text:
Why are Mahayana texts in Sanskrit?
Based on the quote below, it seemed that the Buddha did not allow his teachings to be translated to the royal or priestly language of Sanskrit, that was the liturgical language of Brahmanism, the language of classical literature and the language used by the royal court.
The common people at the time did not speak Sanskrit in their daily conversations. They spoke various dialects of Prakrit. The Buddha wanted his teachings to be transmitted in the dialects of the common people.
It appears that Pali, although not a genuinely spoken language of the past, seems to be a mix of various Prakrit dialects from Buddha's time, that underwent partial Sanskritization.
It also makes sense to me that the Pali Canon was transmitted mostly by oral tradition and was written down only late in its history compared to Mahayana texts because Sanskrit was the main written language for a long time in northern India. This is similar to the role of Latin in European history.
I also guess that the Chinese scholar monks who visited India, took with them the Sanskrit Mahayana texts back to China, instead of the Pali Canon, partly because the Sanskrit texts were committed to writing much earlier, while the Pali Canon was still transmitted mostly orally at the time.
Question:
If the Buddha did not want his teachings to be taught in Sanskrit, why and how did the Indian Mahayana texts (agamas, sutras, vinaya etc.) end up being in Sanskrit?
According to the (Theravada) Vinaya from Cullavagga, fifth Khandaka, chapter 33:

And so sitting those Bhikkhus spake to the Blessed One thus:
'At the present time, Lord, Bhikkhus, differing in name, differing in
  lineage, differing in birth, differing in family, have gone forth
  (from the world). These corrupt the word of the Buddhas by (repeating
  it in) their own dialect. Let us, Lord, put the word of the Buddhas
  into (Sanskrit) verse.'
'How can you, O foolish ones, speak thus, saying, "Let us, Lord, put
  the word of the Buddhas into verse?" This will not conduce, O foolish
  ones, either to the conversion of the unconverted, or to the increase
  of the converted; but rather to those who have not been converted
  being not converted, and to the turning back of those who have been
  converted.'
And when the Blessed One had rebuked those Bhikkhus, and had delivered
  a religious discourse, he addressed the Bhikkhus, and said:
'You are not, O Bhikkhus, to put the word of the Buddhas into
  (Sanskrit) verse. Whosoever does so, shall be guilty of a dukkata. I
  allow you, O Bhikkhus, to learn the word of the Buddhas each in his
  own dialect.'

This question built upon wrong assumption, if the OP is not with special agenda. I doubt the OP's asking in his sincerity, from various posts by the OP in this forum, he is a Theravadin. And, very important, the scripts being translated to Chinese Sutras were not Sanskrit, they were from different dialects, major script was Prakrit.

Some fragments of original scrolls are still kept in some monasteries esp. those dedicated to the great Dharma Masters such as Kumarajiva and Xuanzang, also scrolls discovered in Dunhuang Caves are in dialectic scripts, not Sanskrit.

The 1st Buddhist Council had organized the 12 sections (major portions were Chinese Mahayana Sutras) of Sutras and written down on white-cloth in 4 scripts (excluded Pali script for it was not invented until 1000 years later by Buddhaghosa), recorded in Agamas and Vinayas. I wonder if that piece of equivalent Pali Sutta remained untranslated yet or missing - ? I will write an answer when have time. But I'm afraid here too many pretenders who don't care or respect truth.

@Mishu米殊 You're welcomed to write an answer. From reading, I found that there were around 18 schools of Indian Buddhism originating from Mahasamghika and Sthaviravada (not Theravada), who have suttas or agamas in either Pali or Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (BHS). Pali is partially Sanskritized mix of Prakrit dialects, while BHS is post-Vedic Sanskrit with some Prakrit influence. Old, middle and new parts of the canon have linguistic variations - so not 2 (Pali, BHS) but more. So, it's not black or white. It's all many shades of gray. It's unfortunate that most of these schools are extinct today.

Thanks @ruben2020. Early 18 Schools' Sutras and Vinayas are inherited in the Chinese Tripitaka, even Mahasamgika's the most original. Faxian travelled to Ceylon but only took back Mahisasaka's, your qouted Pali vinaya when it produced? Why no Chinese pilgrims took back any existing "Pali Canon", because oral? - But Mahasamgika's wasn't written (not oral, but because vinaya for Bhiksus only didn't want laity learnt to criticize), Chinese Bhiksu learnt it by heart and installed to Chinese Samgha. Pali 1st made its presence in Pali Canon, its artificially created to write Pali Suttas, a fact.

@Mishu米殊 Do take a look at the Introduction chapter of this book. The name "Pali" and the script to write it is maybe new and/or artificial, but the language bearing the name is simply an extinct Prakrit dialect (probably from Magadha or Kosala), replaced by Classical Sanskrit and modern dialects. It's extinct for all purposes except the Pali Canon. Some even speculate that "Pali" is shortened form of "Pataliputra" or "Pataligrama", the name of the Magadhan town or village where it may have originated.

@Mishu米殊 It could be the case that Chinese pilgrim monks did not take the Pali Canon back to China, for the same reason why Theravadins did not take the Heart Sutra or the Lotus Sutra. The different sects simply did not recognize or accept each other.

Your book resulted a 13MB of data I thought it was a link @ruben2020, the book is endorsed by a Sri Lankan PhD who promoted Theravada totalled 600-700 pages I wonder if its neutral opinion, if worth to read. From Chinese Wikipedia, Sri Lankan monks claimed discoverying a Pali version of Vimuttimagga in a monastery but later carbon-dated to modern "artifact" of recent made, I lost faith of the sincerity and trust of the Sri Lankan scholars. That said, Sri Lanka is great with natural resources like tea, ruby; the people are diligent and royal. (Vim. is regarded...

... the mother Sastra of Visudhimagga, existed only in Chinese Tripitaka.)There are different versions of same Sutras from different sources, e.g. Heart Sutras 6 versions, Lankavatara 2, individual Sutras from Agamas, Samyukta Agama likely from Ceylon, but WHY PALI CANON NEVER COLLECTED BY CHINESE PILGRIMS??? They were to collect all the treasures left by the Buddha, undiscrimingly, from all different schools. I wrote an answer but my computer hanged, not sure if I could recover. During writing I found many sources giving accounts on Pali are edited - edited to argue its a real language...

... I'm not sure if its worth to answer this post, obviously an individual cannot resist the institution. The more I listed as evidences the skillful they can edit the facts. If you, and all those enjoy colaborating consciously or unconsciously in editing a Buddist Bible, like the church did on Christainity, it is your own Karma.

