text:
What should you do when someone teaches false Dharma?
I was part of a religious group that claimed to be everything that the Buddha teaches. But, when you listen to their teachings, you can tell discrepancies between their teachings and Buddhist teachings.
I just saw many people being misguided, but I do not know what to do. (Just to clarify, the religious group I'm referring to is neither Mahayana nor Theravada. But, the question can be generalized further if necessary.)
On one end, I do not wish to create any conflict among anyone.
On the other end, I feel sad that many people are misguided into the teaching.
So, the question is: What should I do?
Any answers based on experience would be AWESOME, and experience + Scripture references (said by famous teachers or based on Pali Canon) would be an Awesome+++infinity. :) Once again, I hope to find a method that does not create animosity.
Thanks Buddhist Community! Praises to the Dharma.
******As for an explanation on how this question is different from the forum titled "How to address wrong view", it's pretty much the same, except this is more scenario-based. I just wanted a different perspective/insight to this specific scenario. My ultimate goal is to avoid conflict!!!

possible duplicate of How to address wrong view

A wise person that I know says that attempts to avoid conflict end up creating conflict. If someone is causing harm, it is your duty to intervene. That said, you have a choice about it.

To avoid conflict never ever avoid conflict.

You can share with them DN 16's Four Great Referrals:

“Here, monks, a monk might speak like this: ‘I have heard this directly from the Gracious One, friends, directly I learned it: “This is the Teaching, this is the Discipline, this is the Teacher’s Dispensation.”’ That monk’s speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at. Without having rejoiced over it, without having scorned it, after learning those words and syllables well, they should be laid alongside the Discourses, they should be compared with the Discipline.
If, when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do not fit in with the Discourses, they do not compare well with the Discipline, you may here come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is not the Gracious One’s word, it is not well learned by that monk,’ and, monks, you should abandon it. If when these are laid alongside the Discourses, compared with the Discipline, they do fit in with the Discourses, they do compare well with the Discipline, you may come to this conclusion: ‘Certainly this is the Gracious One’s word, it is well-learned by that monk.’ This, monks, is the first Great Referral you should bear in mind.

That religious group will have no ground to criticize you for the above comes straight out of the Buddha's Discourses. Also freely share good Dhamma resources like accesstoinsight.org, suttacentral.net, tipitaka.wikia.com, etc. so that group members can go and find out the truth for themselves.

Thank you friend. What a wonderful verse you have just showed. I will bear that in mind. My goal was to avoid conflict, but I know I must take a stand at some point. Once again, thanks santa100! Much blessings to all.

"not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at"

Very true indeed. Sadhu!

thank you very much indeed! sadhu!

From Dogen's Shobogenzo:

Some hear of Anuttara-Samyak-Sam-Bodhi from "good friend", and some hear of it from the sutras. What one hears first is, "Not doing wrong action." If one does not hear “not doing wrong action,” one is not hearing the Buddhas' true Dharma but demonic talk. Know that hearing “not doing wrong action” is hearing the Buddhas' true Dharma.

...

The essence of the Dharma proclaimed by all Buddhas of the three worlds is the same, yet the actual words used depend on the time and circumstances.

My comment:
When I was a little boy back in the dark soviet years, I could not possibly come in contact with True Dharma. My glimpse of light was a song by an alcoholic folk singer who sang: "The Indians have made up a nice religion: when we kick the bucket we don't die forever. If you lived like a pig, you'll be reborn a pig. If you were dumb like a tree, you'll come back a baobab. You could become a parrot or a poisonous snake. Isn't it better to be a decent man?"
In this world there are people who are not confused, people who are mildly confused, and people who are very confused. This includes students of Dharma, teachers of Dharma, and people who have never heard of Dharma. So if your "ultimate goal is to avoid conflict" then don't judge the work of others -- even if they are somewhat confused at least they can help people who are even more confused. For someone deep in the darkness even a little glimpse of light can show the direction out.
As for your literal question, "what should you do when someone teaches false Dharma?" -- my answer is: "why, teach the true Dharma of course!"

Sigh I hear you dude. But, I still feel like it's a lose-lose situation though. On one end, I'm sacrificing the authenticity of the dharma. On the other end, I'm creating conflict. Look, some teachings that are taught can cause more problems than if people never heard them. For example, one particular effect of practicing that religion is that people can develop an ego-based merit-anxiety-complex. I know, it's weird. It helps them do less evil, but makes them suffer more, just in a different way. Anyhow, thank you for insights.

You should see if the interpretations given are in fact:

In line with the Dhamma as per the Suttas.
Even if they seem to be from the Suttas, see if the interpretation can be put in practice and not philosophical and abstract. Dhamma is meant to be practised to experience the result here and now. Hence if it is philosophical or abstract then this is not pure Dhamma.

So the best course of action would be:

Try to bring up Sutta discussions with a view toward reconciliation.
If it seems to be in line with the Suttas, see if some interpretations are abstract and philosophical rather than simple practice, in which case you can bring up an alternate interpretation to see how this resonates among the practitioners.

Refer to Ani Sutta which describes how Dhamma gets polluted.

Thank you sir. Yeah, some things were definitely off. I have heard from several Chinese Buddhist Masters that the religious group is not legit Buddhism. "The try to bring up Sutta" part was really what I wanted to do, but I do not have enough experience with Scripture to quote any appropriate ones at the time. But, perhaps in time. Once again, thank you friend.

Have a look at: http://dharmafarer.org, https://suttacentral.net/, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ (in order of correctness). These might help. But be aware some of the translations to not meet criteria 2 I have listed above.

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala: (Assuming they pass review) I edited your post to make some grammatical corrections.  Hopefully I've not changed the meaning of what you said. If so, please feel free to roll them back.

I agree that the emphasis of the teachings is practical. People have an endless tendency to create new concepts and world-views. "Greed for Views, tends not to edification."

Coming from the middle of the United States (OKC, OK) I have encountered the following Buddhist groups: Vietnamese (Mahayana), Korean (Mahayana), Thai (Theravada), Chinese (Mahayana), and Californian (Zen). After spending time at the Kopan monastery in Kathmandu I have also experienced Tibetan and, of course, the Theravadan people here.  Every one of these groups have differences. Some rather vast and many rather surprising.
So my first response would be - by whose standard are you evaluating their interpretations to be wrong?
To call themselves Buddhists one asks ...
Do they seek refuge in the jewel?
Do they follow the 5 precepts?
After that it's a matter of school and lineage. I have noticed much more of a dao influence in the Chinese Mahayana group compared to the Vietnamese (who seem much more pedantic). And the Korean group has prescriptions of an origin I still dont know. The Zen group seemed much more Hindu in nature (even mixing in Yoga ideas of shedding karma) and the Tibetan group from Kathmandu was much more mystical than purely secular.
I mention all this because there is a wide variance in views and all maintain some form of justification based on canon. I wouldnt rule any group out as errant until I had done my own homework beforehand. I studied the Upanishads, the Dhammapada, and the Bhagavad Gita before deciding which path I would follow and my determining factors were:

my path must swallow all others in its' embrace, and
my path would align with both the physical world as well as the spiritual.

That first factor requires a little explanation. After such an exhaustive search (50 years) for spiritual guidance I finally figured out that if a set of beliefs excludes any group of people then it is incomplete. Usually incomplete means it suffers from inaccuracies and bias. So any ultimate explanation should encompass everyone. It should be a universal truth to all ... swallowing up all other beliefs.
The second factor comes from my practical education and background. We ARE talking about the very nature of the Universe and I dont believe in magic. I do believe in science and physics and quantum mechanics and biology. I will certainly allow for discoveries we have yet to make (black box principle), but my path will be supported by known science and be furthered by it.
These are, of course, MY factors. You will have your own. Based on your background. Seek refuge first through learning about the Buddha. After you learn then find the path that suits you and a group of people who help you in it. Be up front about your search and the earnest questions you ask will be greeted with a smile by the right-minded. Not conflict.
I hope any single word of this was helpful. I understand this journey and wish you the best of results! Namaste my friend.

As a scientist you have to keep in mind that a theory that accounts for everything, in the end, accounts for nothing. It is very easy for us to think that we have found an unverifiable explanation for every single spiritual variation and get attached to that explanation, without realizing that we are just deluding ourselves.

@EdgarBrown I'm not sure that's a useful comment. As you should probably know, the proper purpose of a comment is to e.g. clarify an answer.

Ideally, after metta, ask your spiritual friends if they want to share perspectives on dhamma.

I think the best way is to raise doubts in your friends, so that they will check it for themselves. For example, you can use the Socratic questioning technique to ask questions. For example, you can ask:

Is this always the case?

When you seed the doubt in them in a subtle way, you won't be perceived as a threat.
If you really care about them, and willing to spend more effort to help them, you may want to use these guidelines:

How to Critique Something Others Love
How to Get People to Accept the Advice You Give

Be sure that your knowledge is solid before correcting them.

FYI: What is the Buddhist view in Socratic questioning?

Well this is a general thing happening in spirituality. There are people who are clearly frauds or just have extreme narcissistic personality disorder and have delusions becoming spiritual teachers and gurus that many people become their students and sees them as idol or super enlightened beings and even worship these frauds. These kind of things are very normal in the human world.
There are belief systems in the world that literally glorifies killing. I can not go to more detail because it may be out of BSE rules, but I think many people understands what I mean. This is the truth of humanity. You can not change it because this is actually what the crazy state of ordinary human mind loves.
Buddha was not a Buddhist and "Buddhism" does not belong to a specific group. Let's be happy and grateful that original teachings of Buddha is still alive in different sects of Buddhism and let's give help to the people(who are demanding help from us) with the true teachings of the Buddha. That is more than enough.

