text:
Last thought before death?
I read somewhere (perhaps in an unreliable introduction to Tibetan beliefs) that rebirth is conditioned by the last thought before death (or perhaps affected by a thought or desire that you have after death).
Another belief that's similar, if not the same, is that a person may have had some (good or bad) life but that having some (bad or good) final dying thought determines their rebirth (e.g. into hell or heaven).

When (historically) was this view introduced into scriptures?
What is the evidence and/or reasoning for this view?
Is this view espoused by all schools of Buddhism, or do different traditions have different views?

It seems to me that my mind has or generates lots of semi-random thoughts: they're like memories, or dream fragments, etc., they come and go. That kind of ideation (often visual images, fragmentary visions of people I've known or of places I've seen) is especially apparent when I'm asleep-and-dreaming. They're also apparent if I'm feverish and/or delirious. I expect that people often aren't at their most mentally acute when they're dying.

Are we supposed/expected to have some kind of control over such thoughts/ideas/images? Or are these too anatta, and neither 'self' nor 'controlled by self'? If it's true that they are not self, and not subject to control-by-self, then how are they associated with the kamma which affects rebirth? Or is it some other, different kind of "last thought" which affects rebirth?

Googling to try to begin to research this topic I found this brief article which describes 'the Last Thought Moment' and which says for example,

Later still, the theory developed that the last thought moment (cuticitta) a person has before they die will determine their next life. This idea, now current in Theravāda, seems to be an unjustified development of the Buddha’s teachings and at odds with his idea of kamma and the efficacy of morality.

Is this article reliable, i.e. is true as far as you know, or does it say some things that would contradict or add to?
The account of the Buddha's own death is of his having mastered jhanas, and making use of that ability at the time of his death:

And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first jhana etc.

Is this what everyone is supposed to do when they die? Must we (and can we) hope that we will be so lucid at the time of death? Aren't people often unconscious or asleep or perhaps in a coma or something when they die?
Can you summarize what conclusion you draw, about

How to practice Buddhism now?
What if anything to expect or hope at time of death?
Whether death and rebirth are even especially worth thinking about (or whether we're even capable of thinking about them), or whether it's more important/useful to think about this life?

It's a Hindu thing, not buddhist. If you have read Hindu scripture like Bhagavad-Gita you may have picked it there... The pedagogic value of this is, the last thought is largely determined by the way you led you life up until that moment - so you better watch out.

Something like that is in the Gita, approx. contemporaneous with the Buddha. You said "Hindu not Buddhist" but it may be Buddhist too, e.g. here And what should a human do to have a birth in the hell? He just has to have a thought of greed, aversion or delusion at the moment of death. None of us know what will be our last thought or here a frog happens to die while listening to the Buddha's sermon, and attains the Tavatimsa Deva realm

Ajahn Nyanadhammo says this as well in this talk, around the 28 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89ejtoKwVok

In my understanding, Gita is not contemporary with Buddha, far from it. It was written as an astikas' response to Buddhism. Anyway, I don't think Buddha would have approved of such heresy :) Rebirths are determined by all karma, not just one second of it. As if you could sin all life and then cop out by thinking of Tushita heaven at the end!!!

I don't know what inter-relations there may be between Hinduism and (Early) Buddhism -- except that the Buddha sometimes spoke to explain a difference between Buddhism and another, pre-existing belief. I wrote "contemporaneous" because this "concludes that the Bhagavad Gita was composed in the fifth or fourth century BCE".

See the question i asked here and the answer from Ven. Yuttadhammo: Going from a waking state into the dream state while being conscious

This question is related to real Theravada Buddhism, this is well explained in dependent origination on how the last thought conditioned by craving is related to the next life.

@dmsp Can you give a reference to some well explained explanation[s] of that?

I read, perhaps in Prof. Robert Thurman's writings that the Tibetan Book of the Dead that deals with bardos and last thoughts, and going into the light phenomenon is actually a rather esoteric text in the Tibetan canon. According to this, even after a life of evil if we can manage to have a clear vision of the white light at the moment of death, all is well. Its exaggerated importance in the English speaking world is due to it being one of the first texts to be translated. Other beliefs include preservation of the body until the life has been reborn, arguing against organ donation.

See https://bobthurman.com/how-facing-death-brings-life/ - The Tibetan Book of the Dead was written by the great master Padma Sambhava in the eighth or ninth century for Indian and Tibetan Buddhists. It was hidden by him for a later era, and was discovered by the renowned treasure-finder Karma Lingpa in the fourteenth century. Also see, http://www.buddhanet.net/deathtib.htm // http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practice/death-and-rebirth-in-tibetan-buddhism // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bardo_Thodol // http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Tibetan-Book-of-the-Dead.pdf

Read pages 219-229 in Comprehensive manual of Abhidhamma by Bhikkhu Bodhi, the section on The process of death and rebirth.

You might like to read chapter 28: "How Rebirth takes place" , in "The Buddha and His Teachings", by Ven. Nārada Mahāthera. Here is a quote from the chapter: "There is a misconception amongst some that the subsequent birth is conditioned by this last death-consciousness (cuticitta)
which in itself has no special function to perform. What actually conditions rebirth is that which is experienced during the Javana process.".

@Chrisw see this Buddhism nun explained this but in Cantonese. Basically is base on your last thought on how u embrace, appreciate, love n kindness, good karma thought to take to better place or vice versa. Perhaps u can get someone can understand Cantonese to explain cause it's quite complex for me to translate https://youtu.be/QlJfEV2XZRg explanation start at 2.00

Need someone with good educated chinese and with Buddhism background to translate which not me :D I am able to understand 80% only for the whole video

Related: Can we program or pre-define our last thoughts?

"I read somewhere (perhaps in an unreliable introduction to Tibetan beliefs) that rebirth is conditioned by the last thought before death (or perhaps affected by a thought or desire that you have after death).
Another belief that's similar, if not the same, is that a person may have had some (good or bad) life but that having some (bad or good) final dying thought determines their rebirth (e.g. into hell or heaven).""
In the pali canon there are suttas that suggest the "state of mind" in the last moments before death has a strong influence on where one reappears after dying. Two suttas on this subject:

"It would be better, bhikkhus, for the ear faculty to be lacerated by a sharp iron stake burning, blazing, and glowing, than for one to grasp the sign through the features in a sound cognizable by the ear. For if consciousness should stand tied to gratification in the sign or in the features, and if one should die on that occasion, it is possible that one will go to one of two destinations: hell or the animal realm. Having seen this danger, I speak thus."
-- SN 35.235

And:

(i) “Now, Ananda, there is the person who has killed living beings here… has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But since he has killed living beings here… has had wrong view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.
(ii) “Now there is the person who has killed living beings here… has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. [...]
(iii) “Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here… has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.  [...]
(iv) “Now there is the person who has abstained from killing living beings here… has had right view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. But (perhaps) the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him earlier, or the evil kamma producing his suffering was done by him later, or wrong view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death.
-- MN 136:

That is, SN 35.235 discusses the danger of having consciousness tied to the gratification of sensual pleasures at the time of death. Also, even though we read frequently in the suttas that wrong view leads one to reappearing in hell, MN 136 discusses the (seemingly proeminent) role of right and wrong view at the time of the death.
"[...] Are we supposed/expected to have some kind of control over such thoughts/ideas/images?"
Sure, to the extent we can think over, investigate, train and, thus, transform our thoughts, ideas, convictions, beliefs, and knowledges.
Naturally, an untrained mind might easily produce thoughts, ideas and images against one's desire and a non virtuous person might easily incline her mind to unwholesome states.
"If it's true that they [thoughts/ideasi/images] are not self, and not subject to control-by-self, then how are they associated with the kamma which affects rebirth?"