Anyhow Buddhism is at its deteriorating after 2500 years. You can advertise all the early Buddhists were following unauthentic Mahayana teaching from ~425BC to late 200 years ago (Mahayana was domainate doctrines during sad-dharma period the 1st 500 years for Buddha Shakyamuni, mentioned also in Pali Canon), only now you learnt people, Theravadins and Western scholars are learning the authentic Suttas based on Pali Canon the Early Buddhist Texts - Buddhist Bible. Sure there are many believers nodding heads clapping feet to approve. But these people can talk to our toes only.

@Mishu米殊 I just downloaded and started reading the book "Sects and Sectarianism: the origins of Buddhist schools" by Bhikkhu Sujato. I think it will be interesting.

Believe in the Island History of [Ceylon] the Dīpavaṁsa, Theravadin Sujato Bhikkhu who wrote Lotus Sutra a fake @ruben2020. All other Early 17/18 Schools schismatic except one on Ceylon called Theravada (Wikipedia said many scholars contesting Dipavamsa's trustfulness, haven't rechecked since, if it's edited?) Can Sujato Bhikkhu read Chinese 異部宗輪論, 部執異論, or Xuanzang, Yijing, etc their travel journals. Alas! Only Theravada were not schismatic + Dipavamsa correct + Buddha speaking Pali + Sujato right, all others were wrong learning unauthentic Mahayana teachings faked by the 17/18 Schools :)

@Mishu米殊 Actually, Sujato Bhikkhu isn't really against Mahayana. He wrote in the Sects and Sectarianism book that he doesn't agree with the Dipavamsa: "They (Mahayana) are ‘schismatic’ and it is impossible to accept them as part of the same communion. This view, ultimately traced to the Dīpavaṁsa, underlies the position taken by many mainstream Theravādins today. I intend to show how the Dīpavaṁsa’s position is incoherent and implausible, and that a more reasonable depiction of the origins of Buddhist schools can be constructed from a sympathetic reading of all the sources."

Let's make it the last, you may write, I'll read @ruben2020. Sujato in the conclusive pages argued the regional Early Schools mythologized the Buddha to gain authenticity - mythologized is an old tactic to defame Mahayana (computer hanged again I can't check) - devil is in the detail. Perhaps only you can believe Sujato not against Mahayana, read his articles. Any Bhikkhu openly written Lotus Sutra fake can never retrieve what spilt; even against conduct of a Bhikkhu. Perhaps just the same reason Chinese Pilgrims never taken Pali Canon, but also never made comment on it, just ignored it.

I'm afraid any answer to this is going to be speculative, so not a perfect SE question. Here is my theory:
Most of the early Mahayana texts were written either in Hybrid Sanskrit or in Gandhari Prakrit because their authors were the descendants of Aryans living in the Gandhara region. Historically, that area has always been much more "sanskritized" than the rest of India, see below for my explanation as to why.  So when Buddhism reached Gandhara, it was only natural for the educated locals to write their thoughts about Buddhism in a language that they both spoke and knew how to write - and that was Hybrid Gandhari Sanskrit.
Here is some background information in support of this thesis:

As you all know, Classical Sanskrit is an idealized written form of the language that the original Aryans actually spoke (some modern scientists call it "Prakrit" and other call it "Vedic Sanskrit"). Sort of like Classical Latin is an idealized written form of the language that the original Romans actually spoke.
Originally, Aryans came from Iran and settled in what today is south of Afghanistan, along what used to be Sarasvati river. Then, when the tectonic shifts in Himalayas made Sarasvati change its course and start falling into Ganges, the Aryan tribes started migrating further east, carrying their language and culture with them, and mixing with the indigenous population. This led to a range of dialects emerging along the Ganges, from the purest form of Vedic Sanskrit in the west to the most corrupted vernaculars in the east. This process was accompanied by social stratification, with "more civilized" Aryans on the top and "less civilized" locals at the bottom - this was how the infamous casts or varnas begun.
Sorry about the map labels being in Russian, I drew it a long time ago and don't have time at the moment to fix the labels. But from the overall shape and the colors, I hope you can see the state of Aryan assimilation by the time the Buddha comes on stage. The blue states on the left are more Aryan, speaking almost pure Sanskrit - and the orange states on the right are more the original people, speaking their own languages partially mixed with Sanskrit to form various dialects like e.g. Pali. The region of Gandhara is not highlighted on my map, but it is that area with multiple rivers  to the left of the leftmost Indian state.

There was a big university there in Gandhara, called Takshasila University - and thanks to the proximity of Persian and Greek Empires I suppose this region was a lot more educated and literate than the rest of India, back in the day.
Most of the Mahayana scripts written in Sanskrit (either Hybrid or Gandhari) were discovered at archaeological sites located in the Gandhara area.
Many of the great Mahayana lineages recognized in Tibetan Buddhism, trace their beginning to enlightened masters from Oddiyana which is basically the same area.
Sarvastivada school left their version of Canon written down in Sanskrit, and we know that Sarvastivada was essentially centered in that same very region of Gandhara/Oddiyana.
Milinda-Panha (Questions of King Milinda) - a late Canonical text whose story is set in Sagala, a city just to the east of Gandhara region, was probably originally written in the Gandhari language.
At least some of the Mahayana sutras only available in Chinese show linguistical evidence of having been translated from the Gandhari dialect of Sanskrit.

All this is to say that ancient people of Gandhara/Oddiyana who wrote Buddhist texts in Sanskrit did not violate Buddha's rule prescribing people to "learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect" - because Sanskrit was a written version of the language they actually spoke.
Then, from Gandhara, Buddhism has spread to other countries including China via the Silk Road, as well as Tibet.

Thanks, Andrei. Here is an equivalent map in English.

Yes, perfect. One thing it does not show though is the degree of Aryan assimilation as it changes from west to east, as I show with blue and orange colors.

Further to Andrei's answer, I imagine that Sanskrit or equivalent might have been like English is in India today -- i.e. many people know it (as a living language) and use it normally whenever they communicate with someone from/in a different State -- less of a "dead" and priests-and-academics-only language than Latin is now, maybe the bourgeoisie (such as that was) and any travellers (maybe wanderers) would have known it too, and so it's not surprising to find Sanskrit's being used everywhere other than in the native State[s].
But it's nice of the Buddha to approve of the teaching's being in the vernacular, and preserving it that way.
As evidence there is this ...

Sanskrit historically served as a lingua franca throughout the majority of India.