Since it is a very important topic and need a lot of explaining, Atma has started to prepare a hopefully understandable answer here: How to address wrong view? It will take one day or two and of course a Book could be written and would be not at all of no use. So not finished yet but give it meanwhile the possibility to put further thoughts and questions while being in development into it.. How could it? But here the gist: talk toward a smart
A revised and extended version as well attempt to translate in into German, after blessed approve of firm insider, can be found here: How to address wrong view (preliminary).
Index

The effect of wrong view?
What is wrong view?
What is right view?
Should one react to wrong view?
By which means should one approach wrong views of others?
Conclusion


text:
What is the Buddhist term for each moment being subtlety unique?
Read it a long time back, I remember it had something to do with someone meditating in a field of grass, and watching the wind go through the individual blades of grass and how they swayed.
It was a specific term and dealt with emptiness and the uniqueness of each passing moment.

Not sure which branch/school or if term is in multiple...

There's a poem, "Inch Time Foot Gem". Are you looking for a single word, or a phrase? And do you know in which language: English or ...?

Great poem! Looking for a single word term. Not sure the language, would have been 2007ish when I came across it...

Kshana,  Chiththakshana,

@Shrawaka thanks, that is incredibly related, but not quite what I'm looking for....

Poem: "The Summer Day" by Mary Oliver. Heart Sutra - same thing. Nonduality. Non-Symbolic Consciousness (research field).

Maybe the term is "Tathata" that means "suchness" or "thusness". It is a Mahayana term. It means "Things as they are" or "reality". It's ultimate reality as opposed to conceptual reality.
It comes from the word the Buddha used to describe himself," Tathagata" that means "one thus gone".

In Chan stories, tathātā is often best revealed in the seemingly mundane or meaningless, such as noticing the way the wind blows through a field of grass, or watching someone's face light up as they smile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tath%C4%81t%C4%81

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is this aversion?
If someone stops going to a temple because he/she doesn't feel comfortable in that particular temple.
Is this a right thing to do or is this a kind of aversion she/he needs to worry therefore should keep going to that temple?

More info. is needed before making a conclusion. Ex: what is the root cause to that person not feeling comfortable at that temple. Is the teaching at the temple in line with the Buddha's Discourses and Discipline? (see related topic here) Does the abbot break the Bhikkhus' Code of Discipline? Do the forms or methods of practice not quite suitable to the person and as a result s/he doesn't make much progress on the Path? etc. It's important to keep in mind that the real metrics to Dhamma practice is not the frequency of one's visit to a temple but instead, should be ones' own progress on precepts observance, insight into conditioned phenomena, and meditation practice.

It's a long story. The function of the temple from what I know is more to community support to particular group of people/ethnic. There are no to very few Buddhist activities e.g. Dhamma discussion, Dhamma talk, etc.. Often, someone's background such as where he/she come from and the political relationship between two countries are brought up in front of many people, with one person as the object. Relationship between their own people could be strengthened because of this but it often causes embarrassments on other people part.

In above situation, is not going to that particular temple a kind of aversion that will cause unpleasant vipaka or it's not an aversion or perhaps it's a common aversion?

In that case, it really depends on the primary purpose of why the individual goes to temple. Some go just to socialize, some to support the community, and some to learn and practice the Dhamma. If the primary objective is to learn and practice the Dhamma, then as you've mentioned, this temple might not be the best place for such activity and therefore one's free to seek other temples that emphasize more on Dhamma cultivation. This is perfectly legit. and will not result in unpleasant vipaka.

But even it is not the best place to discuss and practice Dhamma, etc. it's not that very reason someone stops go to that temple but his experience with that temple. So I guess there is avoidance in this situation, is that right?

Ultimately only that individual would know for sure. If s/he's your friend, why not ask him directly instead of speculating? If there's something the temple can improve then they should be notified in order to provide better service to everyone, not just their immediate community. If its' really the individual's aversion, then like all of us who are still not free from all defilements, should put in more effort and work on it.

Is this aversion?
Yes, of course. "Doesn't feel comfortable" sounds like a kind of aversion. The keyword is "comfortable".
An attitude not rooted in aversion would sound like "I stopped going because I saw it having more harmful effect and little beneficial effect" - see the difference?
As my last teacher explained, any time we feel strong aversion to going somewhere / doing something - we should take a really good look inside to see if  the feeling comes from a deep-lying preconception.
Preconception (in this context corresponding to sankhara) is an abstract formula we have adopted based on some previous experience, some sort of wrong overgeneralization we cling to. A complex of preconceptions constitutes person's ego, or image-of-self-and-the-world. Buddha compared ego with banyan tree that grows by shooting down the prop roots (=preconceptions) which become the second-order trunks and so on.

But would you say everyone has this kind of preconception therefore it's normal (to not go to that temple)?

No, I would say it is in your interest to shake off preconceptions.

Maybe.
If you push anything away so as to not accept things as they are, then that is aversion. So if fear, anger or disliking arise and it causes you to react by pushing the temple away then that is not seeing reality as it is. It is a defilement as a result of mental  proliferation(being unaware).
When we are mindful of the averse feeling then we will not react to it and we will be taking reality as it is in that instance.
Liking, lust and greed work the same way except we pull the object(in this case the object is the temple) towards us instead of pushing it away. Not being mindful of our desire to pull something we like towards us will result in not seeing things as they are as well.

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


text:
The senses, electroreception, synaesthesia
I am curious: how do Buddhist traditions treat senses other than the six that are traditionally given, e.g., electroreception (the ability to detect electrical fields/stimuli)? If there are actually more than six senses in some cases, it seems mildly problematic.
Related question: how do Buddhists talk about synaesthesia? Are there any interesting issues surrounding this phenomenon?

Wondering why this question got down-voted.

Electrical flow might result in electromagnetic waves, which is a form of light, so maybe it could be classed as seeing?

My answer is based on my experience with Buddhist thought (about 13 years of study and 1-2 years of retreat)--when it comes down to it, it would not be problematic if there were to be a seventh sense door.
While Buddhism talks about the six sense doors (the regular five plus anything experienced purely in the mind [emotion, thought, etc]) which are said to encompass all that a human being could experience in this conditioned world, in theory you could throw in as many sense doors as you like and it doesn't make a difference--just be mindful, practice the eightfold path, and see dukkha as dukkha, and so on.
In another vein, having had some experience with what seems to be electroreception, it seems to fall under the realm of the physical or body sense door.
Regarding synesthesia, I have not heard about that in a Buddhist context, but I would extrapolate from what the Abhidharma says--each second contains millions and millions of mind moments, so no matter how fast or simultaneous anything seems to be, only one mind moment at a time ever happens. I haven't mastered meditation to the extent that I can verify that the Abidharma matches my experience, but from a intellectual standpoint, that would seem to be the answer, i.e. senses mixing is really just rapidly flowing sense perception.
Some interesting questions--all sense contact would fall on the wheel of dependent origination, so that would be a fruitful line of inquiry. And with regard to any sense contact, feeling, perception, etc., as Joseph Goldstein (American Buddhist teacher) once said, "Just notice what arises and don't cling." Can't go wrong with that.


text:
Suchiloma Sutta translation
I am looking for a translation of the Suchiloma Sutta other than the one I have found through searching on Google or some insight into the Pali.
In the story, the Demon Suchiloma wants to test the Buddha and 'strikes him with his body' whereupon the Buddha withdraws his own body.
Here is the passage I am interested in:

Thereupon the demon Suchiloma addressed Bhagava thus: "O Samana! Are
  you afraid of me?" (Bhagava said,) "Friend! though your touching me is
  sinful, (yet) I am not afraid of you."

I seem to recall reading a translation of this sutta in which the Buddha's words are translated as something like: Friend, I am not afraid of you, but still, contact with you is not pleasant.
Can anyone point to an alternate translation or to a Pali version of the sutta (along with any insight into the meaning of the passage in question)?

Here is an alternative translation up on Sutta Central: https://suttacentral.net/en/snp2.5
However, the sentence you are looking for is translated as so:

Friend, I am not afraid of you, but your touch is evil.

The word "evil" here translates Pali pāpako - bad, malignant, evil, wrong, sinful.
I suppose the meaning is that, although Enlightened One is not afraid to come in contact with demonic influences, even for Buddha the close contact with them is not beneficial. As poisonous food may upset the stomach, so poisonous thoughts may upset the mind.

Thanks! is there a way to see the Pali on Sutta Central?

If you click the little icon with three horizontal lines in the top left corner of the screen on sutta central it brings up a drop bar for language. Pali is the first language listed.

You might want to download Bhikkhu Bodhi's one hour talk on this Sutta from
http://bodhimonastery.org/sutta-nipata.html
It is track 31.
I was curious, so I listened to this track and Bhikkhu Bodhi explains the point that you are asking about. The Yakkha's name is "Sūciloma"; "sūci" means needle and "loma" means hair of the body (one of the 32 parts). So this particular Yakkha had body hairs that were sharp like needles.
Sūciloma wanted to determine if the Buddha was a "real ascetic" or a "fake ascetic". A "real ascetic" would not be afraid of a Yakkha while a "fake ascetic" would show fear. So Sūciloma approaches the Buddha and bends over the Buddha. Your translation of "strikes him with his body" is not correct; the Pāḷi word upanāmesi means "to bend over to, to place against or close to, to approach, bring near".
When the Buddha withdraws his body, Sūciloma asks "Are you afraid of me?" The Buddha replies, "Friend, I am not afraid of you, though your touch is painful". Bhikkhu Bodhi explains that the Pāḷi word pāpako literally means "evil" but in this context should be interpreted as meaning painful to the touch [because of your sharp body hairs].

Can anyone point to an alternate translation or to a Pali version of
  the sutta (along with any insight into the meaning of the passage in
  question)?