"It is volition, bhikkhus, that I call kamma. For having willed, one acts by body, speech or mind"
-- AN 6.63

Thoughts (perhaps specially the ones manifesting inclinations) are kamma. That is the association.
EDIT: I don't believe that, say, if the thought of ceasing to exist after death, or if the thought of having a permanent soul (or any other wrong view) appears in one's mind, that it would constitute wrong view -- one needs to actually believe these. Additionally, I'm sure that a thought about hate is not a thought of hate -- otherwise, it would be impossible to be virtuous and think & talk about such things. Furthermore, I understand thoughts originated by will are kamma, but still, one should ask what was that will that manifested such thoughts.
"Is this article reliable, i.e. is true as far as you know, or does it say some things that would contradict or add to?"
From the above we can conclude there is a basis in the suttas for the idea that the last moments may have a strong influence in determining one's destination (but I don't see how "the last thought moment a person has before they die will determine their next life." could be based on the suttas).
I fail to see this as conflicting, given the teachings on kamma -- specially the ones above, and this next one:

Any kamma, bhikkhus, fashioned through [greed, hatred, delusion] [...] rippens wherever the individual is reborn. Wherever that kamma rippens, it is there that one experiences its result, either in this very life, or in the [next] rebirth, or on some subsequent occasion.
-- AN 3.34

[there is a some polemic surrounding that particular passage, but the quote above should be safe to further elucidate these points].
"The account of the Buddha's own death is of his having mastered jhanas, and making use of that ability at the time of his death [...] Is this what everyone is supposed to do when they die? Must we (and can we) hope that we will be so lucid at the time of death? Aren't people often unconscious or asleep or perhaps in a coma or something when they die?"
I don't think most people are unconscious, asleep or confused when dying -- some, surely. Though I'm sure that some people are very lucid when dying (not necessarily buddhist monks).
I can't say for sure going through jhanas is the "de facto itinerary" for parinibbāna, only that this what the Buddha seemed to have done. And that if we know how to attain jhana, that that is probably what one wants to do before dying, if one hasn't attained arahantship:

"Here, bhikkhus, secluded from sensual pleasures [...] some person enters and dwells in the first jhāna [...]. He relishes it, desires it, and finds satisfaction in it. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of Brahmā's company.
[...] some person enters and dwells in the second jhāna [...]. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of streaming radiance. [...]"
[...] some person enters and dwells in the third jhāna [...]. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of refulgent glory. [...]"
[...] some person enters and dwells in the fourth jhāna [...]. If he is firm in it, focused on it, often dwells in it, and has not lost it when he dies, he is reborn in companionship with the devas of great fruit. [...]"
-- AN 4.124

Also, following the same formula of AN 4.124, AN 4.125 associates:

loving-kindness to the company of Brahmā's company
compassion to the company of devas of stream radiance
altruistic joy to the company of devas of refulgent glory
equanimity to the company of devas of great fruit

[Additionally, it also states that a Buddha's disciple, at the end of the life span in these realms, attains nibbāna there, contrasted with a wordling that, after dying in such realms, reappears in a lower realm. AN 4.126 adds to the formula the contemplation of the three marks, which makes one reappears in companionship with the devas of the pure abodes -- a destination not shared with wordlings].
"Can you summarize what conclusion you draw, about..."
In regard to the subject in question:

"How to practice Buddhism now?"
Stay away from unwholesome acts of body, speech and mind, nurture wholesome acts, restrain the 6 senses (sigh this is hard). Study, investigate, meditate. Rinse & repeat... (at least, this is what I try to do).
"What if anything to expect or hope at time of death?"
If jhana is not an option, at the time of my death, I would like to remember to be mindful and equanimous while it happens -- no expectations or hope.
"Whether death and rebirth are even especially worth thinking about (or whether we're even capable of thinking about them), or whether it's more important/useful to think about this life?"
I see no danger in thinking about it. It concerns our existence, after all. Moreover, many religions emphasize the prize of the after life -- this seems to be an important ad to gather adepts.
In the canon, I think a particular sutta might tackle this, titled by Thanissaro Bhikkhu as "A Safe Bet" (MN 60):

A1. "Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the next after having directly known and realized it for themselves' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.
A2. "Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.
A3. "With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the next world, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: [2] one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him, covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful.

Thank you for your reply. Re. "prominent role of right and wrong view at the time of the death", this answer says there's a difference between an accepted view (taking something to be true) versus "a simple experience". Who knows, maybe dreams and similar figments of imagination may be 'thoughts' (even 'thought moments') and not 'views'.

I agree. Dreams and thoughts might go against one's beliefs and may not be associated to one's will, so the power of influence of its content on us (our aspirations, our traits, etc) might be small to none

Edited trying to be more complete on that matter.

Death is not the end of the story. As a Buddhist you must have achieved cessation of craving to avoid taking rebirth. But if you have not achieved cessation of craving the whole mass of suffering will reappear as rebirth. What kind of rebirth it will be depends upon the nature of craving in the past life. There are 3 kinds of cravings : craving for sensual pleasures , craving for existence,craving for non existence. Craving for sensual pleasures includes craving for certain smell , craving for certain touch , craving for certain taste , craving for certain sound , craving for certain mental fabrication , craving for certain sights. Depending on those cravings new birth is taken. It is not just thought but the nature of craving which determines the kind of rebirth.

authors: ยุทธศักดิ์ ใจทัศน์


text:
Buddhist Equivalent to Prayopavesa (resolving to die through fasting)
In Hinduism, when a person is old, bed-ridden and fulfilled all their obligations, they are able to fast to death to end their life. This is called prayopavesa and is an acceptable practice in India.
I do understand that the first precept in Buddhism says not to kill others which includes oneself. However, are there certain instances like those mentioned above where fasting to death is acceptable in Buddhism ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayopavesa

Is this question a duplicate of Apocarteresis in Buddhism?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_euthanasia

Beware that even describing the advantages of dying is an offence.
I quote from this commentary on the Vinaya.
Page 74:

Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an
  assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (saying): “My
  good man, what use is this evil, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than
  life,” or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways
  75
  praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in
  affiliation.

The following fragment (quoted below) might be relevant to the case you're asking about e.g. when the person is terminally ill.
Don't take my word for it though!
Also this commentary is to do with whether the dying monk incurs a monastic penalty (not with whether it's a karmically optimal course of action).
Page 85:

The Commentary extrapolates from this case to apply the dukkata to all
  attempts at suicide, including even the decision not to take food when motivated
  by a desire to die. However, it then runs into the question of how far this penalty
  applies to a bhikkhu who is ill. Its verdict: As long as medicine and attendants are
  available to him, the penalty would still apply. But then it lists two cases where
  the penalty would not apply: (a) A bhikkhu is suffering from a long and serious
  illness, and the attendant bhikkhus are fed up with caring for him, thinking,
  “When will we be free of this sick one?” If the bhikkhu reflects that, even with
  medical care, his body won’t last and that the bhikkhus are being put to
  difficulties, he incurs no penalty in refusing food and medicine. (b) A bhikkhu—
  reflecting that his illness is harsh, the forces of life are running out, and yet the
  noble attainments appear to be within his reach—may refuse food and medicine
  without penalty.
The Commentary’s deliberations here show how difficult it is to legislate in
  this area, and there are reasons to question the way it applies the Great
  Standards here. Case (b) is apparently derived from SN 4.23, where Ven.
  Godhika takes his life and gains arahantship just moments before death; and
  from SN 35.87, where the Buddha says that one who puts down this body
  without taking up another body dies blamelessly. However, in arriving at its
  verdict in this case, the Commentary has to add the factors of motivation and
  perception to the equation, factors that are absent from the rule on which the
  judgment is based. It also leaves unanswered the question of how harsh the
  86
  disease has to be, and how near the anticipated attainments, to qualify for this
  exemption.
This same holds true for case (a), which entails even more dubious reasoning.
  The Commentary’s judgment here has no clear precedent in the Canon; there is
  no clear line for deciding exactly how bad the illness and how fed up the
  attendants have to be for this case to apply; and why should the feelings of other
  people determine when it is or is not allowable to refuse food?
It is worth noting that the origin story to the original rule here gave the
  Buddha the opportunity, had he wanted it, to formulate a general rule against
  attempted suicides, but he chose not to. He later formulated this subsidiary rule
  only when a bhikkhu attempted a suicide in a way that endangered the life and
  safety of another person. Thus a more appropriate way of applying the Great
  Standards to this subsidiary rule would be to extend it only to cases of that sort:
  where a bhikkhu’s attempts at suicide would bring danger to another person’s
  life and limb.
As for ways of attempting suicide that do not endanger others, it seems
  better to follow the Buddha’s wisdom in not legislating about this issue at all, and
  to treat it as a matter of Dhamma rather than Vinaya. In other words, one
  should keep in mind his comment in SN 35.87 that the only blameless death is an
  arahant’s. If, lacking that attainment, one chooses to refuse food when ill to
  speed up one’s death, one should be heedful of the risks that death and rebirth
  can involve.

I guess my personal/unreliable hypothesis on the subject is that it's like medicine: i.e. a patient may take medicine because they are ill, not in order to cause illness.
Similarly a patient might stop eating when (or because) they are dying, not in order to cause death.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
When seeking information is sarcasm seen as a deliberate lie?
I will be completely honest in admit that I do not get sarcasm.
When a person says something sarcastic I end up believing what they say, until they give that look that almost says 'Um, that was sarcastic. Duuh!" And I'm left at the butt of the joke.
My problem here seems to stem from a simple truth to lie perspective. If I were to ask someone a question I expect an honest or helpful answer, where sarcasm may be neither of these things.
Example: "Do you have a bathroom?" 'No, we go in a bucket.'
Say I'm at a new place, asking a person I've never met or only met once or twice. In this case I was hoping for a simple 'Down the hall to the left.' as an answer but I've been met with sarcasm.
Even though I'm pretty sure this house has a bathroom I do not know this 100%. If I did not know sarcasm existed (which in my mind and experiences is basically the case) I have two options. Believe the information I have been given, or look that person in the face and say "You have just lied to me."
It would seem that calling a person out on this deliberate lie (this sarcasm) would be extremely rude, and force the person to admit to giving me false information. At the same time this seems to be the only way to obtain the truth, the only real answer I ever even wanted to hear.
I understand that sarcasm can be funny, in context. My basic understanding is that once you get to know someone well enough you will catch those subtleties in there speech, whereas with another less known person they believe their own lie (sarcasm as knowing the information to be false but not sharing that fact) making it hard to tell if it truly was a lie simply because it was a joke 'Duuh!'
There are many more examples of sarcasm I have come across, some easier to catch than others and some easily rectified by a simple 'Just kidding.'
To sum all this up googling Sarcasm gives me: The use of irony to mock or convey contempt. Which does not sound lighthearted at all, the word Mock standing out.
I'm not asking why people are sarcastic but why it's seen as such a go to form of comedy when it seems so detrimental to the person being mocked as well as detrimental to the person being sarcastic (at least from a Buddhist standpoint)? Is sarcasm as a response to a question, when that question is looking for an undeniable true answer, seen as bad Karma?
Any information on the Buddhist thoughts on why we use sarcasm and what it is, as well as from other/more modern sources on the subject (ex.South Parks Sarcastiball episode) would be greatly appreciated if I Am to understand this experience more. Thank you.

next time just ask for the bucket :)

Hi, and welcome to Buddhism.SE. I've edited your question for better readability, hope you don't mind. Please see the guide for new users if you haven't already. Hope you enjoy your time here, thank you for your participation.

In regards to my question itself a previous idea was "When seeking True information is sarcasm seen as Bad Karma?" Though I changed it in hopes of being more broad. I also accept that the bathroom example may not have been the best as it is closely (and literally) related to simple toilet humor. Either way I believe that in my situation body language is not an issue, because sarcasm is in the form of words and therefor should only have to be understood in the form of words. If not then a blind man would never understand sarcasm because he can't see you winking repeatedly to show its a joke.

There aren't many question marks in this question. Is the last paragraph/sentence, i.e. "Any information on ... why we use sarcasm and what it is ... would be greatly appreciated" the only question which you're asking here?

I did forget a question mark in the second to last line, and I am also thinking about editing in my earlier comment concerning what (if any) bad karma sarcasm may have. I hope this makes my thoughts clearer.

Sarcasm isn't a deliberate lie, because the intention isn't to lie or mislead, but it is wrong speech, because it has the capacity to hurt people.
Per Buddhism, unless a statement is true and beneficial, it is not right speech. And joy derived from the suffering of others isn't wholesome.
Ironically saying "You lied" to someone who is being obviously sarcastic can be seen as a kind of sarcasm itself, since it can be viewed as being affectedly sincere.

The criteria for deciding what is worth saying
[1] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
  true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[3] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
  true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a
  sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[5] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
  true, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[6] "In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
  true, beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata
  has sympathy for living beings."
— MN 58
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/

Thank you for the edit (I tried to make sentence breaks but they did not apear on the final draft) but I do have one question regarding your answer. To quote you 'Ironically saying "You lied"...' I am reading this as if I am the one being ironic. For me this is not the case, as i say this with no sarcasm of my own in order to get a true answer so that I don't have to guesstimate at what the person is actually saying (ie. bucket really meaning toilet). Part of the confusion is with the word 'obviously' because sarcasm is not obvious to me. Think Sheldon from Big Bang Theory as an analogy.

I understand your position, and I wondered about including that last observation, but I thought it'd be beneficial to see how others would see the statement. In the end we can't control what others think or make of us.

Sarcasm is not only a deliberate lie (even if wrapped) but has mostly also certain strong elements of aversion in it. (given your samples)
Its of cause a breaking of the precepts.
Every lie, even if it is meant as a joke, is a lie.
Don't forget, its not sure if the other would understand your "playing around" and "teasing" and if he/she would take it serious and follows, that would fall back to you.
As for joking around to entertain others, see: Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor
Teasing and joking around is not good. Just observe little dogs, they would not do anything else as such, biting for fun, but getting older and having that strong habit, they even bite each other till they kill.
So such teasing and banter is just an instrument of socializing and what ever fun, it goes at the expense of others. When ever you laugh another cries or feels at lose by your gain.

Sarcasm is a type of humor and humor can be very unwholesome. What people are often trying to achieve with humor is to bring attention to themselves and make themselves look superior while making someone else look inferior. (There are other situations where someone is just trying to diffuse stress or lighten the mood; maybe by being self deprecating; which is not cruel.)
Before I began meditating regularly, I enjoyed watching comedy routines, giving quick sarcastic responses, and the feeling that my friends and I were very witty and smart. At this time, I see the cruelty and wrong speech far more in many types of humor and try to avoid being involved in it.
It may not be a bad thing that you "don't get" sarcasm. Maybe that says something about the wholesomeness of your mind states. But to go so far as to judge someone else as telling a lie or having wrong speech isn't helpful to you. Slowing down and not reacting to such unskillful responses to your sincere questions may possibly cause the sarcastic person to feel uncomfortable enough to say "just kidding" and give you the real answer you needed. But if not, you can just say "ok, thanks" and move on to the next person who might be a little more helpful.
In my tradition, we just note "hearing, hearing" and try not to react to the aspects of what we are hearing, such as cruelty in this case.