For some further background there is also this which claims that -- in the 7th century AD -- it was the urban merchants who tended to support Buddhism -- and that these merchants were influenced by the ruling class, and influenced by which remote States they were trading with -- unlike the peasants (farmers), who were more isolated in the country-side and more "Hindu" than "Buddhist".


text:
Is Papanca (i.e., hindrance) always unwholesome?
Is Papanca always unwholesome?
The above question is based on MN 18 the honey cake --
https://suttacentral.net/mn18
Ven. Thanissaro has given a detailed explanation in his translation --
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

What is the difference between papanca and sankhara, and in particular citta-sankhara?

If any papanca (objectification-classification or reification) results in thoughts which give rise to passion / lust / greed, aversion / hatred or delusion, then it's unwholesome.
If any papanca (objectification-classification or reification) results in thoughts which takes a person away from passion / lust / greed, aversion / hatred and delusion, then it's wholesome.
For e.g. if you feel compassion (karuna) or sympathetic joy (mudita) towards certain specific people based on their specific situation, that's considered wholesome.
However, ending papanca takes one to the end of suffering, which is beyond both wholesome and unwholesome.
Passion / greed, aversion and delusion are the roots of that which is not wholesome and not skillful according to AN 3.69 (and vice versa):

"Monks, there are these three roots of what is unskillful. Which
  three? Greed is a root of what is unskillful, aversion is a root of
  what is unskillful, delusion is a root of what is unskillful.
"A person like this — his mind overcome with evil, unskillful
  qualities born of greed... born of aversion... born of delusion, his
  mind consumed — dwells in suffering right in the here-&-now — feeling
  threatened, turbulent, feverish — and at the break-up of the body,
  after death, can expect a bad destination.
"Now, there are these three roots of what is skillful. Which three?
  Lack of greed is a root of what is skillful, lack of aversion is a
  root of what is skillful, lack of delusion is a root of what is
  skillful.
"In a person like this, evil, unskillful qualities born of greed...
  born of aversion... born of delusion have been abandoned, their root
  destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of
  development, not destined for future arising. He dwells in ease right
  in the here-&-now — feeling unthreatened, placid, unfeverish — and is
  unbound right in the here-&-now.

MN 19 talks about two types of thinking - skillful / wholesome and non-skillful / unwholesome.
From DN 21, desires come from thoughts and thoughts come from papanca (objectification-classification or reification):

"Desire has thinking as its cause, has thinking as its origination,
  has thinking as what gives it birth, has thinking as its source. When
  thinking exists, desire comes into being. When thinking is not, it
  doesn't."
"Thinking has the perceptions & categories of objectification (papanca) as
  its cause, has the perceptions & categories of objectification as its
  origination, has the perceptions & categories of objectification as
  what gives it birth, has the perceptions & categories of
  objectification as its source. When the perceptions & categories of
  objectification exist, thinking comes into being. When the perceptions
  & categories of objectification are not, it doesn't."

"Papanca have their cause in perception" according to Sn 4.11 but perception cannot be prevented. Papanca can be stopped by putting an end to the thought "I am the thinker" according to Sn 4.14:

Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
  clinging to nothing in the world?"
  "He should put an entire stop
  to the root of objectification-classifications:
  'I am the thinker.'
  He should train, always mindful,
  to subdue any craving inside him.

Papanca is reification or objectification-classification of perceived sensations relative to one's self. What is something and how is it related to me? Does it belong to me or someone else? Is it a threat to me or will it profit me?
The end of self-view will bring an end to reification (papanca). The end of reification will bring an end to the type of thinking that leads to desires. And desires lead to suffering.
Putting an end to self-view and reification is summarized in Ud 1.10:

"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In
  reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to
  the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the
  sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how
  you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in
  reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only
  the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference
  to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with
  that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you
  there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor
  between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

This is how I understand it too. But is there any Sutta support for this?

@SarathW I have added some quotes from the suttas to support this.

Nice answer, Sadhu!

With asekkhā sammāvimutti, or Right Freedom, there is no longer any need for a spiritual search. From DN33 we have:

Ten qualities of an adept: an adept’s right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right immersion, right knowledge, and right freedom.

With the cessation (and therefore non-arising) of defilements, the work is done.
If you consider the spiritual search to be a hindrance, then the answer to your question is, "Yes."

Nyom Sarath,
isn't your question driven by papanca? If skilful intended or not, Nyom would know possible. For his gain in the world? To go beyond?
Papanca is actually very needed for the path. Without that one misses, like most modern practing people, the governing principles, having missed first things first.
Only at the end of the path, on very refined level, objectivication will be total abonded. Fist it is necessary to develop qualities which give one not much need to be much burdened if the 18 question arise and a healthy self-estimate.
More on papanca, a ver nice teaching: The Arrows of Thinking: Papañca & the path to end conflict.
So one should be careful of one might become when associating with fools at first place in regard of the training and the taught.
"Today" the training of the Niganthas, the thieves is broadly addopted by "buddhists":

"On the Uposatha day (gathering together), they get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Having stripped off all your clothing, say this: "I am nothing by anything or of anything. Thus there is nothing by anything or of anything that is mine."' Yet in spite of that, his parents know of him that 'This is our child.' And he knows of them that 'These are my parents.' His wives & children know of him that 'This is our husband & father.' And he knows of them that 'These are my wives & children.' His workers & slaves know of him that 'This is our master.' And he knows of them that 'These are my workers & slaves.' Thus at a time when he should be persuaded to undertake truthfulness, he is persuaded to undertake falsehood. At the end of the night, he resumes the consumption of his belongings, even though they aren't given back to him. This counts as stealing, I tell you. Such is the Uposatha of the Jains, Visakha. When this Uposatha of the Jains is undertaken, it is not of great fruit or great benefit, not of great glory or great radiance.

Just look on internet how the "no selves" are not dear to steal...
It's possible good to count that with reaching the path raw kinds of objectification is abounded and merely "just a conventional way" of thinking and expressing, but still refering to ang object/being being the cause and effect of actions, on a refined level. At this point, having completed the virtue section of the path, the higher teaching can be applied effectively for beneficial result.
[Not given for trade, exchange, stacks]

Nibbāna itself is actually called, indirectly, the “unproliferated” in, say Aṅguttaranikāya 4.173 where it is called appapañcaṃ, or unproliferated, or unhypostatised, in the context of the phrase “appapañcaṃ papañceti”, or "proliferating that which is unproliferated."

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the meaning of ditthi visuddhi?
The third visuddhi of the Satta Visuddhi is "ditthi visuddhi". But what is the exact meaning of it ?

Please add more context and preferably references to your question. See also related question.

I wonder what this purification of insight practically means: is it the further realisation of the 8th folded Path, i.c. samma ditthi ?

