perform as to finally reach the far shore. Till final attainment kusala actions, merits, are required and best if all with the Noble Eightfold path, the fourth kind of kamma, kusala kamma toward Nibbana.
While one having entered stream would be now no more able to perform actions leading to lower realms, he is still able to produce, contuct actions which have not only good but also bad, unpleasant results and within even seven new states of existence, there will be still a lot of suffering experianced and one would be smart not only to strive for highes Attaining in this existance but also to stick to practice and to perform merits to have a pleasing lasting way.
As for those beings, holding wrong views not right view, even totally overestimate themselves, having developed householder equanimity, they, for the most, can no more be helped and are destinated to long term suffering. Lacking of sacca inwardly and outwardly, cheating themselves and a lot of others, they are for the most not only enemies for themselves but also lead many others to much misfortune and suffering in this world.
That being the reason wise always praise to stay with the safe bet and even Arahats would not even slightly suggest other things and speculation.
Train in acts of merit
that bring long-lasting bliss —
develop giving,
        a life in tune,
    a mind of good-will.
Developing these
three things
that bring about bliss,
        the wise reappear
        in a world of bliss
unalloyed. Iti 22
(Note that this Dhamma gift is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainments to bind or conduct demerits with it, but for release from this wheel)


text:
Personal continuity in the absence of a persistent, unchanging self
How is personal continuity (including continuity at rebirth) explained in Buddhism in the absence of a persistent, unchanging self? Do all Buddhists agree on a single explanation? I am reading the book, Foundations of Buddhism, by Rupert Gethin. He has provided some explanation, but I am not sure whether it is the original Buddhist explanation or his own interpretation.

The arising and cease of the aggregates (form, feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness) occurs everytime contact happens. When contact occurs, new feelings, perceptions and consciousness arise, which are affected by the previous mind-states. As a result, mental formations are altered as well. And form is not the exception: with contact, multiple physiological changes happen at a molecular and cellular levels.
If we have a object, and we change or modify at least one of its contituents, we can no longer say that it is the same object anymore. Sure, some of its parts are still intact, but as a whole, the object is not the same. The same applies to the "self": if we took two point of time and compare that which we consider a "self" in both of those points, we can see that although it is not the same being, it is not an entirely different one, totally disconnected causally speaking.
The aggregates are influenced by external factors and stimuli, while at the same time they are influencing each other. Also, the khandhas are exerting a constant influence on the environment as well. There's constant change (what a paradoxical statement, isn't it?) in the aggregates and in the world. As nothing stays the same all the time, what deserves to be called "I" and "me" in a permanent and ultimate sense?
In the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta it is stated:

"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."

Also, when we act with intention (either through thoughts, speech or bodily actions) we create kamma. In the Kamma Sutta it is said:

"Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye... The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect: This is called new kamma."

As a consequence of that Kamma (through "our" volitional actions), the being "we were" created the being "we are" now, which in time it's creating the being "we will be" in the future. What "we are" now is the result of mutual conditionality between past kamma, present kamma and the present context/stimuli.
"We" always in quotations, because it has already been said that there's not a permanent thing to be called a "self" between all those states of being through time. And so, you cannot talk about "personal" continuity in the sense of a person which is carried on and underlying the changing aspect of the "self"; absolutely everything in the aggregates is subject to change if the supporting conditions cease to exist.
Kind regards!

Yes, this causal connectedness is what Rupert Gethin mentions. I am fine with the logic. However, is this the original Buddhist explanation found in the Nikayas?

Please let me know where is causal connectedness mentioned in this teaching.

I edited the answer to include what I posted down here. Kind regards!

Yes, thanks. I was about to ask that.

There is no such thing as personal continuity, apart from new arisings of a similar delusions about 'self'. 'Re-birth' is merely the re-arising of another delusion of 'self'. Since not all Buddhists are enlightened, naturally all Buddhists do not agree on a single explanation.
For example, the self 'Lazy Lubber' considers them 'self' to be today is not the same 'person' or 'self' considered to be at 4 years old.

Childishly downvoting my old posts with no reason? Btw, how is the old "delusion" of self connected with the new "delusion"? Why do I have memories of my childhood?

Memory is not a self. The comment is irrelevant. Is the child the same as the adult?

I did not say memory is self. I just asked how old and new delusions of self are connected and why memories of past still exist, as if it is "my" past.

Ask a new question on the forum. The comments facility is not for endless banter.