Your first paragraph says a lot, 'which is not cruel,' hitting my point nearly on the head.  In the form of non-malicious sarcasm (if we could categorize) it is completely acceptable to use wit to get a laugh. The problem occurs when looking for truth. When a simple question only has two outcomes, truth and not truth, sarcasm falls in the second category. 'Accidentally' giving misinformation when information is required, and then as you said forcing that person to go back on themselves to say "JK" which in this case is the same as "I lied". Slowing down is one of my hardest problems for sure.

Sarcasm: even if it is sometimes hilarious--is (accidental) malice and is also a test of your dominance and strength in the conversation. People should stop being sarcastic because it is indeed Wrong Speech
Whatever you do, do not be malicious back (through sarcasm, assault, etc.).
Solution:

Ignore the emotion and reply back positively. "Thanks I'll go use the bathroom" or "Thanks I'll go use the bucket"
Laugh lightly and re-assert lightly. "Haha. I really need to use the bathroom. Does that one work?" Should they reply with further sarcasm, just go use it. They are feeling too close with you and want to just make you laugh.

The first solution is better than the second due to neurological conditioning purposes -- the second solution works but it will train them to keep being sarcastic.
The 1st solution is best.
In a personal setting, sarcasm means that the person is too relaxed with you. In a group setting, sarcasm means that the person is being rude and testing you.

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


text:
Is Maithree meditation a recommended practice?
I use Maithree meditation for many moments of stress instead of Anapanasati. Is it a recommended practice? I find out this works for me and helps me move away from the stress at hand and find present moment peace in my mind. All ideas are welcome!

Metta meditation will help you to reduce stress caused by hatred. But it won't be much effective against stress caused by craving or clinging. Anapanasati meditation can be used to get away from all kinds of stress and calm the mind. But it may require Metta meditation at the start as it is hard to concentrate, if you get irritated a lot. Ultimately, it is Vipassana meditation that will give a lasting solution for stress. There is no end to other meditation types. You will have to keep practicing them to maintain whatever peaceful state you may attain.
You can use all these meditations in combination.
ex:

Start with Metta and then do Anapanasati.
Start with Metta and then do Vipassana.
Start with Metta and then Anapanasati to attain Samadhi and then turn it to Vipassana.
Or just do one of those meditations from the start.

If you don't have a teacher, you can experiment and see what works best for you.

Best answer my friend! I will surely try it when time is on my side very soon. Holidays are appraoching!

Yes, it is recommended in the suttas; here is an excerpt from the Metta Sutta:

Thus have I heard:
On one occasion the Blessed One was living near Savatthi at Jetavana
  at Anathapindika's monastery. Then he addressed the monks saying,
  "Monks." — "Venerable Sir," said the monks, by way of reply. The
  Blessed One then spoke as follows:
"Monks, eleven advantages are to be expected from the release
  (deliverance) of heart by familiarizing oneself with thoughts of
  loving-kindness (metta), by the cultivation of loving-kindness, by
  constantly increasing these thoughts, by regarding loving-kindness as
  a vehicle (of expression), and also as something to be treasured, by
  living in conformity with these thoughts, by putting these ideas into
  practice, and by establishing them. What are the eleven?

"He sleeps in comfort. 2. He awakes in comfort. 3. He sees no evil dreams. 4. He is dear to human beings. 5. He is dear to non-human
  beings. 6. Devas (gods) protect him. 7. Fire, poison, and sword cannot
  touch him. 8. His mind can concentrate quickly. 9. His countenance is
  serene. 10. He dies without being confused in mind. 11. If he fails to
  attain arahantship (the highest sanctity) here and now, he will be
  reborn in the brahma-world.

Also, here is an article on the benefits of lovingkindness meditation according to science that may be of interest. Not sure how I feel about all the scientific research on meditation to this point but worth a look.

Maithri or metta bhavana towards oneself is acceptable at most times. However, unless one is rested, is not stressed and not carrying unwholesome thoughts, performing it for others is not recommended.
Simply because it's rare for one to wish harm to the self, but easier to wish it for others, even unintentionally, because we often pass judgement of slight proportions without being aware of it.
One can also combine the Anapanasāti with metta by repeating this gātha as we breathe -
"Breathing in, I feel calm and relaxed in body and mind;
Breathing out, I see a beautiful smile appear on my lips"
Update:
Some comments have revealed a sentiment that it is okay to do metta in any quality of mind.
It's very important to not practice metta bhavana with a mind of defilements, or we can transmit negativity, and harm our objects of metta instead of helping.

The commentaries state: Mijjati siniyhati 'ti mettā - that which
  inclines one to a friendly disposition is mettā. It is a sincere wish
  for the good and welfare of all, devoid of ill-will. Adoso 'ti mettā -
  "non-aversion is mettā." The chief characteristic of mettā is a
  benevolent attitude. It culminates in the identification of oneself
  with all beings, a recognition of the fellowship of all life.
[...]
So long as negativities such as aversion dominate the mind, it is
  futile to formulate conscious thoughts of goodwill, and doing so would
  be a ritual devoid of inner meaning. However, when negativities are
  removed by the practice of Vipassana, goodwill naturally wells up in
  the mind; and emerging from the prison of self-obsession, we begin to
  concern ourselves with the welfare of others.
[...]
Mettā is not prayer; nor is it the hope that an outside agency will
  help. On the contrary, it is a dynamic process producing a supportive
  atmosphere where others can act to help themselves. Mettā can be
  omni-directional or directed toward a particular person. In either
  case, meditators are simply providing an outlet; because the mettā we
  feel is not 'our' mettā. By eliminating egotism we open our minds and
  make them conduits for the forces of positivity throughout the
  universe. The realization that mettā is not produced by us makes its
  transmission truly selfless.
[...]
In order to conduct mettā, the mind must be calm, balanced and free
  from negativity. This is the type of mind developed in the practice of
  Vipassana. A meditator knows by experience how anger, antipathy, or
  ill-will destroys peace and frustrates any efforts to help others.
  Only as hatred is removed and equanimity is developed can we be happy
  and wish happiness for others. The words "May all beings be happy"
  have great force only when uttered from a pure mind. Backed by this
  purity, they will certainly be effective in fostering the happiness of
  others.
We must therefore examine ourselves before practising mettā-bhāvanā to
  check whether we are really capable of transmitting mettā. If we find
  even a tinge of hatred or aversion in our minds, we should refrain at
  that time. Otherwise we would transmit that negativity, causing harm
  to others. However, if mind and body are filled with serenity and
  well-being, it is natural and appropriate to share this happiness with
  others: "May you be happy, may you be liberated from the defilements
  that are the causes of suffering, may all beings be peaceful."

Source: http://www.vridhamma.org/en1992-02

Are you saying one should not perform metta unless one is in a more or less ideal mind state? That idea is surprising to me. I've often heard it said that metta is the antidote for hate and anger. Is your position a widely held one?

I also have the same question. Thank you for bringing it up before me! Please write an answer.

Metta is a gift of love, it has to arise from the pure and natural heart, it cannot and must not be forced. If we were shopping for a gift for a friend, would we blindly buy the first thing we see, or would we keep searching until we find the right gift? To overcome hatred we may practice metta towards ourselves of the form - "May I be free of hatred". Otherwise metta can become farcical and contradictory. To wish someone well while still possessing a mind of hate or anger is incompatible.