Yes, it means having reached the path (magga), not really further. Not purified, people are still not practicing on the path, Nyom. Only if there is samma ditthi, other sammas will be not actually miccha in the "training".

Purificatiin of view:

'The divine eye is purified since it is a cause for Purification of View (diṭṭhi-visuddhi), owing to seeing passing away and reappearance of beings. One who sees only passing away and not reappearance assumes the annihilation view (uccheda-diṭṭhi); and one who sees only reappearance and not passing away assumes the view that new beings appear (nava-satta-pātubhava-diṭṭhi). But since one who sees both outstrips that twofold [false] view, that vision of his is therefore a cause for Purification of View. And the Buddha's sons see both of these.' (PsA 259; Vism 423)

Wisdom and the Seventy-Three Kinds of Mundane and Supramundane Knowledge, given by Ven. Bhikkhu Ñāṇadassana

The Nyanatiloka Buddhist Dictionary defines it as "purification of insight", though this book on meditation gets a lot more in depth on what that actually means in practice (look at chapter 3). I'm finding it difficult to summarize as it's a bit dense for a beginner like me, but you might be able to glean more meaning from it.

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


text:
Why would existence remove my knowledge after reicarnation?
Avidyā and moha which can be translated as confusion or ignorance are sources of suffering. The western term for the study of reality and knowledge is called "philosophy" which an be translated from the Greek as "the love of wisdom".
Rāga is also a term for attachment which is another source of suffering that is to say Buddhism tells you not to attach yourself to material or mental objects (including Buddhism) otherwise you will suffer and won't attain enlightenment.
If knowledge gives you a deeper understanding of reality and existence and makes you understand other beings and their need to escape suffering and knowledge makes you attain compassion, why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones again? Christian Gnostics believed that it's because this world is controlled by Satan and only holy knowledge can give you salvation. Is karma (which is a religious belief) the only answer Buddhism has to this matter?

I wonder if the analogy between Christianity and Buddhism is misleading here. Christianity claims to answer "why" questions such as why there is death and why there will be a resurrection, and if you don't believe the answers, you aren't considered orthodox. Does Buddhism even claim to explain why death and reincarnation exist?

@BenCrowell I think you are forgetting that buddhism is not just a philosophy but also a religion. Double check reincarnation, samsara, bardos, in buddhism.

What I'm suggesting is that you may be overgeneralizing what "religion" means based on the example of Christianity. There is secular Buddhism, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism . I certainly know Buddhists who don't believe in reincarnation. There are all kinds of common beliefs among Buddhists that are optional or provisional or culture-specific, e.g., the cosmology of Tibetan Buddhism. IIRC the Dalai Lama has made various statements like, "If science someday disproves X, then we should discard X," where X is a common Buddhist belief.

This question is based on this one https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5060/the-reptilian-conspiracy-theory-vs-buddhism not suitable for this channel.

why would nature be so cruel
"Cruel" sounds like dukkha -- as if nature were ill-willed and unkind, and we were averse to that.
So I guess that's among the many kinds of view or perception that we should overcome (in order to do away with dukkha), craving things to be other than they are -- though maybe also acknowledge whatever truth there is in it to become dispassionate about whatever is impermanent.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation
I suppose you're not supposed to see them as "your" memories and "your" wisdom.
They are memories, perhaps they are wisdom, but they are, "not mine, not me, not my self".
To some extent wisdom isn't removed -- from the world -- by death, in that the Dhamma continues to exist. I think that's similar to the view that there's a dharmakaya.

Buddhism most likely comes form Samkhya. In this philosophy material world or prakrti server purusa (spirit) In some Buddhist temple I was said that existence wants you to blossom in the same way a lotus flower blossoms. But I don't think  external factors help much for that goal. As far as I know dukha is also produced by Karmic reasons and this seems to be only real official explanation of the religion/philosophy

I don't understand most of the comment so I'll ignore it. Yes dukkha is important, some suttas end with the Buddha's saying, "Both formerly and now, I teach dukkha and its cessation" as if that's the essential summary. And yes some people or schools try the doctrine as a way to live in the world, with or without becoming a monk.

I think you wrongly assume that meditation and being able to close doors of perception even the idea of the ego is the only goal and only way to achieve enlightenment as opposed to knowledge, ethics or purification of karma doing good actions as explained in the eight-fold path. Buddhism as in Samkhya you are not ultimately responsible for your enlightenment since you don't know your remaining karma and it's not up only to your free-will.

I think you wrongly assume I don't think I assume that all, so I don't know where that comment came from but perhaps you're "projecting" and don't have a good/accurate model (i.e. Theory of mind).

maybe my English is not good enough, but I think your question is possibly based on a misconception. "Rebirth" – not re-incarnation as Brian Diaz Flores clarified – ist not a kind of "reset", so that you start as a blank paper again so that

you step on the same stones again?

Which would make Buddhism indeed very sadistic. Due to applying buddhist teachings in your life you will lay good foundations in your mind, which will bear fruits in next life. In fact this is the aim of all Hinayana-Teachings: Personal liberation due to ethical discipline.
It's not like having a "memory" as a mental factor. (Remembering past learnings). It's more like a healthy attitude you are strengthen life after life due to collect "merit". So some stones will vanish. (Hopefully)

Are you saying that somebody who was a Lama in a previous life can remember the 4 noble truths and the sources of suffering after rebirth or perhaps that rebirth will provide you with a different existence who gives that knowledge to you from birth? where are those steps or bardos defined in Buddhism? I have not found anything similar to that yet.

@PbxMan I think they're maybe meant to be an apt student, possibly born into a suitable environment. For example when the Dalai Lama is chosen as an infant, he is then trained, and studies e.g. from age 6 until he graduated age 23.

Nature is not a personal entity, as far as we know.
There are laws of nature, and those laws function independently of any moral or axiological (judgements of value) consideration. Reality is what it is, and it does not care about your evaluation of it. It makes no sense to judge it as "fair" or "unfair", mainly because those are subjective concepts.
Kamma is just one of those laws: any action has its consequences -in the mind and in the external world-, and the most important factor, especially when talking about suffering (and its perpetuation and cessation), is intention.
(By the way, 'kamma' just means "action", and it is not necessarily a religious or superstitious concept; it depends on your definition and understanding of it).
Think about this situation: one you were a child, you took a lot of decisions and made a lot of choices, and it is likely that most of those choices were made without major consideration or analysis of the potential consequences. And as a product of those decisions, you experimented some of those unreflected consequences, some of them probably until this very day.
Would you say that it is unfair that you "suffer" the consequences of unreflective deeds made by a child years ago, considering that you are not that child anymore?
Consequences, and laws of nature in general, all happen whether you like it or not, and the wisest thing you can do it to understand and accept those unavoidable laws, and learn how to act according to their influence.
Also bear in mind that "rebirth" (and not "reincarnation", because since there is no permanent self/soul, this latter concept is not part of most buddhist doctrines) is a controvertial topic, whether some buddhist like to accept it or not. So not everyone would agree with the idea of something (consciousness, memories, tendencies, etc.) continuing after biological/clinical death.
Kind regards!