The question is already asked. Just because you could not answer it properly does not mean that I have to ask another question.

people always say that whatever they call self involves the idea of continuity, but

what they call self is nothing but their personal tastes, what they like and dislike and some things that they call memories of events, and when they compare their memories of events, they see that their memories are fantasies
even what they like and dislike change a lot over a few years, especially their ideas and the words they use, let alone over one life, let alone over several births


text:
Mindfulness of Watching Youtube
I noticed that upon watching Youtube videos, I seem to become sucked into merely watching stuff online. I almost 'forget' to do other things. Oddly, this doesn't happen while reading online, or creating something.
Can one directly relate this to lack of mindfulness? Is any such instance of 'forgetting' usually linked with mindfulness?
More so, why might reading not generate this type of absorbed state?
Thank you

The technology/internet makes things more complex, makes the mind more active. Youtube, Facebook, Twitter other social media platforms or other internet sites etc.(and now with digital things people is able to engage in these things all the time because internet is not only in computers but now it is in people's "hands" all the time). One thing after another arises in the mind and people identify with everything that arises in their minds.
So people are in the mode of "This is important, another evil coming in!".."A text message..It must be important".."Somebody just posted something in facebook"..And the attention is completely absorbed by these things. It was bad already before the digital things but now it is amplified. It causes more stuff in the mind. One thought after another, one text message after another, one facebook post after another, one unpleasant memory or anxious thought after another. And imagine living like that for 10, 20, 30, 40 years. What kind of "person" would that life-style and mind state produce? Angry or anxious..Continuously dissatisfied..Continuously needing desperately the next thing. And life becomes permanently "never enough".
https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/86df2c99/dms3rep/multi/mobile/Internet_addicts_suffer_from_withdrawal_symptoms_Camino_Recovery-500x462.jpg
And it is same for the music as well. In the cafes they generaly play the same songs that becomes famous in the last times. I heard a song recently in a cafe that had this words: "I would not stop the blood that would shed for the sake of you". And I opened the youtube clip of the song and I saw that the singer is smiling with deep "joy" while saying these words. And I read the comments under that video-clip and countless of people wrote(and ofcourse still writing) praising, glorifying things about the singer and the song.
To give another example of the internet's effect on the human mind: I saw that an important character in another internet platform(And that person is the "idol", "guide", "teacher", "leader" admirable person for that group of people) had a picture that gives the message of glorifying and advocating killing.  The picture is no longer on that profile(in my computer I can't see a picture in that profile anymore) but we all know that these things exist in all of the internet world.
That's the reason why watching youtube, social media and many other things in internet makes people more absorbed than simple reading of harmless things.
The Buddhist path leads it's followers to realize that humans are not the reference point. Most areas of internet leads people to the opposite direction. While accepting and realizing this (humans are not the reference point) is the hardest thing for the meditators(but it is necessary to find permanent peace and freedom), it is not a useful thing to engage in internet too much. One of the best solution for these things is to have a sangha(living or spending a lot of time with meditators). As Thich Nhat Hanh said:"Don't be a drop of water". In many places of the world this is hard but in Western and Buddhist countries plus Australia this is possible. With having a Sangha a person can more easily save the mind from these things or at least diminish the time that s/he spends in the craziness of the internet world.
And yes it is about lack of mindfulness but internet world naturally leads people to unmindful state. So the solution is try to be mindful while spending the time internet and gradually spend less time. So the mindfulness would not diminish and replaced by the internet world's effects.

Apparently web sites like that are designed to be engaging -- to keep your attention -- and to give a short-term reward (a "like", a bit of news, half-a-spoonful of friendship, a selection of "recommended" videos which adapts according to what you've chosen to watch in the past).
I've blocked them on my computer as a bad habit -- an "ex" habit now -- and have been happier and more productive, less distracted, more self-control, since I've done that.
I also enabled "Hide Hot Network Questions" in the Settings/Preferences/Sidebar section of my user profile here on SE, so now I see more or less what I want to see -- not advertising for other "interesting" topics -- when I visit this site.

Reading isn't the same, I guess for for a few reasons:

It doesn't "attack" the senses in the way that colour, moving video, sound, and a busy UI do.
It's static, there isn't a feeling of, "if I don't experience this now it will be gone and I'll miss it and be the poorer for having missed it". Whereas "reading the internet" is famously "like drinking from a fire-hose".
You have to use your mind to read, e.g. to engage with a book, to understand or get something out of it -- it isn't as easy to read mindlessly (though I have read for entertainment or to "pass the time" when I was younger, e.g. when travelling or waiting for something).