One example, is on Goenka Vipassana retreats they don't offer metta meditation until the last day of the retreat because the retreatants mind is not sufficiently purified until then. This is very wise. Metta cultivation is always done in 5 steps - first towards oneself, then towards those close to us, then towards friends, then towards neutral people, and finally towards all sentient beings, including people we have bad relations with. In this way of gradual cultivation our mind becomes pure and capable of holding metta towards all. Some guidelines: http://www.wildmind.org/metta/metta-five

The commentaries state: Mijjati siniyhati 'ti mettā - that which inclines one to a friendly disposition is mettā. It is a sincere wish for the good and welfare of all, devoid of ill-will. Adoso 'ti mettā - "non-aversion is mettā." The chief characteristic of mettā is a benevolent attitude. It culminates in the identification of oneself with all beings, a recognition of the fellowship of all life. So long as negativities such as aversion dominate the mind, it is futile to formulate conscious thoughts of goodwill... contd.  http://www.vridhamma.org/en1992-02

More quotes from the above link: Mettā is not prayer; nor is it the hope that an outside agency will help. On the contrary, it is a dynamic process producing a supportive atmosphere where others can act to help themselves. In order to conduct mettā, the mind must be calm, balanced and free from negativity. We must therefore examine ourselves before practising mettā-bhāvanā to check whether we are really capable of transmitting mettā. If we find even a tinge of hatred or aversion in our minds, we should refrain at that time. Otherwise we would transmit that negativity, causing harm to others.

Sorry for the many comments - space limitations. I belabour this point because it is very essential to follow proper practice, lest we think we wrongly accumulate merit when that isn't the case. I am surprised this confusion exists at all. Anyway, hope it helps.

@Buddho, I tend to agree with you but not for the reason cited in your answer.  My agreement is more in line with what you mention in your comments.  I don't think it's so much a matter of that we shouldn't perform metta meditation when our minds aren't clear.  It's more a matter of that we can't.  That was one of the first things I ever asked my teacher.  I wanted to know if it was possible to develop compassion through effort.  He told me that I was welcome to try, but anything that came out of it would be a bit forced and artificial.  True compassion comes when the mind settles.

It's the same jazz as polishing the stone.  You can't can't create the real thing through force of mind.  You can, however, counteract it's opposite.  Those are very different things.

@nemo that's true, we make ourselves available for metta - we don't generate it. However, I've had experience of the slightest judgements about somebody we may possess unconsciously or in passing affecting the quality of metta transmitted. This was my basis for my warning.

But then is it truly metta?  I think it's still more of a "can't" than a "shouldn't". Then again, I suppose if you can't, you probably shouldn't.  ;-)  I think OP is probably better off starting with anapana.  It seems to me that metta meditation requires some degree of mental stabilization first.  Like you say, I'm also not sure if the best choice for initiating it.


text:
What are the resources a Buddhist can use during very hard times?
I will try to fit that in a question so it will make sense in this forum: What are the resources a Buddhist can use during very hard times?
Currently I'm working 12h a day under a lot of pressure, everybody is so stressed out, on their limits, that it is easy to see all kinds of bad things: Anger, gossip, divisible speech, blame game, fears... we are living a serious economic crisis and no one wants to lose their jobs, people are terrified, this is the background.
Despite the hard times and the very long and stressful hours at work (that are killing my meditation practice) I'm trying, with not much success, to avoid bad kamma and protect my mind from this crazy situation, hoping it will pass next year. The problem is: I recognize I'm losing the battle, I'm being dragged by these things around me. So, what Buddhist tools can I use, assuming I will not have time for a decent meditation, assuming also the environment will not change and I cannot quit the job. Any advice?

There is a saying from Ajahn Chah : If you have time to breath, you have time to meditate. Use the breath as the guardian of your mind when those stressful situation arise. Watch the breath, make it calm and comfortable and do your best at handling the situation skillfully

This answer is based in the Mahasi Sayadaw Tradition.
Do you have any regular breaks during your day? Like short minute breaks or lunch breaks. If so you could use these breaks as "stations" for re-centering yourself before going back into the storm.
With 12 hour working days it's understandable that there is not much time for formal meditation. The best advice i know of is to carry the practice into your daily life, i.e. to work on staying mindful during the working day. Then how do do that in the middle of a storm?
It's about finding that still-center inside the tornado. In this center there is quiet and silent. That center is your abdomen. The rising and falling of the abdomen will take you back into the present. It will enable you to see things as they are and not to extrapolate on them, e.g. if a stressed out collague of yours decides to yell at you or say something infuriating then by noting it as "hearing, hearing" will let you see this as just being sound. If one is not mindful the mind begins to identify and take ownership of phenomena. It begins to extrapolate on phenomena and based on that cultivate a respons which might be to yell back or take revenge, thereby only adding to the suffering of oneself and others.
To try to avoid these situations and when things get hectic and begin to spin out of control then try to remember to bring your attention back onto the abdomen. Just a few seconds is usually enough to ground oneself in the present and thereby getting a hold of oneself. From there you can then decide how to act accordingly to the situation.
By remembering to center yourself throughout your working day you will be less likely to be tossed around by the waves. When mindful one is interacting instead of reacting to reality.
So to sum up. My best advice is to use your abdomen. Make a firm determination before going to bed in the evening, before going to work in the morning and throughout your working day (that's the hard part) to remember to center yourself by placing attention on the rising and falling sensation of the abdomen. Then note "rising, rising" or "falling, falling" accordingly to the motions of the abdomen.
Back when i was a student i would have stressed out days and a lot of engaging with many people on a regular basis. At these times it would be difficult to remember being mindful. So every morning i took a pen and drew a little "M" on my wrist. I drew it there because i usually looked at my hands during daily activities so then i would see the "M" and instantly turn mindful. It's a great tool to use until mindfulness are so powerful that one does not need it anymore.
I think this method could maybe help you out too.
Then you have 3 methods now.
First one is to make a firm determination to center yourself in evening, morning and throughtout the day. Second one is that you perform the actual centering throughtout your day, e.g. in the shorts breaks or better yet during activites and third one you have a safe guard in form of that little "M" on your wrist in order to remind you to center yourself.
I wish you the best of luck with your practice and your busy day. Remember all phenomena are impermanent. So hang in there and this situation will end too some day. Also never beat yourself up about not having time to practice. Practice accordingly to what your capacity is at a given time. A little practice is better than no practice.
Hope this helps. If you have any questions to what i wrote please let me know.
Click on photos for full size

Thanks! Loved the answers! I am listening to Dhamma in my car (going to work and when returning home), practicing a little meditation when I can and I will also use some ancor like your "M", great idea. Thanks! :)

Glad it was of help to you. I forgot to mention that in some lines of work they don't like visible tattoos and the little "M" could look like a tattoo. So if that is the case you could maybe draw something else like a telephone number or something less tattoo-ish. Important thing is to make a tag that will serve as a mindfulness-tool.

Im adding in my laptop cause I stare at it 11h per day :)

I often advice my patients (those that are office workers) to get a yoga mat or an exercise ball for their office. Then they should replace their normal chair with the exercise ball for a couple of hours a day. This builds great strength in the core, increases circulation and blood flow and it keeps you mindful since you need to balance a bit to keep your posture. Like this: http://www.livestrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BallChair_sb10066587g-001.jpg

In the movie "The Forbidden Kingdom", the main charactrer Jason expressed his fear and anxiety about a dangerous journey of crossing the desert to get the mountains. He shared his thought with the Silent Monk:

Jason Tripitikas: We're not going to make it are we?
  The Silent Monk: [No response]
  Jason Tripitikas: What if I can't handle it? What if I freeze?
  The Silent Monk: [Monk slowly turns and smiles] Don't forget to breathe.