We can see this type of another situation in With the Yakkha Āḷavaka

At one time the Lord dwelt at Āḷavī in the haunt of the yakkha
  Āḷavaka. Then the latter went to the Lord’s dwelling and spoke to him
  as follows: “Monk, come out!”
“Very well, friend” said the Buddha (and came out).
“Monk, go in!”
“Very well, friend” said the Buddha and entered his dwelling. He
  repeated these demands twice, but on the fourth demand the Buddha
  said:
“I shall not come out to you, friend, do what you will.”
“Monk, I shall ask you a question and if you cannot answer it I shall
  either overthrow your mind, split your heart, or seizing you by the
  feet, throw you to the other side of the Ganges river.”
“I do not see, friend, anyone in the world with its devas, Māras and
  Brahmās, in this generation with its monks and brahmins, princes and
  men who can either overthrow my mind, or split my heart, or seize me
  by the feet and throw me to the other side of the Ganges river.
  However, friend, ask what you will.”

By considering these two occasions we can assume Load Buddha gave an example, How to handle a tough (difficult) situation when one goes to preach someone.
They are not ready to accept, and in aggressive moods. So the preacher must have develop the quality 'patience' as shown in this answer.


text:
Is 'making a strong commitment' a good idea?
Is it a good idea to make a strong commitment\determination  to be mindful or to meditate?
If we can't really control what we do in the future, is there a use to make a commitment?
And if the answer is yes   - how to make it ?
I would love to hear tips on how to make the commitment/determination better.
And I would also like to hear your opinion about celibacy in this context - including celibacy from tasty food and from funny videos, from music, from entertainment in general, etc.

To make a  strong commitment,  you want to cultivate right effort by making a continuous effort, by hanging out with wise spiritual friends, by balancing energy with concentration and by not doing things that suck the energy out of you like reacting to your arising defilements, eating too much and getting lost in mental proliferation.
As Ajahn Chah says "Just do it".
Edit
One could reflect on death. This can really be motivating because it lets us know we are pressed for time not just on the surface but in the heart as well.

good reply -  So you are saying if i get your drift that a commitment is not a good idea - right ?

Yes it is a very good idea to make a strong commitment but you should know how to cultivate right effort first...or you can "Just do it"("it" being the strong commitment) like Ajahn Chah says but remember not to get to upset if it's hard to keep up.

is there more about info about this subject - about what you talked about?

Here are some video links that talk about right effort:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9ClCF_FYrt4

https://youtu.be/3huNh4Vi8Jc
https://youtu.be/MZHWnzQQm3c--------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0qmUZOdLtM
found this talk from ajahn chah when searching "just do it"  - good stuff

Some advice from Ajaan Fuang:

§ "If you're single-minded about whatever you think of doing, you're
  sure to succeed."
§ "Persistence comes from conviction, discernment from being mindful."
§ "Persistence in the practice is a matter of the mind, and not of
  your posture. In other words, whatever you do, keep your mindfulness
  constant and don't let it lapse. No matter what your activity, make
  sure the mind sticks with its meditation work."
§ Another student disappeared for several months, and on her return
  told Ajaan Fuang, "The reason I didn't show up is that my boss sent me
  to night school for a semester, so I didn't have any time to meditate
  at all. But now that the course is over, I don't want to do anything
  but meditate — no work, no study, just let the mind be still."
She thought he'd be pleased to hear how intent she still was on
  meditating, but he disappointed her. "So you don't want to work —
  that's a defilement, isn't it? Whoever said that people can't work and
  meditate at the same time?"
§ Many were the times when people would tell Ajaan Fuang that — with
  all the work and responsibilities in their lives — they had no time to
  meditate. And many were the times he'd respond, "And you think you'll
  have time after you're dead?"

Ajaan Fuang is very inspiring.


text:
In what way(s) does engaging in sexual activity affect meditation practice?
Does sexual activity (masturbation and beyond) hinder vipassana meditation practice? If so, does anyone know through experience or references exactly how this activity affects the practice? For example, does it decrease one's ability to focus?

I find that this is highly personal. I'd say for myself that sexual release in daily life (not talking about retreat) lessens mind's energy, at least temporarily.

Sensual pleasure is one of the Five Hindrances which are like "canals dissipating the force [awareness/discernment strength] of a river current" as taught by the Buddha in AN 5.51:

"Sensual desire is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelms awareness and weakens discernment. Ill will... Sloth & drowsiness... Restlessness & anxiety... Uncertainty is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelms awareness and weakens discernment. These are the five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment. And when a monk has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, when he is without strength and weak in discernment: for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible."
"Suppose there were a river, flowing down from the mountains — going far, its current swift, carrying everything with it — and a man would open channels leading away from it on both sides, so that the current in the middle of the river would be dispersed, diffused, & dissipated; it wouldn't go far, its current wouldn't be swift, and it wouldn't carry everything with it. In the same way, when a monk has not abandoned these five obstacles, hindrances that overwhelm awareness and weaken discernment, when he is without strength and weak in discernment for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human state, a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is impossible."

In Vipassana you have to maintain equanimity without clinging and craving. When engaging in sexual activity you entertain clinging and craving. This your weakens your mindfulness and concentration hence your ability to see things as they really are.


text:
What kind of vipassana retreats do you recommend in South East Asia?
I've been meditating for 2.5 years, and have done two retreats before (Goenka and Gil Fronsdal). I'm looking forward to expanding to my understanding of the practice in South East Asia. I was wondering which 10 day retreat people here recommend for westerners (i.e. English is available, and there isn't any esoteric content being taught).
My most likely bet seems to be Suan Mokkh in Thailand, but was wondering if there are others in the Theravada tradition that are recommended by people here (i.e. Burma, or other places in Thailand)
An up to date list of centers would also be appreciated. Most of the information I've been able to gather through googling seems quite out-dated.

What kind of practice are you hoping to undertake during retreat? There are many different types of meditation offered by different traditions, such as Goenka style Vipassana, Mahasi Sayadaw style Vipassana, Anapanasati, Metta, etc...

You can find Goenka South East Asian retreats here

This question seems to be, "what kind of vipissana retreat do you recommend?",  not, "where are they?"

I guess I don't exactly now what I want. I think I want something different from Goenka, since I've already experienced that. Deepening anapanasati seems skillful. I'm looking for a place that is flexible in terms of your length of your stay, i.e. if the practice is unfolding in such a way that I can do more, I could stay there and practice more.

If you come to Sri Lanka, there's nice place up in hill country called the Rathmalkanda Meditation Center for Insight Knowledge. The head monk there is venerable Madawala Upali thera who has been a meditation teacher over 40 years. The main meditation taught there is the Vipassana(insight) meditation of the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition. But venerable Upali also teaches Anapanasati, Kasina and other Samatha(tranquility) meditation techniques as well.

I will be taking a retreat near Kuala Lumpur starting 1st December (Mahasi style). Full retreat is one month, but no problem leaving early. Let me know if you are interested in more details.

Goenka's Vipassana techniques is very effective, hence I would recommend to stick with it. Also a similar techniques is taught at International Meditation Centre.
Also Suan Mokkh is a pretty good place to study Anapana I would expect though I have not been there Ven. Buddhadasa's books on this are very effective.
Also if you are going to Burma you can try Pa-Auk Forest Monastery. Also you can try out Mogok Sayadaw's Meditation techniques, there many monasteries but little web presence hence you might need to do a bit more searching.
Also have a look at World Buddhist Directory. This might help you find more centres. If you are interested in coming to Sri Lanka there is a directory of meditation centres here: Information about Meditation Centers in Sri Lanka.

I would look for monastery that is absent of tiracchana vijja
(tiracchana literally means non-human animal, or crossed animals (animals that cant make progress in Dhamma). tiracchana vijja means low art.  Or practices that crossed with path to nirvana.     Also monasteries that do not have donation box every 10 ft.  Ajahn Cha's monasteries are nice.
the appendices of this books shows tiracchana vijja or wrong livelihood for Bhikkhus.  tiracchana vijja


text:
How is meditation considered a good deed?
I have heard it said that meditation is "the greatest good deed". Is this considered to be true in Buddhism? If so, how is meditation superior to all other good deeds? It seems self serving compared to other good deeds, such as generosity.

Because generosity alone can only get you so far. One's hindrances, defilements, ignorance, etc. are still there. Meditation and moral virtues are required to get one further on the Path. Matter of fact, through meditation, one becomes a more virtuous person and that itself is a superior kind of generosity. As taught by the Buddha in AN 8.39:

“Here, a noble disciple, having abandoned the destruction of life, abstains from the destruction of life. By abstaining from the destruction of life, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the first gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the fourth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness."
“Again, a noble disciple, having abandoned the taking of what is not given, abstains from taking what is not given … abstains from sexual misconduct … abstains from false speech … abstains from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness. By abstaining from liquor, wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness, the noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity, and affliction. This is the fifth gift, a great gift, primal, of long standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated and never before adulterated, which is not being adulterated and will not be adulterated, not repudiated by wise ascetics and brahmins. This is the eighth stream of merit … that leads to what is wished for, desired, and agreeable, to one’s welfare and happiness."

Yes, meditation is the 'greatest good deed' in Buddhism, specially contemplation on anicca, dukkha, anatta or the meditation types that are conducive to the cessation of suffering i.e. Vipassana. Generosity (dana) and other meritorious acts can be beneficial for a better birth in future lives but they are subject to impermanence. But results gained through meditation - nirvana is not subject to decay.
Following is what Buddha said in Velāma Sutta, how heart of good will (metta meditation) is greater than dana, taking refuge or being virtuous  and perception on inconstancy (vipassana) is greater than all the other good acts.