There many are "editors" (i.e. software applications which are designed for authors writhing text) which are described as having a "zen" presentation style -- see e.g. ZEN editors for distraction free writing -- they hide the UI clutter so you see what you're writing and aren't (visually) distracted by other things on-screen.
I found this little blog entry helpful too -- ADHD Organization/Disorganization -- it's not very long. It helped me become aware of the effect of seeing untidiness, the importance -- or benefit or pleasure, maybe sukha -- (e.g. mental hygiene) of cleaning up after yourself, of keeping your environment "zen", as you go along.

Maybe some of the "getting sucked in" is only the "medium cool" effect as per Marshall McLuhan:
"McLuhan coined the expression "the medium is the message" and the term global village, and predicted the World Wide Web almost 30 years before it was invented. He was a fixture in media discourse in the late 1960s, though his influence began to wane in the early 1970s. In the years after his death, he continued to be a controversial figure in academic circles. With the arrival of the Internet and the World Wide Web, interest was renewed in his work and perspective." - wikipedia entry titled Marshall "McLuhan"
The addictive effect of TV, and in particular here, TV content on computers and cell phones, have a strongly addictive effect. McLuhan calls this "the medium is the massage" - and in Buddhism we call addiction what? Attachment, craving, clinging. It is most powerful in the most passive, cool media, but it is powerful effect in interactive media such as gaming. It is still media however, and its important to note, like any other addiction, it reprograms the brain.
The purpose of many Buddhist interventions is to reprogram the brain, so be careful around toxic media.


text:
Law of attraction to reach enlightenment?
This may be a crazy question. But just out of curiosity when we do law of attraction method they say that we can attract money, success or something.
Can we attract enlightenment like that???
So in law of attraction we visualize something that we have already got it. Let's say if I wanna be an actor, I visualize myself as an actor getting an award. And the whole universe will work in a way to make me as an actor.
So similarly when I can visualize I have already got enlightenment, do I attain enlightenment.
Sorry if I have mistakes in my question. But just thinking out of the box with this concept.

"Law of attraction" is, by its meaning, total Dhamma and all works on that. It's the "law of attraction" that keeps one in the wheel, and that of escape, with faith into liberation as alternative attraction. For one once attrated by what is worthy to give in, one has already designed ones deliverance.
Without such as right imaging not much success, yes. Where ever one feels attracted to, what ever one nurishes, to that one falls and vici-versa.

Those who have confidence in the quality of dispassion have confidence in what is supreme; and for those with confidence in the supreme, supreme is the result.

That's most importand, and yes. The related emotion is called pasada and pushed by samvega.
Yet one has no pure imagination of full awakening since there is no reference experiance. But once faced only a little of liberation, once a base for imagination has been seen, there is no way back. So it's not wrong to say: "one who has a (real) imagination of liberation, is as good as already delivered there".
Now it requires a path to be developed to see the quality for one self, starting with right view, goodwill for all beings, right conduct, effort...
The first step is to purify ones image of perfect virtue, after refuge into the three main imaginations, Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, all to lift ones qualities and gain better imagination of a healthy being:
The usual nimitta, better kammaṭṭhāna is "the Buddha", as object of perfect release, the first Meditation object. It starts all with this imagination: Buddhanussati, followed by the next anussatis, attractive reflection objects.
Once a certain stage was once reached, one can go on with a more pure object of attraction, on vimutti by non-craving, liberation, it self. upasamanussati

"Among whatever qualities there may be, fabricated or unfabricated, the quality of dispassion — the subduing of intoxication, the elimination of thirst, the uprooting of attachment, the breaking of the round, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, the realization of Unbinding — is considered supreme. Those who have confidence in the quality of dispassion have confidence in what is supreme; and for those with confidence in the supreme, supreme is the result.

So the beginning imaginations are:
Buddhānussati, dhammanussati, sanghanussati, silanussati (ones virtue), caganussati (ones generosity), devatanussati (qualities equal the Gods).
Details are found following the links.
(Note: not given for trade, exchanges, stacks or other bindings but for freedom from entertaining)

The law of attraction as you describe it sounds like it could be misunderstood:

Imagining "being praised as a famous pianist" won't make a person famous, nor a pianist
But imagining doing something e.g. playing the piano -- visualising mentally exactly what to do and how it feels to play, rehearsing difficult sequences even when you're not at the piano -- that might help.