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

why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones again?

One of the Noble truths is acknowledging that pain or suffering exists rather than denying it so perhaps nature or reality is naturally cruel.
But it's not really reincarnation rather rebirth or re-existence in one of the five realms (hell, the animal realm, realm of ghosts, humans, devas).
Birth as a human is extremely rare the majority of humans most likely came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts prior to this human existence (as implied in the Pansu suttas SN 56.102-113) and don't naturally automatically remember past existences it's only gained through developing one of the six higher knowledges (pubbe-nivāsanussati).

Christian Gnostics believed that it's because this world is controlled
  by Satan and only holy knowledge can give you salvation. Is karma
  (which is a religious belief) the only answer Buddhism has to this
  matter?

The concept of Satan might have originated in Buddhism as Mara the "Evil One" is a central figure in early Buddhism and pre-Buddhists religions seem to not have any Satan figure only post-Buddhist religions like Christianity and Islam which were obviously influenced by Buddhism since Ashoka sent Buddhist missionaries all around the world.
Kamma is one explanation but it's also explained in the suttas the nature of things is impermanent and subject to change.

I marked this post down. It is full of non-sense. SN 56.47 defines what "human birth" is. It is not something biological. The "human birth", per SN 56.47, is living a morally righteous life; not devouring or exploiting others. Best to read SN 56.47 rather than post non-sense about most humans reincarnated from hell. The suttas do not say this it all. The suttas (eg AN 6.39) say the human state is born from non-greed, non-hatred & non-delusion.

The Pansu Suttas say that most humans after death go to hell, the animal realm, or realm of ghosts implying that most new humans came from hellish worlds, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts...you are atheist pretending to be Buddhist modifying it to fit into your own personal views and biases clinging attached to views so incapable of seeing the truth, why not be Christian it's the nearly same as atheist you can enjoy your stay in hell, the animal realm, or the realm of ghosts after death

why would nature be so cruel to remove your memories and wisdom reincarnation after reincarnation to make you step on the same stones
  again?

There is no evidence for "reincarnation". Your question is unrelated to "reality". What you have called "ignorance" (of the Four Noble Truths) and "lust" ("raga") are related to reproductive & survival instincts. This things exists because nature creates 'raga"; which is probably related to the energy of chemical reactions & heat that propel physical creation.
The fact that there is no evidence of wisdom passing from life to life is evidence against reincarnation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism) does Buddhism allow you to make your own interpretation of it as you see fit?? If so it's way better than I thought. Ref. Needed please

Wikipedia does not understand Buddhism. the Buddha never taught reincarnation. this was added in after the Buddha passed away. When the Buddha referred to birth & death, he was referring to the ideas that "I am born" and "I will die" created by the deluded egoistic mind with self. "Birth" and "death" are self-views. This is what is literally explained in the scriptures. Regards

This is all wrong...part of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right View which includes the idea of rebirth it's part of very early Buddhism....if you don't believe so then why be Buddhist why not be atheist?

Sorry but the Noble Eightfold Path does not include the view of rebirth. You appear to have wrong understanding. In your comment, you appeared to slander both the Dhamma and myself. This is your karma.

Right View is part of the Eightfold Path and is defined as "‘There is what is given, sacrificed, and offered; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings spontaneously reborn; there are in the world ascetics and brahmins of right conduct and right practice who, having realized this world and the other world for themselves by direct knowledge, make them known to others.’" (AN 10.211 repeated elsewhere)
If after death it's just like sleeping in then why pursue enlightenment?

Sorry but "There is what is given... etc" does not form part of the NOBLE eightfold path. try reading the sutta (MN 117) with a clear mind. As I posted, your slandering of the the Dhamma and myself is your personal kamma, from which there will be results.

You are all wrong Right View is part of the Eightfold Path the reason why you disagree is because you probably never had experiences and are trying to pervert the true teachings into false atheistic views. It should be pretty easy to scientifically prove rebirth but looks like the world might be empty of arahant teachers. MN 117 is talking about Right View siding with merits but not saying it's false. Also where did you get the ridiculous that idea that it was added in after? Lol, the historical evidence clearly shows that most pre-Buddhist religions didn't have any afterlife concept

MN 117 right view with defilement, attachment & merit is NOT NOBLE. Regards

But you are trying to say that it's false more similar to atheistic views it's still stated as many times as a Wrong View to oppose the merit Right View...the Noble truth Right View is about stress leading towards arahantship but both are Right Views...also past existences are mentioned in 2 out of the 6 six higher knowledges either way I don't really want to debate about this anymore until I achieve arahantship and the six higher knowledges or come close since the world is full of pollutants, the unbelieving, wicked...even if you disbelieve then I hope you still try to generate merit

Noble Disciples do not generate merit. LOL


text:
Is become a stream-enterer (sotāpanna) enough?
I've quoted below from Ratana Sutta (The Discourse on the Jewels).

Ye ariyasaccāni vibhāvayanti
  Gambhīrapaññena sudesitāni
  Kiñcāpi te honti bhusappamattā
  Na te bhavam atthamam ādiyanti
  Idam pi sanghe ratanam panītam
  Etena saccena suvatthi hotu

~ Cited from: Ratana Sutta (Pāli Text)
which means;

Those who clearly distinguish the noble truths,
  which have been well preached by the one with great wisdom,
  no matter how great they become in heedlessness
  still they do not take up an eighth existence—
  this excellent treasure is in the Sangha:
  by virtue of this truth may there be safety!

~ Cited from: Ratana Sutta | The Discourse on the Treasures
According to the above, stream-enterer will not have an eighth existence (re-appearing) no matter how great he/she become in heedlessness. Does it mean that a stream-enterer will become an Arahant within his/her next seven existences even without any effort?
If so, why would someone put an extra effort to become an Arahant after becoming a stream-enterer?