Excellent advice! On a physical level, maintaining a nice and calm breathing pace makes a direct positive impact on your mental state. So do it as often as you can. On a deeper psychological level, the monk suggested to be mindful of what's going on around you, which the other post already gave some good advice. Mindfulness always reduce any stressful situation level by at least 50%. Why? Any stressful situation requires 2 negative mental states: one of the other person, and one of yourself. While you cannot control what other people think, say, or do, you CAN control what you think, say, or do. Being mindful takes care that half on your part, hence the automatic reduction of suffering by 50%. Lastly, don't forget to go outside. Just take your 5-minute break and get out of the office building. Take a quick walk and breathe deeply the fresh air outside. Again, that mutual relationship of mind/body..

Good answer Santa. I like the quote from the silent monk.

I can sympathize with this difficult situation. I work in an industry where downsizing is done regularly and it takes its toll on people. You've received some good suggestions. The only thing I can add is to remind you that your formal sitting meditation can become a refuge from this stress and may be worth losing sleep to resume. Formal meditation before you go to sleep can help you relax and sleep better. In the morning it can help you steady and calm yourself for another challenging day. We can sleep less when we meditate so you won't necessary feel sleepy for having traded sleep time for meditation time; you may even feel more energized and focused which can only help. Best wishes. :)

You should speak with your boss about having a meditation break added into the work day for all employees. This would definitely increase productivity if everyone was given the opportunity to calm their mind and re-focus their attention.

And probably a reduction in sick leave and absences from work due to stress and other conditions.

According to Mahayana Doctrine the conditions for awakening are present during the hardest times of ones life. So the attitude is pretty laissez-faire as usual which is use the hard circumstances to wake yourself up and i’m trying to sugarcoat this because a mahayana would not in practice. They would just tell u to do lojong and learn about patience like a good bodhisattva. Underestimating the power of those who are patient. Specifically 7 point mind training or attitude training from a tibet lineage this is the practice of HH dalai lama.
So a mahayana would probably read your post and say ‘Excellent!’ This sounds like the perfect time to focus on what is important. Good timing is really overlooked because time is just another avenue for something to exist. But because of the timing of yr bad circumstance it will create balanced motivation.

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


text:
Body's response to meditation
I have been practising Vipassana meditation for some years now.
Please advise me: why on my in-breath do my toes contract, and most times relax on my out-breath?
Sometimes my toes stay contracted for quite a few in- and out-breaths, then my toes relax. My toes' contracting usually starts over half-way through my 45 minute meditation.

Hi Malik and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might find useful.

That's not all that uncommon.  If it's not your toes, it'll be something else.  Personally, my hands will sometimes contract by themselves and my forearms will occasionally rotate a few degrees.  Other people usually report muscles in their faces that start to fire, maybe their shoulders will bounce a bit, etc.
All this is a result of tension leaving the body.  The more you relax into your meditation, the more your body will loosen up.  The deeper the concentration, the more relaxed you'll get.  As you keep at your practice, you might even see other places start to loosen up - places of deep seated tension that you didn't even know existed.
It's nothing to be alarmed about if that's your concern.

In my experience, this means that you are suppressing something. Something deep in you comes up during that meditation, but you push it back down. It could be an issue you are long used to, and accepted as a part of "normal life", but deep inside still have a conflict.

Interesting, I can see your angle too, but it is rare isn't it? If it was a more severe physical reaction I'd have put it down to pranic or kundalini energy, which can sometimes cause grimaces or cause the neck to tilt and so on. Not to mention growls, jerks and spasms and the like which would be obvious kundalini kriyas. Otherwise it's usually as nemo  says, some tension being released.


text:
Reconciliation of Past Sins
If a person has murdered someone: ie. A fellow human being (eg. By directly attacking someone; or by indirect attack- by speech/action ; or by other means such as abortion) , what methods are available for such a person for personal reconciliation? It is inevitable that the Law of Karma is in direct effect, but how can such a person attain peace of mind and repay for his sins truly? Many patients I meet in surgery wards have serious past histories of attacking/assaulting others and murder is inevitable sometimes. Please offer your advice. It will greatly help me when consoling such persons in the future.
Thank You!

Ven. Yuttadhammo has made an answer in this question "How to deal with bad past karma that makes my current life miserable?" which might answer your question.

@SriLanka I cross posted my answer on that question as well, I'm not sure if that is allowed, but I figure if someone gets to that question they might find it useful. If this is bad form, let me know and I will remove it from the other question.

I actually do not know about the policy for cross-posting answers. What you can do is to ask one of the moderators for information on this topic.

Buddhism doesn't have the concept of sin. It's more of a concept of unskillful or unwholesome action (Akusala Kamma). There is no God to please. There is no "thing" that needs to be done to gain approval. What there is, is bad karma and that the person will experience that karma and the worsening spiral of those problems until they let go of the attachment that caused them to enter that karmic state in the first place.
In my humble view, the best way to help someone caught in a difficult situation is to talk through the boundaries of the box they find themselves in. It's not the killing that's the problem. It's the "why" they killed that's the problem. Until the seed is removed, the plant can grow back again and again.
They are the ones who have to break out of the box, but most don't realize they're in the box to begin with. Listening, compassion, time: Almost always the best medicine for tough karma.

That's some good advice Bhante. Thank you for sharing.

Anumodana Bhante

For me, coming from a Christian soceity the word sin brings up issues of blame and guilt. I've found the words unskillful actions rather than sin more helpful when considering actions and their consequences. This seems to neutralise and depersonalise the blame aspect The task becomes one of moving forward and improving ones state of mind rather than one of redeeming oneself from a wretched and blame soaked place.
From there I find verses such as this one from the Dhammapada on how to view the world and move on with our lives

If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like
  his never-departing shadow.

Although it would not change the effects of later ripping, confessing is the usual and health way, practiced in line with the best success.

"Having done a bodily (same verbal) action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily
  action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction
  of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with
  painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know
  that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to
  both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences,
  painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to
  the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life
  (who would give certain further advises) ... Instructions to Rahula

There is no such as a "therapeutic" way of doing it given for lay people by the Buddha, but the effects would be the same for them within their community and the possibility to walk ahead. What has been done, has been done, its seen as not right (from ones own view and that of the "victim" and judges), but now lets go on a better way, punishment or rectification (usually regulated by law).
A system which has many elements of the psychology found in the ways of Vinaya are ways used with "Family Constellations" Such has deep effects of release, for all who are (have been) involved.
If nothing is really available, even to go to church and make there ones confession will be useful to walk on (of course one should not avoid the community standards, eg. law)

The Wheel of Knives is a lojung text in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.
The pdf contains other content. The Wheel of Knives begins on Page 45
 you will have to scroll down.
An audio class on it can be found here.
Typed notes of this audio lecture can be found here Ctrl + F Wheel of Knives to jump to the specific section
A useful chart can be found here. It is in the reading as well, but in a less readable format.
The Tibetans believed that the purification of karma was possible.
The  Karmic Purification process has 4 steps. There is a class on that too on the same site. (acidharma.org)
I will provide a brief summary of the process.
The first step is to take refuge in the 3 jewels, in your knowledge of karma and emptiness. I will not go to into depth on this step.
The second step is called "Destruction Force"

To rip out the roots of something (with power). This is regret, not guilt. It is an intelligent, educated understanding that you just screwed up, based upon knowledge
  of karma and emptiness and how bakchaks work and are
  reaped. You know that you will suffer from what you did and
  why, karmically. You know you just caused yourself future
  suffering and regret it. You feel ill/bad.

You take the cause of the karma you are working with, remember all the times you did it, realize that it is going to cause you suffering. Regret that you commited the deeds in question.
The 3rd step is called "Restraint force"
Here you take the cause of the karma you are working with, and you restrain yourself from doing it again. The longer you can restrain yourself the better.