Anyway, as for Buddhism, what you're asking reminded me of Tantraya:

While with "tantrayana" you are given a simplified image or prototype of the Enlightened Mind to emulate, and you act it until it becomes your second nature.

Or it's also reminiscent of this description of Shin:

It's the "linguistic embodiment" of our already-having-been-saved by Amida. One is then only a witness of this salvation event, not someone who is practicing to achieve one's own salvation.

I think the latter might still be an example of imaging doing -- though in this case the doing is not-doing.
And, I don't know, but a doctrine of "Buddha-nature" might be similar.
And for some reason I'm reminded of this account, these details, of how the Buddha himself became enlightened -- (MN 36):

[...] But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'
"I thought:

'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?'

Then following on that memory came the realization:

'That is the path to Awakening.'

I thought:

'So why [etc.]

As ChrisW said, this is a known vajrayana practice, congratulations on inventing it by yourself. It's called "generation-stage meditation", you can google it for more details.

Thanks a lot. Its awesome to know that this really exist.

I think that this hypothesis (the idea of the """law""" of attraction) should be tested in every possible aspect, including enlightenment. If the idea of the existence of a law of nature that allows you to achieve things and become something, then why not?
Well, I think it wouldn't work.
By definition, enlightenment is the halt of the process of becoming and getting things. It is an internal process in which, slowly, gradually and through repetition and internalization, you change the way you perceive the world, and so, the way you behave and react to the world. Basically, you get free from the old, ignorant habits and tendencies that led you to suffer through the arising of new habits and tendencies, which are no longer born from ignorance, but from wisdom and the knowledge of things as they are. So the question is, can you change habits and become wise just by visualizing it?
Of course desire is needed to attain enlightenment, but it is a desire and effort to calm the fabrications of the mind and to stop craving completely, once and for all. That desire for enlightenment becomes effort and practice.
In sum, visualization (which can be understood as a desire projected in the mind visually) alone can do little for us if it does not result in practice and concrete action.
Kind regards!

If you are referring to the "law of attraction" in the book "The secret" no that's pure pseudo-science. It has nothing to do with Buddhism. STAY AWAY FROM IT

Who is it that "attracts" anything?  Is enlightenment far away?  Where is it, exactly?
On a slightly different note, related to the practice of magic:
The disciple of an accomplished Zen master was bragging to the disciple of another, saying, "My master can do calligraphy in the air with a brush, and characters appear on paper from across a river.  Can YOUR master claim such powers?"
"My master also has great supernatural powers, it's true," the other student replies. "When he's tired, he sleeps.  When he's hungry, he eats."

The mentioned story in more detail: http://www.ashidakim.com/zenkoans/80therealmiracle.html


text:
questions on my meditation practice?
My goal with meditating was related to improving my concentration for academic reasons. At first I came across a method of meditating where I count out my breadth and avoid thinking of idle thoughts.
I had a lot of success with this method and was able to focus much more but at a later point I grew curious on what happened if I didn't count at all or didn't pay attention to my breadth at all.  So I repeated this process which was now easier just without any counting or attention. I again had success but my mind was very much blank at all times, it gave me some fright, I wasn't sure if it was going to be something harmful since I usually pick up on tiny details that relate to whatever I am doing but now my mind was just blank, so I stopped practising meditation as a whole for a while.
I have recently discovered that a lot of things I have been attempting already exist so I am wondering if:

There are any better ways then what I have been doing to achieve
higher levels of sustained concentration?
What end results I will face if I venture back into completely
clearing my mind rather than improving its ability to focus through
breadth counting?
If there are other components that seem useful to my goal that
certain kinds of meditation can improve?
I also don't have much of an opinion on the forehead sensation that
is commonly called a third eye but I can control it at will, I would
also be wondering if there is anything particularly special about
increasing the sensation or not?

Any help is kindly appreciated. I have also been gradually resuming my breadth counting meditation with success.

(edited to add:)
I am happy and my mind is calm but it is filled with songs and memories that I like but are not related to the task I am working on and as a result get me distracted from it. As such I wanted to make my thoughts silent at will so I can keep focusing on tasks which make me less happy than my thoughts do.

There's a meta-topic, Want a new tag, e.g. for office work and academic work? -- it lists some other (previous) topics related to "how to practice to improve academic performance" but we don't have a good way to tag them.