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

The Pali word translated as "existence" is "bhava". "Bhava" is a mental asava (defilement) and not another life. There are 10 fetters to break through for Arahantship. The stream-enterer has broken three fetters. Each fetter is a type of becoming. Therefore, the sutta says "they do not take up an eighth becoming" because there are only a maximum of 7 more fetters to break..
In summary, it is pointless asking about stream-entry if you believe in reincarnation because this just perpetuates the "self-view" that must be broken for stream-entry. When there is the belief in reincarnation, it is the belief of "I will reincarnated or reborn seven more times". This is self-view.
The stream-enterer, in the suttas, has the realisation of: "All that is subject to arising is subject to cessation". The realisation of the stream-enterer is not: "All that is subject to cessation is subject to re-arising".

Sir, I would say not "I" but "five aggregates/name & form/Six internal sense bases will be re-appeared up to seven times". I suppose the "bhava" here is the same "kamma bhava" in dependent origination. Hence it will lead to "birth" (or re-appear) of five aggregates in another existence.

Sir, "Each fetter is a type of becoming." I cannot understand this. Can you explain a bit more or can you give me a reference in the Pali canon?

@Damith Hi again! Thanissaro's essay "The Paradox of Becoming" may shed some light into this topic. Kind regards! https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/paradoxofbecoming.pdf

Just for the record. This answer implies that a Sotapanna isn't reborn at all right? Do you even believe in past lives to be remembered?

the core suttas do not appear to refer to remembering any "past lives". the words translated as "past lives", namely, "pubbenivasa", do not mean "past lives". SN 22.79 https://suttacentral.net/sn22.79/en/bodhi  makes this very clear. please do not ask me any more questions here. the comments section is not for this purpose

I just wanted to clatify that your religion is without rebirth & past lives. Ty for answering.

original Buddhism did not teach about past lives. what i post is not "my religion".

Attaining Stream Entry is like attaining a black belt in martial arts (real deal black belt, not McDonald-style handout type). Once one's practiced for that long and that consistent to be able to earn it, any subsequent task s/he has to do after that is no longer a struggling tedious chore. It's become his passion, his way of life. Stream Entry is also like that. No doubt there's still work to be done and effort to be made, but unlike us wordlings who still have to struggle to march forward, the Stream Enterer has done it long enough and hard enough such that the practice has become second nature to him. Hence the natural non-retrogression and the at-most 7 lives warranty.

Buddha enlightens Nibbāna as Arahanta by meditating Noble Eightfold Path, included the right effort in Dhammacakkappavattanasutta:

Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

So, the right effort to cease seven high-level fetters still required for the stream-enterer.
However, the stream-enterer already has the automatic effort of ceasing the three low-level fetters, it guarantees the stream-enterer going to enlighten as Arahanta inside seven rebirths.

The experience of Nibbana is an unique situation. After the first experience, the person will continue to have that unique experience time to time. Experiencing Nibbana starts the process of involuntary and natural process of purification of this person's mind.  It's generally not a very fast process. But after the first experience of Nibbana there is no turning back. The person is guaranteed to become completely free from suffering and attain Arahanthood in the future. It's like being sucked to a black hole. Even you want to turn back, you can't do it. So yes, become a stream-enterer is enough. Either in Seven Life times or in a shorter period of time, Arahanthood is guaranteed. But that max. Seven Life times can be in Heaven Realms too.
So effort is obviously not necessary for a Stream-Enterer to make progress in freedom from suffering because s/he is in an involuntary and spontaneous process of purification and disidentification. Also effort and "trying mode" can be harmful for a Stream-Enterer because s/he is in the transition period. A Stream-Enterer already involuntarily and spontaneously meditates every moment in his/her daily life. But after the transition from Sotapanna to Sakadagami some special methods and returning to the "formal meditator" mode can be helpful to move forward more quickly. But I think we can't call it "effort" because in the next Enlightenment Stages the person has continous peace of mind and contentment. So whatever s/he is doing, we can not say that it is "trying" or "putting effort".

Nyom Damith,
7 more lifes mean 7 times aging, sickness and death: huge suffering not only for one self, but for many, as life requires food.
Does one like to cause another mother and so many others so much pain like in this existence already did? Something one should think about when up to laziness.
My person guesses only Mohayana-confused continue to cause and nurish suffering in the world, telling they make it out of compassion.
Or the livingroom Āhārahats, open to lead a holly life but prefer to be "enlightened householder" with a "secure" refrigerator next.
Things one should really honest consider, especially the "compassionate" ones.
Because people tend to over-estimate there qualities and not seeing that certain easy, merits, are not for sure, the Buddha did not taught much about it, only in one case.
[This answer is given for liberation, not for exchange, stackes, trade... in the world and might be well deleted if space here is not given for such]

Does it mean that a stream-enterer will become an Arahant within his/her next seven existences even without any effort?

Yes.

why would someone put an extra effort to become an Arahant after becoming a stream-enterer?

Because being a stream-enterer still sucks, even compared to being a once returner. A stream enterer hasn't learned how to stop making an effort, so must make an effort in some direction, and seeing which direction will lead to furthur liberation, sustaining a choice for any other direction would take a cumulatively increasing amount of effort.
It's a bit like a dam with a hole in it. The water is going to destroy the dam no matter what. Your choices are:

let it happen in its own time.
make the hole worse, accelerating the process.

Why would anyone want to be reborn 7 more times?


text:
According to the Dhamma monks have no rights?

There is the case where a monk is content with any old robe cloth at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old robe cloth at all. He does not, for the sake of robe cloth, do anything unseemly or inappropriate. Not getting cloth, he is not agitated. Getting cloth, he uses it not tied to it, uninfatuated, guiltless, seeing the drawbacks (of attachment to it), and discerning the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old robe cloth at all, exalt himself or disparage others. In this he is skillful, energetic, alert, and mindful. This, monks, is said to be a monk standing firm in the ancient, original traditions of the Noble Ones.

~

Not getting almsfood, he is not agitated.
Not getting lodging, he is not agitated.

AN 4.28
And the well-known simile of the Saw:

"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

MN21

Hi! I don't think this has to do with rights. Rights are a notion connected to law and society. There is a giver of benefits/protection/goods/services (the Estate, a private owner/entrepreneur, a civilian, etc) and a receiver (the one benefitted). The Sangha does not seem to have the same purpose as civil and political society. The Sangha is a free association of people supporting and helping each other to reach the goal of stop needing things, quite the opposite to the goal of society. Kind regards!

I can only guess at what the question is -- e.g. what is "a right", and why is the question tagged "anger"?

Althought you may think you have rights to do, good and even wished by the site owner to add source... (strong wrong view?)