Restraint force. You don't do it again. Since we can't just stop
   cold for the rest of our lives, we need a plan. So we set a time
   restraint force limit to stop for awhile - not to do the deed for an hour, a day,
  a week, etc. and build up the time length to get used to the new
  habit of not doing the deed. For chronic habits, set a short time
  limit, say five minutes, and concentrate hard on not doing it. The
  mind can't concentrate tightly for longer periods to avoid the
  habit. If you break a vow of restraint, you are lying, and collect
  more bad karma, so keep the time realistic.

The last step is called "Applying the Antidote"
Using the chart, or in some cases logical reasoning, you determine the antidote to the karma you are working with. Stealing would have an antidote of generosity for example.
In this step you will have to think about your individual conditions.
If you think of karma like seeds, the idea is this, you stop watering the "bad" karmic seeds. You plant "good" seeds that are related to the "bad" seeds you wish to uproot.
In the case of killing, the antidote of protecting life should be applied. Getting and taking care of pets. Donating to disaster relief charities. Get creative, anything that prevents sickness and harm. Apply plenty of antidote, and try to keep the application up until the period you decided on in step 3 has passed.
Go through these steps multiple times if necessary.
One important thing to note:
Karma does not simply disappear, this purification process just speeds up the queue.

The karmic seeds you have are in a queue to ripen. The most powerful ones go to the
  front of the queue and are experienced first. They delay the other seeds from ripening
  until the powerful ones are done. ...  ...The result of purification is that the intention part of the karmic path is ripped out and
  dramatically lessens the ripening impact. Karma ripens into a lesser result.
  It's very important after purification to believe that you're clean - you're pure.

While working with these energies you will experience a period where the karma you are working with ripens quickly, the purification process is not easy, and you will experience suffering directly related to the karma you are working with.
To wrap this up a quick quote from the Diamond Cutter Sutra and one from Tai Situ Rinpoche.

O Subhuti, any son or daughter of noble family who takes up a sutra like this, or who holds it, or reads it, or comprehends it, will suffer. They will suffer
  intensely.
  Why is it so? Because, o Subhuti, such beings are purifying non-virtuous karma from the entire string of their previous lives, karma that would have
  taken them to the three lower realms. As they purify this karma, it causes them to suffer here in this life. As such they will succeed in cleaning away the
  karma of these non-virtuous deeds of their previous lifetimes, and they will as well achieve the enlightenment of a Buddha.
Tai Situ Rinpoche : Sometimes we do suffer intensely, when we are sick and so on. When we are sick we should resort to medicines and when we get into trouble with people we should try to get out of that trouble. Definitely. However, our attitude to the suffering and the trouble should not be one that defines them as solely negative. Suffering is like a broom that sweeps away the causes of suffering and when we understand this then the suffering is reduced to its true stature. Without the understanding it tends to become amplified to twice, ten or a hundred times its true size. The way we develop our understanding is to think, “The suffering that I am now experiencing is the result of previous karmic causes. Just as I do not want to suffer, neither does any being. Thus may this present suffering be of true benefit in removing the sufferings of all beings.”

Thorough and precise answer +1.

@SriLanka The wheel of knives happens to be one of my favorite texts =)

That's one of the things i like about Buddhism SE. All people have something "special" or "favorite area" which they know a lot about and then share it with others. This is a great way of teaching each other. It reminds me of when i was at a private clinic (im a physiotherapist) then if one of the therapists went to a course and learned some new techniques or got some new knowledge then that therapist taught it to all the other therapists too. I really like this way of giving teachings to others so the knowledge can be shared freely.

One Morning Phra Ananda, the Buddha’s attendant went for an alms round in Savatee City and saw a Brahmin named Sangarava who believed that to be pure from all sins one had to wash oneself three times a day in the ganger river i.e. morning, noon and evening. People can do away with the evening sin with morning wash, and morning sin with noon wash and the sin committed from noon to evening was washed away with evening shower in the river. It is also believed that the ganger river flowed from the heaven and by the head of the god Shiva. The water didn’t only purify sinful people but could heal disease and if they are to die they would be united with their god.
Phra Ananda reported to the Lord Buddha about Sangarava Brahmin who had a routine of having a bath in the ganger river.
He said:
Exalted one Sangaravah Brahmin is now an old man, he still listens to others. Due to his old belief he therefore doesn’t know the right practice. With your limitless compassion can your lord help him?
The Lord Buddha accepted his request by remaining silent
The next morning the Lord Buddha went to see the Brahmin and asked him:
“Brahmin do you still wash yourself three times a day in the Ganger river?”
Respectfully the Brahmin replied:
“Yes, Sir I still do it”
“ What benefit do you see to have a bath only in the Ganger river but not somewhere else. Please don’t feel that I am interfering with your private life”.
The Brahmin replied with confidence:
“Phra Gotama, I have heard since I was young that theGangerRiveris sacred and can help cleansing all sins because it flowed down the head of Shiva’s head. This is a heavenly river. This is the practice that had been observed by my ancestors and I believe that it could really cleanse all sins.
The Lord talked to the Brahmin with a gentle and friendly voice. Please think that we are exchanging knowledge may I ask you is the sin in the body or mind?”
“ Of course in the mind Phra Kotama”
“when you have a shower to cleanse the body does the water get through to the mind”
“But Phra Gotama the water from theGangerRiveris not ordinary water it is sacred and it is believe that it can cleanse the sin”
“ Do you think our belief can change the truth?”
“ No Sir. Belief can not change the truth, it is as it is no matter whether we believe or not”.
So you agree that no belief can change the truth. But is it true that theGangerRivercan cleanse the sin like you believe.
Listen Brahmin,  if a man is lost in the forest and he is heading to the East because he believes it is but in reality it is West, his belief can not change the direction. It is similar to Brahmins who believed that theGangerRiveris sacred and but with their faith they can’t make the water cleanser of the sin,
Behold Brahmin, this is similar to a man with a copper pot that is filthy on the outside and inside. He is trying to clean the pot with lots of water but he only cleans on the outside. So you think that the pot is clean inside as well?.
“ It is impossible Phra Kotama, The man is wasting his energy, he could make the inside of the pot clean. It remains murky as it is.”
“ Behold Brahmin, I say that wrong actions, wrong speech and wrong thoughts caused the flaw to the mind. The mind can only be cleansed by the Dhamma It can not be cleansed with water”.
“Therefore the water from the person who has pure actions, pure speech and pure thought is sacred”
“Come Brahmin come and have a shower in our Dhamma disciplines that are profound and pure, that have the precepts as the shoreline and that are praised by pundit. All knowers loved to take a shower with it and could reach the other shore without being blemished.”
As the Lord explained, the Brahmin said joyfully: Most excellent, Lord! Most excellent! Just as one might set up what was thrown down, or were to reveal which was hidden away, or point out the right road to him who had gone astray, or might bring a lamp into the darkness so that they who have eyes could see external forms. So I, Lord, go to the Lordas refuge and to Dhamma and to the Bikkhu-sangha . Lord, may the exalted one accept me as a lay disciple gone for refuge from this day forth as long as life lasts.

When you copy-and-paste a block quote, please "attribute" it, in other words say where you're quoting from.


text:
Is appana samadhi the same as magga/phala?
In this video by Sayadaw U Nandasiri, if I am understanding him correctly, he equates appana samadhi and magga/phala enlightenment. Is this correct? I had understood momentary, access, and absorption to be referring to jhana. Do they also refer to magga/phala? Or are they one in the same?

Not expert on samatha, though as long as "appana samadhi" means fixed concentration, it is not magga/phala: there is no consciousness in magga/phala at all, it is cessation of all formations. Some samatha authors (Ayya Khema, for instance) say that when mind is pure, you can fall into cessation from the 8th jhana, but that seems to be something different than "appana samadhi".