"If one were to feed one person consummate in view, that would be more
  fruitful than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave.
"If one were to feed one once-returner, that would be more fruitful
  than the gift, the great gift, that Velāma the brahman gave, and if
  [in addition to that] one were to feed one person consummate in view,
  and to feed 100 people consummate in view.
"If one were to feed one non-returner, that would be more fruitful
  than... if one were to feed 100 once-returners.
"If one were to feed one arahant, that would be more fruitful than...
  if one were to feed 100 non-returners.
"If one were to feed one Private Buddha, that would be more fruitful
  than... if one were to feed 100 arahants.
"If one were to feed one Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly
  self-awakened — that would be more fruitful than... if one were to
  feed 100 Private Buddhas.
"If one were to feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha, that
  would be more fruitful than... if one were to feed a Tathagata — a
  worthy one, rightly self-awakened.
"If one were to have a dwelling built and dedicated to the Community
  of the four directions, that would be more fruitful than... if one
  were to feed a community of monks headed by the Buddha.
"If one with a confident mind were to go to the Buddha, Dhamma, &
  Sangha for refuge, that would be more fruitful than... if one were to
  have a dwelling built and dedicated to the Community of the four
  directions.
"If one with a confident mind were to undertake the training rules —
  refraining from taking life, refraining from taking what is not given,
  refraining from illicit sex, refraining from lying, refraining from
  distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness — that would be
  more fruitful than... if one with a confident mind were to go to the
  Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha for refuge.
"If one were to develop even just one whiff of a heart of good will,
  that would be more fruitful than... if one with a confident mind were
  to undertake the training rules...
"If one were to develop even for just a finger-snap the perception of
  inconstancy, that would be more fruitful than the gift, the great gift that Velāma the brahman gave, -and all above-.
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.020.than.html

Meditation lessens the practitioners suffering and the suffering of all those around the practitioner.
If you meditate then you are being the change that you would like to see in this world.
When you meditate you are learning  to be selfless. You learn to help yourself by helping others.

It seems self serving compared to other good deeds, such as generosity.

Here's a personal opinion (it's not an expert or referenced or Theravada answer).
In swimming lessons they try to teach you how to rescue drowning people.
An important consideration in the lesson is how to rescue someone, without the person desperately grabbing and drowning you.
It sounds selfish but it's not just selfish: if you were drowned or drowning then you couldn't rescue them.
There's a maybe-analogous situation (and lesson) if you want to help someone who, for example, is an addict: if their life is chaotic and so on, you can't help them to escape (e.g. with good advice, a good example, maybe some selflessness to spare) if your life is deep in chaos too.


text:
Discernment vs. judgement in the labeling meditation
To watch the mind, as far as I understand, is to simply watch the mind without judging it. But there is a method, which teaches us to note sad when we are sad, dislike when we dislike something, happy when we are happy, etc..
How is this mental labeling different to judgemental mind?
Will this indirectly train someone's mind, to become more judgemental of oneself and others?

Should this question be re-titled "discernment vs. judgement in the labeling meditation"?

@AndreiVolkov. Yes, I think that would be a good idea. As far as I can see, Samatha meditation is not mentioned in the question-body. This questions seems to be about Vipassana only.

Edit: Question-title edited to better reflect question-body. Feel free to roll-back if not agreeable.

I guess the big difference between mentally noting vs judging what you are experiencing is the degree of objectivity. Noting helps you to perceive your experiences with clarity, which should in turn allow you to gain wisdom through insight into the nature of all experiences/phenomena. For example, if you are experiencing sadness and you note, "sad" you remain impartial. In this way, you clearly observe and experience the feeling of sadness. Your field of experiential perception remains unhindered by inner conflict (reacting to the sadness, rather than just noting it) and you are able to understand the ultimate reality of your sadness. This, applied to all experiences, should also allow you to develop equanimity, one of the seven factors of enlightenment.
Conversely, if you experience sadness and mentally oppose the sadness, you fail to remain objective through your experience and hinder your ability to perceive and learn about/come to understand your experience. This obviously prevents equanimity but, perhaps more importantly, prevents one from clear comprehension of events (such as a sad state of mind) and thus prevents insight into the nature of such events.
So, the "mental-labeling" technique, as described by the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, is actually intended (and more likely than not) to help one become LESS judgmental to oneself and others.
/\

Mental labeling is the act of saying 'sad' or 'happy', when such thoughts occur, without wanting anything to be different. The last part is important, because it means we are recognizing our states for what they are, but not judging them from the perspective of generating aversion of craving.
Judging always has a little flavor of wanting or 'not wanting', or at least an opinion about something being good or bad. Labelling on the other hand is recognizing (and being with) what's there without any of the attached filters of the mind as Joseph Goldstein calls them.
Perhaps not directly related to your question, but cultivating the right state of mind does sometimes involve discerning. However, the difference is in what we discern. We only discern our own state of mind as either skillful or unskillful in dealing with what is arising in the present moment. We do not judge that which is arising however.


text:
How to avoid doing things that suck the energy out of you?
A recent answer on this site was as follows.

To make a strong commitment, you want to cultivate right effort by making a continuous effort, by hanging out with wise spiritual friends, by balancing energy with concentration and by not doing things that suck the energy out of you like reacting to your arising defilements, eating too much and getting lost in mental proliferation.

I would love an explanation, specifically, about the part in it which I highlighted in bold (i.e. about "sucking energy" and "reacting to defilements").
My questions include:

What are all the things that "suck our energy" ?
Why does reacting to defilements suck our energy ?

Everything else people want to add about this subject will be welcomed.

This question might be related of How does one cultivate uplifted energy (paggaha)?

This is one of the things you learn from a live teacher, not usually found in books. Briefly, few of the main points I was taught, in no particular order:

ego - a lot of energy is spent on defending the self-image, rationalizing, finding excuses etc.
negative/pessimistic thinking - another major energy hog is thinking of the kind "things are wrong and are impossible to fix", excessive focusing on the issues and bad news.
masturbation and sexual activity - orgasm is traditionally considered a major point of energy loss.
non-spartan lifestyle - relaxing into one's weakness for sensuous comfort.
having no agenda - allowing other people, things, and circumstances drive you around.
inner conflict - blaming or judging oneself non-constructively.
doubt - anxious wavering back and forth.
not taking responsibility - organizing one's action around other people's approval and acceptance instead of taking ownership of one's choices.
alcohol - consumption of alcoholic beverages.
low energy food - food that is spoiled, expired, frozen and reheated, over-processed, lifeless, and generally bad quality.
posture - an important factor of energy loss is a posture and gait that moves the body weight off the center of the feet and too much towards the toes or the heels.

I will add more points here if I remember any.

I've been trying to balance standing and sitting while at work since I'm in front of a computer all day, could you elaborate some more on the point of posture please :)

why whenever i as about whether a lay person should avoid music be celibate ect  i get a clear : "no, its only for monks" ?

@breath I suppose because it would be stupid to give an advice to people who won't follow it anyway?, I mean most of the lay people can't be celibate, right?

If i would think its beneficial than i would do it or at least try to do it - but every time this question comes up there are advanced practitioners who say a strict "no!" to people who ask is it beneficial to be celibate - at least those who arent monks

I’d add outer conflict as well. Nothing like an ongoing feud or debate to suck the energy out of you.

Cultivating a mindful attitude to towards negative emotions has been shown to reduce depression, anxiety etc. in a variety of studies - Is Mindfulness Good Medicine? Cognitive Behavioral Therapies (CBT) have also shown great promise to alleviate anxiety and depression - Is cognitive-behavioral therapy more effective than other therapies? The CBT approach basically states that what we think we feel. So when you find yourself

... reacting to your arising defilements

You are using enormous amounts of unnecessary energy identifying with these emotions i.e. not being mindful. This is likely to lead to other negative emotions like depression which in its turn leads to negative thinking patterns which then cause more negative emotions. So in a very real sense you are falling into patterns that quite literally

... suck the energy out of you

The Buddha wisely recognized these truths that are now being verified in the laboratory. So this is very sage advice and I second it:

To make a strong commitment, you want to cultivate right effort by making a continuous effort, by hanging out with wise spiritual friends, by balancing energy with concentration and by not doing things that suck the energy out of you like reacting to your arising defilements, eating too much and getting lost in mental proliferation.

It may be of interest to note that in Buddhism the three main causes for all the other defilements are ignorance, attachment, and aversion which then lead to anxiety, fear, anger, jealousy, desire, depression, etc.

How to make a strong commitment ?

Strong commitment, in my experience, needs strong motivation. Some find the Four Reflections good motivators. Daily affirmations of intention are also very useful to keep the momentum going. Saying out loud what you hope to accomplish in every practice focuses the mind.


text:
How to reconcile Buddhist Cosmology with modern worldview, especially astronomy?
Buddhist scripture describes other worlds (i.e. "The Thirty-one Planes of Existence"), with various kinds of beings who may interact with our human world in varying degrees.

Do Buddhists accept the modern view of the universe, consisting of galaxies, solar systems, planets, discovered experientially by astronomers with their telescopes (which the Buddha and his followers don't seem to have thought about or discussed very much)?
If so, how do Buddhists reconcile this modern view of the universe with the 31 lokas and their other-worldly inhabitants?

Do Buddhists feel that if the Buddha and Buddhist gurus did not speak or think about some things (for instance, about "the modern view of the universe" such as galaxies or solar systems), maybe those things aren't worth speaking or thinking about?

Please post a comment if (only if) you want to ask a question about the question, or want to suggest an improvement to the question. Alternatively if you have an answer to the question (or an answer to part of the question), then instead of posting a comment please post that as an answer instead.

"Do Buddhists accept" , " do Buddhists feel" are not questions about Buddhism, but rather general opinion based questions aimed at individual views. The questions should be aimed at the Buddha's teaching, not the feeling of any one individual.