To answer the last part i.e. "my mind is calm but filled with songs and memories that I like but are not related to the task I am working on and as a result get me distracted from it. As such I wanted to make my thoughts silent at will so I can keep focusing on tasks which make me less happy than my thoughts do."

I wish I could just answer your question -- "what meditation practice improves my ability to concentrate on work?" -- without having to refer to other bits of Buddhist doctrine which you might not like.
However ...
I happen to know that the suttas do warn against music, for example -- saying that music can become an obsession, that when it ends you might obsessively seek more of it. Not that it's forbidden to laypeople, but still -- that can be a consequence. In fact that (i.e. to be "catchy") is maybe the point of music, that's (by definition) the kind of music people listen to and remember.
More sweeping/genrally than that, it warns against "delighting" in "pleasant" experiences, because you may become "attached" to those experiences.
It's possible that what you're describing -- distracted by pleasant memories -- is a symptom of that.
I think that some of the Buddhist doctrine (e.g. in the suttas) includes something like:

Try to do things because they're morally good/worthwhile, not because they're sensually pleasant
Beware that sensual delights are attachment-forming, which (attachments) can be debilitating and (eventually) a cause of suffering -- which is counter-intuitive at first, you might not think "sensual delights" would result in "suffering" or "unsatisfactoriness", you might think the opposite
Become good at (e.g. by practising) detaching from or letting go of certain thoughts -- if you're addicted to something harmful then that thing will be a recurring thought, that thought will recur -- and maybe you need to be skilled at a) recognising b) abandoning the thought when it does occur.
The Buddhist doctrine about abandoning "self view" or "identity view" might help with that -- because having views like "this is my music and my experiences which I like, which are part of me" makes it harder to discard them -- to say "that's just a thought" (instead of "that's my thought"), and to switch the thought off (or "cut it off at the root") instead of pursuing it ... you can do that with a sight, for example, if you see something attractive you can choose to look away instead of gazing at it, and similarly with a thought, just look away ... thinking is described as a 6th sense, like the other five, e.g. sights are visual objects and thoughts are mental objects.
Concentrate instead on what's moral, on what's good to do -- and align what you want to do with what's moral to do (where "moral" might mean e.g. harmless, beneficial, generous, perhaps even liberating)

I might say something about "seclusion" too but who knows what -- and being energetic or active, determined, e.g. doing a variety of only good things and practising well or constantly, instead of only passively consuming sensual experience.
In that way, "focusing on tasks which make me less happy than my thoughts do" is maybe no longer a problem:

Because thoughts (e.g. attaching to memories) don't make you especially happy, especially when they're distracting, and you're practised at dropping distractions
Because what does make you happy is "focusing on whichever task[s] which you decide it's right and proper (moral) to focus"

It's hard to know what to reference as related, since I don't know how much technical vocabulary you understand. But for some further reference, see for example Improving Sati-Sampajañña (situative wisdom) which was posted recently.

similarly with a thought, just look away An alternative is to look at the thought as if you were a lion -- the thought will go away.

sure here is the way to set the citta into  right samadhi, contrary to whatever wrong samadhi you have developed,
with this sutta https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html, it is first physical seclusion, which means less distraction, fewer objects cognized, then it is mano which has piti and the kaya has passambhati then sukhaṃ vediyati, and the citta has sukhha then samadhi.
the way to get piti with mano is to sort out your Vitakkas with sati, ie satisampajanna, Satipatthana, ie knowing when a Vitakka arises, then judging it as either wholesome or not, and  knowing when it vanishing , and if it is unwholesome dropping it  by thinking of something good [instead of letting the bad thought proliferate] and when you have wholesome thoughts, you get glad to have wholesome thoughts. Same thing with feelings and perceptions.
In other words, when you have good thoughts, you are happy and when you are happy the citta is calm and enters samadhi.
Of course, before that, you must learn what is wholesome and not wholesome, because puthujjanas do not know what is good and what is bad, and buddha explains that here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html


text:
Mental Factor which Unites Other Factors
If I think of the Noble Eightfold Path for example, or even the Abhidhamma traditions, I feel mental factors are clearly related, but noted as separate.
In sum, my question mainly is: What conditions cause mental factors/qualities to aggregate, i.e. lead to the development of others, and what conditions cause them to remain separate? Is there a unique condition (e.g. a mental factor) that unites others in the mind?
In non-Buddhist sources, strong pleasure as in addiction seems to channel the mind towards doing but one thing, to exclude in a way causing shame. But positive emotions such as joy tend to broaden one's perspective and capacity of action. A researcher on this says:

But as the sun rises in the sky, things begin to change. Your blinders
  around your face begin to open and your world quite literally expands.
  You can see more. Your world is larger.
Just as the warmth of sunlight opens flowers, the warmth of positivity
  opens our minds and hearts. It changes our visual perspective at a
  really basic level, along with our ability to see our common humanity
  with others.