There is still consciousness in appana samadhi. It just isn't the mundane consciousness of the aggregates of clinging. A complete lack of consciousness is oblivion and not magga/phala enlightenment.

I cannot answer the first part of the question so i will instead address the other part of the question, i.e.

"I had understood momentary, access, and absorption to be referring to jhana".

The following quote on the 3 different types of concentration is from the book "Practicing The Jhanas" by Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder. They were both students of Pa Auk Sayadaw and undertook a Samatha Meditation Course under his guidance. They write in the book that they achieved the 4 material jhanas and the 4 immaterial jhanas. Here is their description of the different types of concentration and in what practices they appear:

MOMENTARY CONCENTRATION
Momentary concentration is the most difficult to understand, because there are two types. The first develops in vipassanā practices in which the object changes frequently. In contrast to samantha practices in which the object is constant, in vipassanā the object is, in a way, changing or “moving.” As such, one could say that the ultimate object of vipassanā meditation is the present moment and what is being perceived in the present moment (hence, the relationship to “momentary” concentration).
Insight-oriented momentary concentration practices are widely used and can be found in meditation such as vipassanā (as it is commonly practiced in North America and Europe) as well as in the Tibetan dzogchen rigpa practice and the Zen shikantaza practice. The Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw presents the four elements meditation, which is a momentary concentration practice, as the entry point into the vipassanā practices. We describe this practice in chapter 8. The second type of momentary concentration arises during samatha practice.
The Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw sometimes refers to this type of momentary concentration as “preparatory” concentration, because it prepares the meditator for and precedes access concentration (the second type of concentration). In samatha practice, the meditation object is consistent rather than changing. Having a consistent object leads to serenity and purification of mind.
ACCESS CONCENTRATION
Meditators can eventually attain access concentration using either type of momentary concentration practice—samatha or vipassanā. However, samatha practices are more likely to lead to access concentration because of their more stable nature. Access concentration is characterized by the significant reduction or complete dropping of the five hindrances and the arising and strengthening of the jhāna factors. For most people, a period of intensive practice is required to reach access concentration. In access concentration, the meditative experience becomes smoother, easier, and more pleasant because of this lessening of hindrances and the arising of the powerful and blissful sensations of the jhāna factors. This allows meditators to meditate longer and progress more easily in the practice.
It becomes a positive, self-reinforcing loop.It is easy to confuse momentary concentration with access concentration. One difference is that with access concentration, the meditator’s continuity with the object is much longer and more stable over time. Another difference is that with access concentration, the object is much more energized and “bright.”Most of the practices outlined in this book are samatha practices specifically designed to settle the mind and develop laserlike awareness, leading eventually to full absorption into the jhānas. Examples of samatha practices designed to develop access and absorption concentration are ānāpānasati meditation (as presented by the Venerable Pa Auk Sayadaw), the kasiṇas, thirty-two-body-parts meditation, skeleton meditation, and the bramavihāras (sublime abidings).
As access concentration develops, but prior to full absorption, it is also easy to confuse access with absorption concentration. In access concentration, the jhāna factors are present but insufficiently strong for full absorption into jhāna. (The differences between access and absorption are described below.)Even after a meditator has experienced full jhāna absorption and begins to move through the practice progression, access concentration continues to be used. With progression to each successive jhāna, the meditator first experiences access concentration as the awareness orients to the new experiences and increases in stability.
ABSORPTION CONCENTRATION
The words jhāna and absorption are synonymous. In absorption concentration, awareness is pulled into the jhāna with a “snap.” The beginning meditator cannot “will” the absorption to happen or “make” it happen. Full absorption arises only when the concentration is strong and ripe after many days, weeks, months, or even years of unwavering focus on a specific meditative object. Only later, as a meditator becomes more experienced with full jhāna absorption and more skilled with the progression of jhānas and the five “jhāna masteries,” is it possible to enter a jhāna at will.
The five jhāna masteries are specific attainments that meditators complete in each jhāna, as demonstrations of mastery, before they can progress to the next jhāna. They are described in chapter 5.In absorption, in addition to the strong presence of the appropriate jhāna factors, the awareness is extremely secluded and focused, and ongoing concentration is more easily maintained. Awareness fully penetrates and is suffused by the jhāna factors. The Visuddhimagga highlights the difference between access and absorption concentration using the analogy of walking. Access concentration is like a toddler learning to walk. The child can take a few steps but repeatedly falls down. In contrast, absorption concentration is like an adult who is able to stand and walk for an entire day without falling down.
A modern metaphor would be of a top spinning. In access concentration, the top needs constant attention, wobbles frequently, and falls down. In absorption, the top spins in a centered way on its own.There may be misconceptions about the experience of full absorption in jhāna. First, there is awareness while in jhāna. It is not a zombie state, trance, or period of unconsciousness. However, there is no sense of “me” while in jhāna. The only awareness while in full absorption is of the object. If meditators have awareness of data from the five senses, it is because they are temporarily out of absorption. The five senses (sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell) do not arise while in absorption jhāna. In addition, there is no thought or decision making while fully absorbed in jhāna.
Beginning meditators who find that they are thinking or noticing input from the sense doors should view this as a slight imperfection of jhāna rather than full jhāna absorption. Meditators can also “pop out” of jhāna unintentionally because concentration wanes and the jhāna factors lessen. It is best not to worry about initial imperfections, which are bound to happen as beginners are developing mastery of the jhānas. As concentration increases, these imperfections wane and stability increases.Awareness in the jhānas is incredibly pristine, purifying, and indescribable. It is distinctly different from access concentration. Because access concentration can be so pleasant and nonordinary, however, people sometimes mistake access concentration for absorption, when it is not. This is one reason why it is important to receive guidance from a qualified teacher who knows the difference between access concentration and absorption concentration.
Absorption concentration is an incredibly powerful tool for purification, refinement of awareness, and access to realms far beyond normal, everyday comprehension. In addition, this intense focus can be an incredibly powerful tool to apply to the vipassanā practice. Meditation powered by the supercharged energy of the jhānas, or even a strong access concentration, can provide a vehicle to insight beyond normal perception that may not be possible with momentary concentration alone.We should note that, because awareness is so refined in full absorption, sensory input that would seem minimal in ordinary consciousness can feel extremely jarring when emerging from jhāna. This experience is intensified further when a meditator has completed weeks or months of deep absorption practice and reenters worldly life.

Thank you for the answer. It raises another question though. How can there be awareness of an object without sensing it? Is it the mind, without the five bodily senses, that is sensing the object?

It is the 5th aggregate, i.e. the aggregate of conciousness that takes an object. Consciousness exists as a taker of objects. Here you can read a bit about the 5 aggregates and here is a great dhamma talk on the aggregates by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.

What the venerable means is that, according to the abhidhamma, magga and phala are both types of appana samadhi, not that all appana samadhi is magga and phala (which would be silly anyway, because magga and phala themselves are distinct from each other). At the moment of enlightenment, one enters into a type of appana samadhi called "lokuttara samadhi", or "lokuttara jhāna" (lokuttara meaning supramundane).

katame dhammā kusalā? yasmiṃ samaye lokuttaraṃ jhānaṃ bhāveti niyyānikaṃ apacayagāmiṃ diṭṭhigatānaṃ pahānāya paṭhamāya bhūmiyā pattiyā vivicceva kāmehi . pe . paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati
What dhammas are wholesome? At whatever time, one cultivates supermundane jhāna that leads out (from samsara), that goes to diminution (of suffering), through the abandoning of gone-to views, through attaining the first realm (stream entry), having become thoroughly secluded from sensuality ... one enters and abides in the first jhāna.
-- DhS 277

As a non-English native, it may be that he is not aware of the potential ambiguity of his grammatical structuring of the statement.