@Ryan I agree that this question is asking for opinions; I answered it that way. It is tagged [tag:modern-world] though. Would you say that because the Buddha didn't talk about jury duty for example, or the Dalai Lama, or copyright, these questions should be off-topic? Would you post on meta to explain that and let people discuss it? Maybe we should change our policy of what's on-topic (maybe Thiago suggests that too) but I'm not yet exactly sure how.

I feel like we've been beating this dead horse for a while. It's not even a question of the Buddhism SE policy as far as I understand it; I thought in general questions on SE shouldn't be asking for opinions, rather questions that could be answered as objectively as possible. Am I the one misunderstanding?

@Ryan The 'moderation policies' which I defined using input from other users on meta are here and they're more liberal than on other SE sites. There's a related topic here (including an answer of yours which I deleted after I thought your concern was addressed in Chat) but maybe not enough clear consensus yet to change the moderation policy. Thiago has suggested a change but I haven't understood that suggestion yet.

@Ryan You're able to vote (choose) to close this topic. If 5 people vote to close it then it will probably be closed, and stay closed. I (personally) don't recognize this as being a type of question. IMO it's a specific question which you don't like; if it's a general category of question I don't yet have a clear definition of what questions are in this category and which questions aren't. Until I get a definition that's clear to me and which most other people agree with, I won't (can't) update the Policy and won't vote to close it myself (though as I said, you can vote to close it).

@Ryan Good Subjective, Bad Subjective says that on some sites (e.g. Parents.SE) it's OK to ask subjective questions ... if the answers are not just opinion but based on personal experience and/or backed up with a reference. I think that "based on personal experience" may allow answers which aren't referenced (we are also allowed to define site-specific Buddhism.SE policy).

I don't mind opinions in the answers. Golly gee whiz if it's a good question then why kill the question? Shutting this down is an act of opinionionated intellectual snobbery in my opinion. Some see Buddhism as a philosophy, not a science. This site needs more questions, doesn't it? If you think this is a certain kind of question that generates opinionated answers then we could file it under "questions that generate opinion based answers" and the user can filter it out if desired.

First of all you have misunderstood the meaning of 31 planes of existence. It doesn't mean there are 30 other planets in the universe. This simply suggests that there are 30 other realms that are inhabited other than the human realm in this solar system. Four of the 31 are said to be on earth itself: human, animal, hungry ghost and hell realms.
On the other hand Buddha says the universe is so vast that you cannot reach the end of it,

"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling
to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not
take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear."
Rohitassa sutta

In theravada, a universe is described in three tiers: galaxies, cluster of galaxies, meta-galaxies consisting of a large number of solar systems. I don't see a conflict of this with science.

This culanika-loka-dhatu or Minor World-System, which is the smallest
unit in the universe though it contains thousands of suns, moons and
inhabited planets, can only be compared with the modern conception of
a galaxy, the majority of which have about a million suns.
The next unit in the universe according to the early Buddhist texts is
described as consisting of thousands of minor world-systems. This is
called a “Twice-a-Thousand Middling World-System” (dvisahassi
majjhimika-loka-dhatu). It would correspond to a cluster of galaxies
according to modern conceptions.
While the Middling World-Systems consisted of a few up to a hundred or
even thousand galaxies, the next unit is the whole cluster of Middling
World-Systems. For it is said that thousands of Middling World Systems
(i. e. clusters of galaxies) go to form the vast universe or the Major
World-System (maha lokadhatu), which some texts on astronomy refer to
as the meta-galaxy.
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh162-p.html

Maybe those things aren't worth speaking or thinking about?
Indeed, these aren't worth talking about because knowledge about them doesn't bring an end to suffering which is the main issue that Buddhism tries to address. Hence, Buddha encourages to discover yourself rather than the vast universe.

Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception &
intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of
the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice
leading to the cessation of the cosmos.
Rohitassa sutta

Do Buddhists accept the modern view of the universe

I was about to answer, "Yes, I do": but in a way I don't.
By that I mean that in fact I go about my daily life without thinking of astronomy (in fact I go all year without it, except a handful of moments per year if I think about the tides or an equinox or etc.).
As it happened I studied the maths of astrophysics at university and so I suppose I more-or-less understand what scientists do, and I don't disagree with that on the whole (though I wouldn't make a religion of it).
But a "view" I think is something more: a "view" IMO is something you actually/often think about, something you use to measure experience, to try to understand or to make sense of existence: examples of "views" include right view (samma ditthi) and identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
Compared with these examples of a "view" (or using this kind of understanding of the word "view") I think that maybe I don't, in practice, have a modern "view" of "the universe" ... except, if or when I think about it, I suppose that the "modern view of the universe" is alright in its place, which is in the minds of astronomers and so on who care about that kind of thing.
In summary I probably "accept" it as a thing (a coherent belief-system with all its own rules and its own limitations too), but I don't spend much time thinking about it.

If so, how do Buddhists reconcile this modern view of the universe with the 31 lokas and their other-worldly inhabitants?

IMO the lokas are a description of morality and psychological states (i.e. it's a descriptions of a model of states attained by the mind).
FWIW I actually don't think much (i.e. I don't think often) about the description of the 31 lokas either.
But I thought that the simple description in this answer was brilliant: I have been thinking about that.

Do Buddhists feel that if the Buddha and Buddhist gurus did not speak or think about some things (for instance, about "the modern view of the universe" such as galaxies or solar systems), maybe those things aren't worth speaking or thinking about?

Yes that's pretty well the case, i.e. I think that's what I felt about it.
IMO perhaps "the modern view of the universe" is a category of "right livelihood" for astronomers and geophysicists and navigators etc.
However, given the Simsapa Sutta and the fact that the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta was the first Buddha's first lesson, IMO it's "stress and the ending of stress" that's relatively important in Buddhism.

Among the 31 planes of existence, two of it are the realm of humans and the realm of animals. Both of it exist right here on Earth.
So, the realms are more from the perspective of different kind of beings, rather than different kind of planets and galaxies.
Then you may ask, where are the tusita devas located? How can I find them? Well, I don't have the answer to that.
But think about this. Ajaan Lee described how the realm of hungry shades look like (from here):

The world of the hungry shades is even more fun. Hungry shades come in
  all different shapes and sizes — really entertaining, the hungry
  shades. Some of them have heads as big as large water jars, but their
  mouths are just like the eye of a needle: that's all, no bigger than
  the eye of a needle! Some of them have legs six yards long, but hands
  only half a foot. They're amazing to watch, just like a cartoon.

I'm not sure how he knows this.
When I read it, it sounds to me like the world of microbes. Your amoebas and paramecia and millions or billions of other types of microbes definitely come in all shapes and sizes.
Until the invention of the microscope, we couldn't see microbes, but that does not mean that they do not exist.
So, it's good to keep an open mind.

Photo credit: iflscience.com, Macrovector / Shutterstock.com

Traditionalists either believe the cosmologies literally, or as myths (instructive stories).
Donald Lopez did write a book about some of the earlier attempts to reconcile science & traditionalist Buddhism. I only read the sample, so I can't vouch for it to speak to your whole question, but it came to mind: The Scientific Buddha: His Short and Happy Life (The Terry Lectures Series)


text:
What are the "defilements"?
Simple question, but I would like to know- what are the defilements, according to Theravada Buddhism? I keep hearing this term and would like to find out what it means, according to the original teachings of the Buddha. Thank you

Kindly Refer  The Demons of Defilement  (Kilesa Mara).

In simple words, defilements are like little clouds that descend on the head -- and when you look around through one of them, you see everything in a different color or blurry or distorted.
That's what they are, they are glitches that affect your interpretation and evaluation. The problem with defilements is that subjectively they are indistinguishable from reality, it just looks like that's the way the external object actually is -- not a cloud over your head. Or you may get really angry with someone and yell at them, thinking your anger is justified - but it really just a defilement, a temporary madness.
In the original Buddha's teaching, as recorded in Pali Canon, the major types of defilements are:

lobha -- usually translated as desire or greed -- that's the defilement that suddenly makes some things appear very likable.
dosa -- usually translated as anger or hatred -- that's the defilement that makes some things appear very wrong.
and moha -- usually translated as ignorance or delusion -- that's the defilement that makes you confused about what's what.

The traditional metaphor is that these three are like the three base paints that mix in various proportions to create the innumerable variety of defilements observed in real life.

Thank you: I'd heard of "dosa = aversion", but not the next part of the equation i.e. "dosa = 'appears wrong'".

Thanks for the answer! I was under the impression that greed, anger and delusion are the three unwholesome roots. Are the unwholesome roots and defilements one and the same? Or do the defilements spring forth from the roots?

The traditional metaphor is that the three roots are like the three base paints and the various defilements are like the innumerable colors that can be mixed from those three. So they all are of the same nature, it is just that the major three are the easiest to explain.

The term is used differently in different places in Theravada literature. In the 27th Samyutta of the Samyutta Nikaya, there are ten Suttas that talk about the kilesas, and the term is equated with desire-passion (Chanda-rago). For example, the first Sutta reads:

At Savatthi. "Monks, any desire-passion with regard to the eye is a
  defilement of the mind. Any desire-passion with regard to the ear...
  the nose... the tongue... the body... the intellect is a defilement of
  the mind. When, with regard to these six bases, the defilements of
  awareness are abandoned, then the mind is inclined to renunciation.
  The mind fostered by renunciation feels malleable for the direct
  knowing of those qualities worth realizing."

and the other nine suttas are the same, but just apply this stalk formula to different thigs such as forms, consciousness, contact, etc.