The monks can and should receive robes (as donation), almsfood, lodging and respect.
But if the monks don't receive these, they shouldn't be angry, unhappy or agitated, for that conflicts with their training of equanimity.
Furthermore, any kind of donation is voluntary. If a lay person doesn't wish to donate to monks, the monks cannot blame him for it.

What you quoted is the consideration and comprehension, not the prohibition.
Except money and improper things, e.g. human, that denied in Vinayapitaka, the monk can receive the proper things, e.g.  foods, clothes, residences, medicines.
However, the monk lives to cease the dependent origination cycle, e.g. craving, the consideration and comprehension to meditate the meditation in every moment is required.

Yes (hold no rights), and one should avoid monks who even encourage to thoughts of claim and rights, i.e. grave wrong view.
The Vinaya helps them to learn this if not arrived at the Noble domain for now.
But it's not something exclusive to monks, every person, who has arived on the path, those with right view, do no more hold on wrong views, i.e. rights, whether woman, human, animal-rights, rights to copy... and live of what is given, having abounded claim and demand.
One should of course also avoid lay people with wrong view, claimer and "Robin Hoods".
Nobody has actually such as inherent rights for anything, but depends on goodness of others or taking from others, one leading to liberation, the other to debts, if after not given.
Not even that someone gives one birth: that's why people of integrity have gratitude to what is worthy of that as an attribute, others then worldlings.
Today the poision of illusion destroys generations at large and even monks currupt at large families, giving slaves ideas that they have rights and encourage them to steal together.

There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed
This is a certain believe that things either come by accident or one is the creator of all by one self. Or one has such as inherent right, one is inherent worthy of things and ones live and well-being does not effect others, is not on the cost of other beings "misfortune". A person of wrong view therefore is known as a person without gratitude and does not feel obligated. Typical modern strong wrong views are thinking in right, believing in rights. This is a very serious and broad wrong view. Even most monks have falling into this wrong view today and do not dear to even teach rights rather that right view. A person who demands "I have this and that right", holds on rights, makes rights his means of gain and sustain, is a person of strong wrong view.
How to address wrong view?

There are "Buddhist" who even believe that they do a right think when using commercial places and exchange markets for Dhamma, bending the purpose and think they have a right, both from the owner of Dhamma and the owner they work for.
While it's of course not a matter of rights to be claimed or executed, a real lay person does not give outwardly the Sangha first, but only those who think they have a right to pull and steal the Dhamma for where it will not bear fruits.
[Given for liberation, not for exchange, stack, trade for/in the world and to be deleted if such is not given to share here]

Conventionally, a right is something to which one is entitled--it is a possession to be fought over. The right to bear arms is a contentious example.
Buddhism addresses suffering. It does not advocate for entitlements because entitlements are often attachments that cause suffering. Buddhism has a different perspective on "right". That perspective is based on ethics and personal conduct. As an example, for a Buddhist, killing would be a wrong action. Buddhists understand that all others are entitled to not being killed.
Buddhists practice mindful of ten Rights:

Right view gives rise to right thought. Right thought gives rise to right speech. Right speech gives rise to right action. Right action gives rise to right livelihood. Right livelihood gives rise to right effort. Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom.
  MN117


text:
What religious texts would help me understand the fundamentals Buddhism better?
I was raised in an area where the usual answer to the question of what Buddhism is was "I don't know, hippy stuff", and any religion outside Christianity was considered "the work of Satan".
That said, in my adult life I have been drawn to Buddhist philosophies and concepts as I understand them, but I'm not really sure where to start in my study of the religion. I've read a couple "Intro to Buddhism" type books that were very interesting and enlightening. However I'm pretty fuzzy on what historical texts I should be looking to read when it comes to the actual teachings of the Buddha as pertains to all Buddhism (not specifically Mahayana or Theravada etc.).
Basically I'm looking for some information on what writing(s) could be considered the "Bible" of Buddhism, but from what I understand there is no central text in that sense. I've found lists of sutras (and suttas? I'm not too clear on the difference), but they are extensive and not really catagorized or anything.

I think this is a duplicate of several existing topics -- so I'm going to close this and try to reference those topics.

@ChrisW - Ah! I think that second link has the answer I was looking for. Thanks for sharing!

Does it? One answer in that topic links to the "Tripitaka" -- which is too long for a beginner (hence the question "Chronological or other sequence?" and/or a book like "In the Buddha's words" which is an anthology of the most famous/important ones), and which is arguably "specifically Theravada". But I think, I'm not sure, that the suttas and/or agamas are considered fundamental by Mahayana and Theravada. Mahayana also includes other later (I don't mean "wrong") sutras in its canon.

And some of the "canonical" texts are a bit analogous to books you might read by contemporary authors -- i.e. they are/were commentaries and introductions.

Well, it certainly answered my main question, i.e. texts that are considered canonical, mostly the Tripitaka. It does appear to be quite lengthy and in-depth, but knowing about it opens further research paths for me.

I think that the Tripitaka is, more or less, the Theravada canon. And that's fine, but I don't want to imply that anything that's not the Tripitaka is non-canonical -- especially as you asked, "not specifically Mahayana or Theravada" -- though Theravadins might say that.

I see, that makes sense. Really what I meant was that I'm looking for texts/teachings that would apply to all Buddhist schools. Just because I'm trying to become familiar the overall teachings first, and then look into whether Mahayana or Theravada or some other path would fit me better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a bit more reading has given me the impression that Theravada is sort of the "bare bones" buddhism, and the other schools add on to those canons and traditions. Would that be a fair representation?

Would that be a fair representation? Maybe so. Some people -- e.g. see comments here ... but so do/have I -- find bits of the Mahayana doctrine easier to understand after getting a bit of background/perspective from the suttas. I can't speak for all Mahayana schools though: some (e.g. Zen) might say the opposite i.e. that it is they whose doctrine is the "bare bones" and do away with accreted book-learning.

@ChrisW those are some great examples, it's nice to see some good senses of humor when looking at a topic as heavy as spirituality/religion can be. Thanks for all the help!

Many of the famous short Zen stories are a bit like that. Anyway also, in this answer someone incidentally recommended a book (which I haven't read) titled Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions.