Can this be related to this question?
Thank you

Your questions sounds somewhat similar to Visākha's question to the nun Dhammadinnā in MN44:

“But ma’am, is that grasping the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates? Or is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another?”
“That grasping is not the exact same thing as the five grasping aggregates. Nor is grasping one thing and the five grasping aggregates another. The desire and greed for the five grasping aggregates is the grasping there.”

In summary, desire and greed perpetuate the five grasping aggregates as identity. The dissolution of identity (your "condition that causes them to separate") is another one of visakha's questions later on in the sutta:

“But ma’am, how does identity view not come about?”
“It’s when an educated noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good persons. They don’t regard form as self, self as having form, form in self, or self in form. They don’t regard feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness. That’s how identity view does not come about.”


text:
Is continuity just causation?
Is continuity just causation?
When a fire is caused by a spark, is that the same kind of continuity as there is in the dependent origination of the skandhas, just with different causes and effects?

When we speak about causation we're used to thinking in terms of discrete entities interacting and causing distinct events. This is normal in materialistic view, ever obsessed with discreteness. However, when we speak about continuity, we are in the analogue world - where everything morphs and flows, and where individual "things" and "events" are more like the sums of the amplitudes of multiple intersecting waves rather than truly isolated entities.
Also, in Dependent Origination we are not as much talking about causation as we're talking about what Charles Sanders Peirce called "the habit formation", or the tendency of tendencies to self-perpetuate and grow.
You know how in men toilets there is a self-perpetuating tendency for the floor under the urinal to get wet? (It self-perpetuates by causing men to stand further away.) The same exact principle is behind Dependent Origination, and, according to Peirce, behind Evolution at large.
Mind is integrated information, regardless of media. Accumulation of regular patterns leads to development of mind's faculty of recognition, and mind's tendency to form habits and to seek comfort in familiar experiences. This in turns leads to emergence of purposeful activity towards comfortable experiences. This tendency self-perpetuates and develops into a full-blown Umwelt, complete with "objects", "other living beings" and "I".
So yeah, continuity and causation are two alternative descriptions of essentially same thing, but the tendency for habit formation is the real key in D.O.

Hi Andrei! What do you think about considering that habit-formation process as a material event as well, since what is perceived as a mental, subjective experience has a correlate (and some may say a cause) in the brain with its molecular and cellular changes? According to our current understading, every thought or mental process occurs due to previous neuronal activity. What is your opinion on this perspective? Thanks in advance! Kind regards!

Well, material is part of it, of course. Matter is media for information (loosely speaking; strictly speaking they are same thing). But mind is not limited to brain, information is everywhere.

Generally yes, but the simile might be not the best, since spark can easy be taken as beginning point (which drives one back to confusions of "science") and it's causality of a wheel might not expected. So better take fuel or nourishment of an long ongoing fire here, the wandering on, a point of beginning can not be seen.
By uprooting the cause, the effect does not arise. By, or with the, total uprooting, destructing of this very avijja, not-knowing, ignorance, without remaining, birth, aging, sickness and death, all the suffering... comes to an end.
(Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or other wheel-binding undertakings and entertainments, fuel, but as a means for lighten and release only, an end of continuing)

Dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) does not mean "causation"; even though dependent origination is an example of "causation"; just as a "poodle" is an example of a "dog". In Pali, the word for "causation" is idappaccayatā.
A fire from a spark is a purely physical causal phenomenon. Whatever continuance of the original spark that exists in the fire is the subject matter of the laws of physics; which are idappaccayatā but are not paṭiccasamuppāda.
Paṭiccasamuppāda definitively refers to twelve mental conditions that result in the origination of mental suffering (dukkha). The Pali scriptures say:

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes mind-&-body. From mind-&-bodyas a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes attachment. From
  attachment as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes (self-identity) birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

Since "continuance" is the impression of a period of "permanence", it appears unrelated to "causation", which refers to the causes & conditions that result in "continuance" rather than "continuance" itself.
Two Pali words for "continuance" are "ṭhiti" & "ṭhita" (both apparently derived from "tiṭṭhati"). In the most extreme permanent case, ""ṭhita" is used for the eternal nature of the Laws of Nature, which are permanent (for example, in SN 12.20 about the law of how suffering arises and AN 3.136 about the three characteristics).
Below from chapter SN 26 is a (rarely discussed) modified teaching about the dependent origination of suffering, which includes "continuance".