You might want to bookmark the following site that gives excellent definitions for common Buddhist terms: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm or download the PDF of this dictionary from: http://urbandharma.org/pdf/palidict.pdf. I have a hard copy of this dictionary and it is the most used book in my collection. An excellent resource for beginners and intermediate level.
Here is the definition of kilesa (defilements) from that source:

kilesa: 'defilements', are mind-defiling, unwholesome qualities. Vis.M. XXII, 49, 65: "There are 10 defilements, thus called because they are themselves defiled, and because they defile the mental factors associated with them. They are: (1) greed (lobha), (2) hate (dosa), (3) delusion (moha), (4) conceit (māna), (5) speculative views (diṭṭhi), (6) skeptical doubt (vicikicchā), (7) mental torpor (thīna), (8) restlessness (uddhacca); (9) shamelessness (ahirika), (10) lack of moral dread or unconscientiousness (anottappa)." For 1-3, s. mūla; 4, s. māna; 5, s. diṭṭhi; 6-8, s. nīvaraṇa; 9 and 10, s. ahirika -anottappa.
The ten are explained in Dhs. 1229f and enumerated in Vibh. XII. No classification of the kilesa is found in the Suttas , though the term occurs quite often in them. For the related term, upakkilesa  (q.v.; 'impurities') different lists are given - (App.).

Defilements are like when you want to calm down or want to be peaceful, or want to be at ease, or want to focus, you can't because something else is bothering you.
That something else is call defilements.

Defilements are impurities in one’s mind. Just like a cloth can be stained and dirty, a mind can be exploited.
According to the Vatthupama Sutta: The Simile of the Cloth (MN 7 PTS: M i 36) there are 16 defilements.
(1) Covetousness and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind; (Abhijjhāvisamalobho cittassa upakkileso)
(2) ill will is a defilement of the mind; (byāpādo cittassa upakkileso)
(3) anger is a defilement of the mind; (kodho cittassa upakkileso)
(4) hostility... (upanāho...)
(5) denigration...(makkho...)
(6) domineering...(paḷāso...)
(7) envy...(issā...)
(8) jealousy...(macchariyaṃ...)
(9) hypocrisy...(māyā...)
(10) fraud...(sāṭheyyaṃ...)
(11) obstinacy...(thambho...)
(12) presumption...(sārambho...)
(13) conceit...(māno...)
(14) arrogance...(atimāno...)
(15) vanity...(mado...)
(16) negligence is a defilement of the mind (pamādo cittassa upakkileso)

Please provide a link to the sutta.

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


text:
Depersonalization phenomenon as described in the Pali Canon
According to the gentleman in this video ...

Enlightenment, DP/DR & Falling Into the Pit of the Void ~ Shinzen Young
Shinzen talks about the empowering facets of enlightenment and compares this to "enlightenments evil twin" DP/DR. He talks about the rare occasions that he's encountered a meditator moving in the direction of DP/DR and the strategy he used to "cure" it using mindfulness methods.

... the phenomenon of "depersonalization" is described in the Pali Canon. Could anyone provide the source(s) of this?
As a secondary question- could anyone share their personal experience with/knowledge of depersonalization occurring as a result of meditation?
Thank you

Did the gentleman in the video mean this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization ?

@GottfriedHelms yes, I believe that is the same disorder that he refers to in the video. However, I am looking for suttas in the Pali canon that discuss it

I experienced this first hand. It wasn't fun, and it last for three years (of varying degrees of intensity). I wish I'd had a better teacher to help me at the time, but this video is a good explanation of parts of it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=MUryO_vJT1o I survived the ordeal and am more or less fine now. I returned to my practice and made further progress along the dukka nanas. Hope that gives a small window into things :)

Please note that pathological DP/DR is different to falling into the pit of the void. My symptoms were reduced by going for walks, lying on grass, wasting heavy foods. I still suffered almost unbearably, but these things gave me brief respite. Sufferers of DP/DR are not so lucky.

It's hard to be sure what he's talking about, because obviously the Pali canon doesn't use the modern definition of DP/DR.
In the video he says a few things to describe what he's talking about:

That it's "DP/DR"
That it's very rare (so very rare that it shouldn't be used as a reason for not meditating)
That whereas enlightenment is liberating and makes your life bigger or fear-free, the "Falling into the Pit of the Void" experience/phenomenon that he's talking is the exact opposite of that
That it might even be the same (the usual) realization (of emptiness) as enlightenment/liberation, however in these (allegedly rare) cases the person reacts to it differently
That he (as a teacher) treats it by saying to such a student, "That's good! Now that you know emptiness you can rebuild yourself better than before" and then (like a physiotherapist would with an injured person) forces them to exercise (e.g. to concentrate on positive virtues)
He uses the word "nihilism"

I suspect that the description in the Pali canon (of derealization if not of depersonalization) might be of bhanga, see for example the descriptions in this answer.
I find it difficult to think of any place in the suttas where the results of meditation are described as pathological -- but one place might be the Vesali Sutta (which might be a description of nihlism).

The video doesn't say so but I wonder whether pathology/disorder might be understood as some imbalance (see for example, Balancing the spiritual faculties).

On the subject of "mindfulness" as a possible antidote, according to modern psychology "feelings of unreality (depersonalization or derealization)" can be among the symptoms of "panic disorder" and "acute stress reaction" ... and (to some extent Westernized) "mindfulness based stress reduction programs" is one of the clinical techniques that psychological therapists use to help to treat that.

Mindfulness is just open awareness. Practising mindfulness is what lead me to falling into the pit of the void. I would recommend stopping practice when that happens, or certainly not pushing yourself. It's certainly not an antidote to the depersonalisation that occurs as a result of practice. Pathological DP/DR is different to falling into the pit of the void, despite the symptoms.

Many practitioners experience some kind of "terror".  This would be a good sign of advancement in ones development.  The Dhamma teaches 'no self' for the development of 'right view'.
When ever personal identity is undermined in some way there is inevitably a sense of threat.  When the aggregates-of-clinging are seen as 'not self' this may bring up this sense of threat.  Confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma and community of practitioners will steady such a sense.
Fun can be had with this kind of 'terror'.  For example walking backwards over a sidewalk kerb, into the camber of a (quiet!) street, with one's eyes closed, so as to deliberately set-up an 'unexpected' shock, could be one way of 'investigating' such a sense of terror in nearly perfect safety.  Such a procedure could be repeated as often as required to render this experience as 'nothing special': an improved sense of self confidence may even result.
(As a secondary question -- I'd be happy to read or chat with anyone who could share their personal experience with/knowledge of depersonalization occurring as a result of meditation.)

Since the progress in complex if one likes to follow it just by thought and not just doing it by simply practicing the eightfold path, this might be useful to answer the question: Selves & Not-self The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
There are also stages of depersonalisation, the first is Stream-Enter where one gains a first glimpse of it and is directed to Nibbana.
In regard of your question:

As a secondary question- could anyone share their personal experience
  with/knowledge of depersonalization occurring as a result of meditation?

You will not find something satisfying, since:

Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what
  exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to
  explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies
  beyond range.

And even the Buddha did not share such. The task is done, that's it.
Maybe some of the Verses of there Theragata (the Verses of the Elder Monks) or Therigata (Verses of the Elder Nuns) are useful to get an impression.

I think that 'depersonalization' and 'derealization' are words which identify pathological conditions or psychological disorders: "enlightenment's evil twin" -- so the OP wasn't asking about a wholesome abandonment of identity-view

Atma thought so as well and thanks for the care, valued Upasaka Chris! But at least there are two points, why nevertheless such answer is given. 1) Because there are many areas which are thought to be bad form a psychological view, which are actually right the other way and 2) the question "the phenomenon of "depersonalization" is described in the Pali Canon" which hints to either really liking to know how it works, or finding this mad phenomena or disorder. Depersonalization actually is 100% order.

The 9 'successive extinctions'( as it is said in A. IX, 31) :
In the step 7 it says "..., the perception ... consciousness is extinguished".

"In him who has entered the 1st absorption, the sensuous perceptions
  (kāma-saññā) are extinguished.
Having entered the 2nd absorption, thought-conception and discursive
  thinking (vitakkavicāra, q.v.) are extinguished.
Having entered the 3rd absorption, rapture (pīti, q.v.) is
  extinguished.
Having entered the 4th absorption, in-and-out breathing
  (assāsa-passāsa, q.v.) are extinguished.
Having entered the sphere of boundless space (ākāsānañcāyatana), the
  corporeality perceptions (rūpa-saññā) are extinguished.
Having entered the sphere of boundless consciousness
  (viññānañcāyatana), the perception of the sphere of boundless space is
  extinguished.
Having entered the sphere of nothingness (ākiñcaññāyatana), the
  perception of the sphere of boundless consciousness is extinguished.
Having entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception
  (neva-saññā-nāsaññāyatana) the perception of the sphere of nothingness
  is extinguished.
Having entered the extinction of perception and feeling
  (saññāvedayitanirodha) perception and feeling are extinguished."

Apparently the video says that meditators sometimes, rarely but pathologically, move towards Depersonalization. The question asks for a reference to where this rare pathology is mentioned in the Pali canon.

@ChrisW  Edited the answer, Is this Ok?

I haven't watched the video (I can't comment on whether it reveals he doesn't understand enlightenment); but the question is, "Could anyone provide the source(s) of the claim by the gentleman that the phenomenon of 'depersonalization' is described in the Pali Canon?" Perhaps your answer is that "depersonalization" isn't described anyway? Or that the gentleman was mistaken when he thought he saw "depersonalization" in real life meditators? Beware that the video probably isn't talking about normal/correct progress but about a relatively rare form of mental illness which a few people develop.

within the meditations even the stream-enterer may experience the non-self  reality.


text:
Teachings that Inspire Practice
Where, on the internet, are motivational ebooks, blog entries or whatever that have concise motivating advice, excerpts, quotes and koans  that might motivate one to practice?

Here's an easy one - you only think you have time.

Cold Mountain is a great collection of such poems.
The ultimate motivation: look at your cemetary ground.

Read the nice anecdotes of Ajaan Fuang. A small selection below.

§ A woman came to Wat Dhammasathit to observe the precepts and
  meditate for a week, but by the end of the second day she told Ajaan
  Fuang that she had to return home, because she was afraid her family
  couldn't get along without her. He taught her to cut through her
  worries by saying, "When you come here, tell yourself that you've
  died. One way or another, your family will have to learn to fend for
  themselves."
§ "We keep disagreeable people around the monastery as a way of
  testing to see if our defilements really are all gone."
§ "Don't make a journal of your meditation experiences. If you do,
  you'll start meditating in order to have this or that thing happen, so
  that you can write it down in your journal. And as a result, you'll
  end up with nothing but the things you've fabricated."
§ "When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't
  go well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's
  good, why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be
  long before your meditation becomes a skill."
§ A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been
  meditating for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His
  immediate response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You
  meditate to let go."
§ "You should watch visions (in meditation) the same way you watch TV:
  Just watch it, without getting pulled inside the tube."


text:
Why is Rupa (not) Ultimate Reality?
When we see "a car' then there is the "seeing of the car formation" and that is mind or "nama". At the same time there is the rupa car formation that is not a concept from our mind. I always thought rupa was "the experience or hardness , softness, roughness ect.. but I guess this is wrong because rupa is it's own ultimate reality?

According to the Abhidhamma, we don't "see a car". It is a bit more complicated :-)
According to the Abhidhamma, sensing involves seeing a small patch of colour. The small patch of colour is rūpa, an ultimate reality.
How small is this patch of colour? Extend your arm and hold out your thumb. Scientists say that the size of your thumbnail as compared to your entire field of vision is what that retina can process at one instant. The rods and cones of the retina respond to specific colours.
Once this small patch of colour (the ultimate reality) has been seen, it becomes a concept (the tadanuvattikā manodvāravīthi process). Sensing is finished and now thinking takes over. The first thing that thinking does is the “grasp the object as a whole” (samudāyagāhikā); in other words, thinking builds up the entire field of vision from these “thumbnail-sized” patches of colour.
How is this done? It is not in the linear mechanical way that a TV screen image is built up. Scientists say that the eye focuses first on areas of high contrast, on faces and on movement before filling in the rest of the scene.
Once the entire scene has been built up, the thinking mind recognizes colours (vaṇṇasallakkhaṇā). Next, a shape or “entity” is extracted from the pattern of colours (vatthugāhikā). Next is the thinking process of recognizing the share or “entity” (vatthusallakkhaṇā). Next is a thinking process of gasping the name (car in the example you gave) (nāmagāhikā) and the thinking process of recognizing the name (nāmasallakkhaṇā).
Scientists explain that the activity in the brain extends from the visual cortex to involve memory.
Of course, next comes the idea of the car, judgements and associations regarding the car, obsessions and fantasies about the car.
What we see is the ultimate reality of a small patch of colour. Once seeing of this small patch of colour is complete, then thinking of concepts takes over.
This is explained in Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" (page 164).

In traditional Hindu use of the words Rupa and Nama (in context of ontology), Rupa meant a configuration of matter and Nama meant a spirit or an identity embodied in that configuration. For example this particular combination of wooden planks is a Rupa, while the chair it embodies is a Nama. Even if some parts of the chair can get broken and replaced making it a different Rupa, it still remains the same Nama. Similarly, as the person gets older, the previous Rupa is nowhere to be found, but the Nama remains the same.
From this you can see that Rupa is not the Ultimate Reality, far from it. Rupa is just a transient configuration. This was well-known even before the Buddha.
What Buddha brought in, is clear understanding that Nama is a projection of the mind, that Nama is a conditioned phenomena too and is therefore impermanent.
As was famously said (SN 5.10):

So do you believe there's "a being"?
  -- this is a view of Mara.
  In a pile of mere components (sankhara)
   no any such being found.
  Just as they say 'chariot'
  of an assemblage of parts,
  So they'll call "a being"
  the mere heaps of components (skandha).

Here the pile of components is the Rupa, and the being / the chariot is the Nama.
So Rupa cannot be the Ultimate Reality, because it is compound and transient. Now, your next question could be, "but what about matter? can't matter be considered the Ultimate Reality?" - and the traditional answer to that is, the atoms are still made from pieces and those pieces are too made from pieces, so no matter how small we go things are always compound and transient. That is to say, as you go all the way down there is nothing like solid matter, there is only Rupa, transient configuration.

I think it is not correct to say "seeing of the car formation". When "you" see "a car" that is nama-rupa; it is just seeing - no doer nor object. The concept of "Car" is just mind-made.  Yes rupa is the experience of hardness, softness etc. But when you see a car, can you "see" the hardness, softness etc? So rupa is not the ultimate reality.

To continue this discussion further we must have an agreement of the (Dhamm) terms "Nama", "Rupa" and "Nama-Rupa" that we are using in this Question and answers.
There are three things to consider.
1). The Basic materials (Rupa Dhatu)/(particles).
2). The material creation / Form/physical phenomena- (a car)(Nama-Rupa).
3). The Perception/ Mental Formations.- (Nama Dhamma)
There are two usages according the difference of the understanding about the "car".
1). There is a car. (Aththi) - considering the structure as a thing.
2). There is no car. (Naththi) - considering the parts, No whole-( a thing).
But there is a “Mid point” (Kaccanagotta Sutta).

“‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’:
  this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these
  extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle:

3). When there is a person to perceive, then only "the car" exist.
(There is no sound in the forest-This is very special-Unique- finding in Buddhism).
We should use "Nama-Rupa" for this car. Because it is mental formation (sankhara).
It is Mind-made. (“Manopubbaṅgamā dhammā,manoseṭṭhā manomayā;”).Dhammapada

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all
  mind-wrought.

Is there three things?
1). Can we sence/ identify (Rupa)Dhatu? - (Particals) -    No.  -  (Allways we sence whole lot).
2). Can we identify/ Sence separate (Nama) Dhatu? -    No.  -  (Allways we sence whole( single) feeling/Thought).
3). Can we sence/identify Consepts (Nama-Rupa)? -     Yes.  -  (It is mental creation).
 (In Any scale we sence only "Nama-Rupa"). So we cannot divide this to three. Only Nama-Rupa process(Vinnana) is the reality.
In Majjhesutta - 'Nama' is one end, 'Rupa' is the second end, Vinnana is middle,..

“nāmaṃ kho, āvuso, eko anto, rūpaṃ dutiyo anto, viññāṇaṃ majjhe,

Then what is Rupa?(Rupa Dhatu)?
We may assume we feel hardness, softness, roughness ext.  ...But they are all mental creations.
We can Know only the nature / Behavior of Rupa, Or its own ultimate reality - The Impermanency (Anithya) . (By using our own developed "Dhamma Chakku"-(Using Vipassana Mditation)/(Zazen)).
Then what is Nama?(Nama Dhamma)?
Our Thought process)/(Vinnana process) may identify (intention, attention, contact, feeling, discrimination) or (Vedana, Sanna, Chethana, Passa, manasikara) and any other mental factors(combination of Chathasikas).
But these are also mental creations. (There is no way -other than analyzing -to identify them. Except Using vipassana  to see the Anithya).
We cannot divide our experiences to”Nama” or “Rupa”. Because every experience need Rupa for create form(Nama-Rupa) and Nama for identifying or feel them.  without “Nama” no experience and none can be happen without "Rupa".
So finally we can consider only "Nama-Rupa".
In English What is the word for this?
When somebody is watching something for so long they stop seeing details.

Are you agree on this?

Here's my guess — however it's an unreferenced statement in Wikipedia.
Reality in Buddhist sutras

We can look at the concepts of impermanence and not-self in objective terms, for example by deconstructing the concept of an aggregated object such as a lotus and seeing that the flower is made up entirely of non-flower elements like soil, nutrients, photosynthetic energy, rain water and the effort of the entities that nourished and grew the flower. All of these factors, according to the Diamond Sutra, co-exist with each other to manifest what we call a 'flower'. In other words, there is no essence arisen from nothingness that is unique and personal to any being. In particular, there is neither a human soul that lives on beyond the death of the physical body nor one that is extinguished at death since, strictly speaking, there is nothing to extinguish. The relative reality (i.e., the illusory perceived reality) comes from our belief that we are separate from the rest of the things in the universe and, at times, at odds with the processes of nature and other beings. The ultimate or absolute reality, in some schools of Buddhist thought, shows that we are inter-connected with all things. The concept of non-discrimination expands on this by saying that, while a chair is different from a flower, they 'inter-are' because they are each made of non-flower and non-chair elements. Ultimately those elements are the same, so the distinction between chair and flower is one of quantity not of quality.

So:

The quote starts with "deconstructing the concept" (to see Rupa instead of seeing Nama).

Secondly it mentions "relative reality" which I think refers to Nama again, e.g. "that thing is named 'chair' and that other thing is named 'table': by comparing and naming them we see them as relatively different.
(see also "the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao" etc.).

Lastly it says that "ultimate reality" (which is what the OP asks about) is that we are interconnected, and I think its reason for saying that is that everything is created from the same stuff (i.e. Rupa) -- maybe that's saying that Rupa is more ultimately real (at the risk of introducing an anachronistic modern-science word, maybe Rupa is more "elemental").

From the context of the Wikipedia quote it might be a Mahayana doctrine (e.g. the quote mentions the Diamond sutra).