Yo kho tejodhātuyā uppādo ṭhiti
  abhinibbatti pātubhāvo, dukkhasseso uppādo, rogānaṃ ṭhiti,
  jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo
The arising, continuation (ṭhiti), production and manifestation of the
  fire element,  is the arising of suffering, the continuation of
  disease and the manifestation of old age and death.
SN 26.9

Most Buddhists would interpret the verse above as referring to the arising of physical phenomena however the meaning is mental. All of the relevant words, such as "production" and "manifestation" are generally used for mental phenomena.
Thus, the manifestation, production, arising and continuance of the fire element means, for example, the mind gaining a period of pleasure from eating a delicious hot food and producing self-clinging or self-identity from this attachment & delight towards this delicious warming hot food.
Or enjoying & indulging in lying in the hot sun or in a hot bath; or complaining about hot weather or screaming about a burn on the skin. This is the meaning of arising, continuation, production and manifestation of the fire element.
The arising, continuation, production and manifestation of the fire element does not refer to a bush fire caused by the sun or lava flowing from a volcano.
It refers to the dependant origination of craving, attachment, self-becoming and suffering towards the fire element. The suffering occurs due to the aging-&-death of the self-identifying attached to that fire element.


text:
Can an Icchantika make any form of progress along the Buddhist path?
For those Buddhists who claim that some sentient beings are Icchantikas, do they mean that those sentient beings cannot make any form of progress along the Buddhist path?
All I know is that, following tao-sheng, most Buddhists think that the Icchantika has buddha-nature, and that the term can also refer to Bodhisattvas, who postpone their Buhddhahood. What I'm especially interested in is whether an Icchantika can make progress toward arhatship, anything like that?

Wikipedia says that all schools -- except the Fanxian school, and one version of one sutra -- say "yes, all beings can." Is that not what you were asking?

i'll edit my question, thanks! @ChrisW

Can Mickey Mouse make any form of progress along the Buddhist path? :)

Bodhisattvas vow to liberate all sentient beings, so????

"Possessing" grave wrong view (niyata micca ditthi) is one of the 6 reasons why one is, better does (since holding a view is an action) incapable to grow in Dhamma, incapable in reaching even paths or fruits, yes. But! ...to think that the view of a being is something inherent, lasting, not conditioned, for it's own, is already near niyata micca ditthi. So beware of Mohayanas.

The so-called 'evil views with fixed destiny' (niyata-micchāditthi) constituting the last of the 10 unwholesome courses of action (kammapatha), are the following three:
(1) the fatalistic 'view of the uncaused ness' of existence (ahetukaditthi),
(2) the view of the inefficacy of action' (akiriyaditthi),
(3) nihilism (natthikaditthi).

Those who hold such views are for the most already on the "highway to hell".
Those views are actually not seldom, even under "Buddhist" and therefore it's very importand, even if having tendency toward such views, to do an effort and seek out for people with right view to assosiate with. See How to address wrong view?
To be incapable to change one view has to do with "stupidy" or mental defect, and as such is also a root reason that no grow in Dhamma can be attained for the time such may last, arises.
Thinking that being have such as a inherent Buddhanature or not, the current potential to awakening, or not, such is also grave wrong view. And it's mostly the case that things which one makes himself busy outwardly are very related to ones own case and so take care.
Whether there are being generally not able to gain way out, how many beings would reach awakening... all such answers the Buddha did not gave into, using to teach "simply" cause and effect, "from this comes that", "with the arising of this, that arises", and it's good to watch out simply this, giving much faith into focus just on causes, for effects of them come by themself.
(Note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment supposed to bind but as an exit out of the wheel here.)

In Swedish. En icchantika är en person med ett utplånat samvete,dock ej evigt då buddanaturen och nirvana är det enda bestående.

An icchantika is a person with a dark mind who change when Good circumstanses appear again.And the buddanature who can never be destroyed will be shown in that person,and he will be om the path to liberation. Nirvana.