From Ven. Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", ultimate reality(paramattha) can be seen as 4-fold: citta, cetasika, rupa, and Nibbana. These 4 are further classified into Sankhata(the conditioned) and ASankhata(the un-conditioned). Citta(mind/consciousness) and cetasika(mental factors) belong to the Nama(mentality) group, while Rupa is the materiality group. Both are under Sankhata. Only Nibbana is under ASankhata. A quick layout as below:
Paramattha(ultimate reality):
 |__1. Sankhata(the conditioned)
 |                 i. Nama(mentality): citta(mind/consciousness) and cetasika(mental factors)
 |                 ii. Rupa(materiality): forms
 |
 |__2. ASankhata(the un-conditioned)
                     Nibbana

The original question is about Brahmanism (namarupa-vyakarana) rather than about Buddhism.
The term 'nama-rupa' is confusing for many students of Buddhism because, in many suttas, the Buddha was speaking to Brahmans. Since those Brahmans did not understand the terminology of Buddhism, when the Buddha spoke to them, he was referring to nama-rupa as it was understood in Brahmanism.
(In addition, there are suttas obviously composed after the Buddha died probably for the purpose of preaching to & converting Brahmans, such as DN 15, since these suttas contradict the core principles of what the Buddha taught).
In Buddhism, a 'a car' is a sense-object of form (rūpāyatanaṃ) rather than 'rupa' (the physical body) as found in the term 'nama-rupa'.
The "seeing of the car formation" is eye contact (phassa) dependent on viññāṇa (consciousness) rather than "nama". "Nama' is defined as 'feeling, perception, intention, (internal) contact & attention (SN 12.2), and also other mental faculties, such as mindfulness (MN 111).
Therefore, that the car is a material thing (rupa dhatu) is an ultimate reality since, no matter how small the atoms of a car are broken down into smaller particles, those particles remain as rupa dhatu (material elements). Being rupa dhatu, the rupa dhatu contains no 'self' within it.
The essential matter about ultimate reality is the car is anatta (not-self) & sunnata (empty of self) since the car can never be held to permanently belong to any owner (due to its impermanence).
The car does not really have an 'owner'. This is the ultimate reality the Buddha was concerned with.

The eye is not yours: let go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness & benefit. Forms are not yours...
  Eye-consciousness is not yours... Eye-contact is not yours... Whatever
  arises in dependence on eye-contact, experienced either as pleasure,
  as pain, or as neither-pleasure-nor-pain, that too is not yours: let
  go of it. Your letting go of it will be for your long-term happiness &
  benefit.
SN 35.101


text:
Once nirvana is reached is there any connection to earth available?
In Buddhism what information is there regarding the ability to communicate back to Earth from those who have transcended and reached Nirvana?
Is it possible or probable that those who attain Nirvana, die, and reach Parinibbana would/could try to help guide others?

Surely you mean Parinibbana.

In Ajahn Mun Buridatto Thera's biography he recounts to his disciples several times being visited by the Buddha followed by a retinue of Arhats. I believe the canonical stance is the Buddha is neither dead nor reborn.
His physical body is no longer existent but the position on the astral body isn't clear.
As others have said, all the Buddhas exist in the dhamma, and in every moment of mindfulness.

The short answer is no.
When the Buddha attained Nirvana, he exclaimed (Dhammapada 153 - 154):

Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house (of life). Repeated birth is indeed
  suffering!
O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
  mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
  craving.

Explanation:

According to the commentary, these verses are the Buddha's "Song of
  Victory," his first utterance after his Enlightenment. The house is
  individualized existence in samsara, the house-builder craving, the
  rafters the passions and the ridge-pole ignorance.

So, thereafter, he would no longer be born again in any world or in any form again. Hence, there is no way that he can communicate with Earth directly. So, how does the Buddha reach people now?
From the Vakkali Sutta:

"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the
  Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see
  the Blessed One."
"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

This means that when one sees his teachings, one sees him.
And from the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

Then the Blessed One said to Ven. Ananda, "Now, if it occurs to any of
  you — 'The teaching has lost its authority; we are without a Teacher'
  — do not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed
  out & formulated for you, that will be your Teacher when I am gone.

This should be a comment, But I can't comment yet since my points are less than 50 and below is as of my understanding.
You are in a wrong view called 'Sakkaya Ditti' in Pali. You always think there is person, and he will attain Nirvana. But it is wrong. What lord Buddha praeches is neither 'Sakkaya Ditti' nor a 'Uchcheda Ditti'. He didn't preach there is a person. and He didn't preach there is not a person. There is only connections between continuously changing things.
If we took a tower build by stones, actually there is nothing called 'tower' but set of stones. Like wise, if we consider a person, there is nothing but set of things. Lets say you are 40 years old now. What are the things you have in your body when you are 1 year old? Nothing right? But how you can be recognize now as same you in age 1? because of the connection between things changed.
Nirvana is ending of having these set of things (person). That means, there will not be 'a person' when you attain Nirvana. I suggest you to read more about 'Pattichcha Samudpaada'.

Good answer. Virtue is like light that dispels the darkness, though we recognize a lighthouse emits more light than a flashlight, they are mere objects, what we are interested in is the light, and the quality of the smallest unit of light is the same from any source.

In the Lotus Sutra chapter "Immeasurable Life Span of the Thus Come One", Buddha states -
“You must listen carefully and hear of the thus come one’s secret and his transcendental powers. In all the worlds the heavenly and human beings and asuras all believe that the present Shakyamuni Buddha, after leaving the palace of the Shakyas, seated himself in the place of enlightenment not far from the city of Gaya and there attained supreme perfect enlightenment. But good men, it has been immeasurable, boundless hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions of nayutas of kalpas since I in fact attained buddhahood."
Further he states -
At that time the Buddha said to the multitude of great bodhisattvas: “Good men, now I will state this to you clearly. Suppose all these worlds, whether they received a particle of dust or not, are once more reduced to dust. Let one particle represent one kalpa. The time that has passed since I attained buddhahood surpasses this by a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a million nayuta asamkhya kalpas.
“Ever since then I have been constantly in this saha world, preaching the Law, teaching, and converting. And elsewhere I have led and benefited living beings in hundreds, thousands, ten thousands, millions of nayutas and asamkhyas of lands."
In other words, Shakyamuni Buddha states he had been enlightened since the remote past, unlike what people believed that he attained Buddhahood for the first time under the Bodhi tree. Since he attained Buddhahood, he had been preaching the Law to countless beings. That should be documentary proof enough that nirvana does not stop rebirth - even the Buddha is born time and again in order to preach the Great Law.

There is some misconception floating around regarding nirvana. Nirvana doe NOT mean that one is free from the cycle of rebirth. It means that one is free from suffering in the cycle of rebirth.
Rebirth in Buddhism is inevitable and cannot be escaped from. This is because of the law of causality - since every moment we create causes, we must exprience the effects in later times in our lives and environment. These effects are created in the depths of one's life the moment a cause is made (through action, word and thoughts), but much of it may not be apparent till it manifests in real life. Such effects exist, but stay in latent form in the depths of our lives till a manifest cause brings them into the fore.
Active life is the manifestation of such effects - latent karma brought into action. Life is an expression of the law of causality. Death (or passive life) is the other manifestation. Since the law is constant, so is life and death, therefore the cycle of birth and rebirth is constant. There is no escape from it, I think its a misconception that nirvana means freedom from this cycle.
True freedom is not being free of problems - it is to be able to employ the power of Buddhism freely to overcome sufferings and create a truly happy life.

I fail to see why this answer is being so vigorously downvoted, without any comments to argue why it is wrong.

A very important ability of any person, a Buddhist or not, is to be able to refute any point with clear and concise argument. Thank you Krishnaraj Rao, for pointing this out.

"Nirvana does NOT mean that one is free from the cycle of rebirth" is contradictory to basic Buddhist doctrines of every tradition. Nirvana implies the end of future rebirth.

The Buddha and Arhats are said to be trackless because they generate no new karma.

@Buddho, What you are saying Nirvana is, Arahats exists with no Karma? hence no suffering?

@JohnFonseka they don't suffer in the conventional sense. Even the Buddha is said to need more jhanic rest on account of aches and pains in his old age, there's a sutta where he mentions his bodily pains outside of deep meditation to Ananda. That is the preexisting karma of human birth. Rebirth is avoided by first extinguishing and secondly by not creating any new karma.

@Buddho, I agree that untill someone dies even if they are Arahats, they suffer from Karma. According to Patichcha Samudpada, rebirth is not avoided by creating new Karma. It's 'Bhawa' (භව) which is the main and prominent cause to rebirth (We will re-born as per the Karma however). Even if we have Karma, we will not reborn without 'Bhawa' (extinguishing ends desire and therefore the cycle of Patichcha Samudpada breaks). Am I wrong here?

@JohnFonseka Without clearing karma we can't get to the point where we can drop clinging. It is not either bhava or karma, it is both, they function together. Clearing karma happens through meditation, through good deeds and right living and through the grace of the Buddhas.

@ruben2020 That nirvana means end of future rebirth is according to expedient teachings of the Buddha, not according to his true teachings contained in the Lotus Sutra, the supreme Mahayana teaching that the Buddha preached during the last 8 years of his life. Further it is important to realise that Buddhism accords with reason and common sense. That a being could stop future rebirths (the concept of rebirth is theoretical because it cannot be practically proved) goes against the Law of Causality on which Buddhism is based on the first place.

@Buddho Karma represents cause and effect, and it is not necessarily bad. Every entity has karma, even non-sentients like an object, rock or mountain

@Buddho, well I don't agree with you here. Seems like we are on 2 different paths. I believe Patichcha Samudpaada and according to that, main and prominent reason to rebirth is 'Bhava'. Even if we have so much Karma to paid off, we are free from desire and hence 'Upaadana', we will not be born. And I don't agree to that we can 'clear our Karma through meditation'. May be I have to learn more to agree with you sir.

@JohnFonseka I am not a theoretical expert, I only speak what I feel is the truth, I could definitely be wrong. I think books can mislead, one ought to pursue the truth with original insight born of meditation. Doing good deeds, meditating on original realization one will surely find the way.