Hi Tuxmachina and welcome to this path!
There are two books that were very important when I was struggling with getting acquainted with Buddhism.
The first book I read was the Dhammapada, which is a relatively short collection of saying and teachings directed to popular audiences, and which summerize a lot of the most important ideas of the Dhamma, in a rather poetic way. It is a nice introduction to classical buddhist thought, although it is not recognized as part of the earliest text. It was probably composed (according to some scholars) after the Buddha's demise.
Here you will find a online translation of the Dhammapada:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/index.html
The second book I could recommend is "In the Buddha's Words", written by Bhikkhu Bodhi, a Theravada monk and expert in the Pāli dialect. This book is a collection of the most important suttas (discourses, sermons and teachings) found in the Pāli Canon (the collection of suttas historically recognized by the Theravada tradition as authentic Buddha's words). The structure of the book is arranged considering some of the key aspects of the Buddha's life and teachings, and it is divided in chapters according to different doctrinal topics, and each chapter with a brief introduction written by Bhikkhu Bodhi himself. It is a long book, but I think it should not be read quickly, but gradually and with time and patience, and it is the best you can find (IMO) if you want to read directly from the source.
In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon (The Teachings of the Buddha) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003XF1LIO/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_2dbxCb0MRD47T
Here are some useful websites filled with suttas, essays, forums and wonderful introductions to Theravada Buddhism and Early Buddhist Texts:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html
https://suttacentral.net
https://dhammawheel.com
And since we are in this digital era, I also recommend watching some YouTube channels if possible. Here you will find some of my favorites:
Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/yuttadhammo
Abhayagiri Buddhist Monastery:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFAuQ5fmYYVv5_Dim0EQpVA
Buddhist Society of Western Australia:
https://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA
Doug's Secular Dharma:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPIyEJzvW7SsbiIrooixjNA
1983dukkha:
https://www.youtube.com/user/1983dukkha
Dhammanet:
https://www.youtube.com/user/dhammanet
These channel contain sutta clases, dhamma talks, explanations from a secular point of view, guided meditations, etc. I should warn you that some of these wonderful teachers may have different views and interpretations on some doctrinal topics, so keep an open mind and a curious spirit to discern the most appropiate interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. Let experience, attention, analysis and wisdom be your best allies in this path.
And if you find yourself in doubts and confusion, don't hesitate about asking your question here. We all were (and are) still novices on this training and way of life.
Good luck in your path!

So many resources! Thank you! I'm curious though, "In the Buddha's Words" is specifically by a Theravada monk, but seems to come up a lot in "essential buddhist texts" type searches. Would it be safe to assume that the Theravada suttas he includes would pertain to other schools as well? (Mahayana and Vajrayana are the only two I'm really aware of.)

@tuxmachina Hi again! This can be a confusing topic, but I'll try to explain: First of all, there no such thing as a complete scholar consensus about what exactly constitutes Early Buddhism and, probably, we'll never know for sure. And if we want to know what teachings and texts are essencial for all buddhist schools, there should be the ones closer to that Early Buddhism. Thanks to some archeological findings and textual data, we know that some of the texts we have can be traced back to (circa) the 3rd century BCE, which, if I remember correctly, was a time before any major schism.

@tuxmachina During the period of the King Ashoka of India, there was a group of missionary monk sent towards some other countries of South East Asia, and among them, Sri Lanka. And it was SL one of the only countries were Buddhism survived relatively intact since its beginnings. And from there, we have one the earliest written version (as far as we know) of the Teachings, the Pāli Canon, called so because of the dialect used (now known as Pāli), which is a variation of the possible language spoken by the Buddha.

@tuxmachina This Pāli Canon contains hundreds of suttas, divided and categorized in 5 groups: the Nikayas. But this specific sorting was exclusive to this Sri Lankan tradition (later known as Theravada, which includes schools derived from this SL tradition). We have other canons outside the Theravada, such as a chinese canon, and some other incomplete parts of other ones (in tibetan, sanskrit, prakrit, gandharan, etc.), all of which share a great part of the suttas, but sorted in a different fashion.

@tuxmachina And the fact that we have these other surviving texts which coincide in most of its suttas with the Theravāda's seems to indicate that it's not so farfetched to speculate that the Pāli Canon will be the closest thing we'll ever have to the Early Buddhist teachings. And other schools seem to -more or less- agree with this assumption. The main and most important difference between schools lies in the perceived need of posterior development of the ideas found in Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs, for short).

@tuxmachina I'm a complete ignorant of Mahayana doctrines, but based on some of my light readings, it seems that Mahayana developed from a spirit of making more accessive some of the more complex teachings. Also, and no less important, there were some great philosophical minds inside early schools, which helped to take buddhist teachings and its claims until its ultimate consequences. These proto-Mahayanic schools/monks give value to both the Early Teachings along with this new developments. And that's the main point of division between schools: their acceptance of posterior teachings.

@tuxmachina In sum, most schools agree that most the suttas of these early canons (mainly pāli, chinese, and tibetan) are the closest thing to the original teachings of the Buddha, if there was such thing. The difference between traditions lying in the value given to this texts. Finally, as a caveat, you should keep in mind that some scholars point that some of the core doctrines of Mahayana can probably be traced back to the time of the writing of the Pāli Canon, or even before, which tell us that it is difficult to dismiss teachings as early or later additions. Kind regards!

I've always been a history buff, so this type of thing is fascinating to me. Thanks for all the context!


text:
"Idea of reincarnation(rebirth) is due to craving for existence"
"Idea of reincarnation(rebirth) is due to craving for existence"
I'd like to listen to your opinion about this.

Is this a quote taken from somewhere? If so, please add a reference.

That is from my idea...

The desire to live a good life with ambition, and be reborn into another good life, is due to the craving for existence (bhava tanha).
The desire to die as soon as possible, and not be reborn, is due to the craving for non-existence (vibhava tanha).
The idea of rebirth or non-rebirth is different from the desire for rebirth or non-rebirth. Ideas are merely mental formations (sankhara).
Also, what "rebirth" actually means, depends on the definition.
Some people see it as the rebirth of the same consciousness (or some other kind of unchanging thing like a "soul") from one lifetime to another. This type of rebirth was refuted by the Buddha.
The other type of "rebirth" is a chain of the succession of related changing processes that are dependently originated based on conditions. This type of rebirth was taught by the Buddha.
The Buddha also taught that suffering is ended only by ending craving and attaining Nibbana, not by death or suicide.

Do you think rebirth as animals, humans, and gods is taught by Buddha literally?

Rebirth of WHO? That's the interesting question in Buddhism.

Also see this answer.

My question is as simple as it gets. either yes or no.

@X-pression Yes. The Buddha was quite explicit in his words when it comes to literal rebirth and the various realms of existence in many suttas thru out the Nikayas. One simple ex:  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn15/sn15.013.than.html

Yes. The suttas says rebirth happens with the break-up of the body after death. To me, that's literal rebirth. But rebirth of whom? The current life and the next life are related, but it's not the same individual or consciousness that is reborn.


text:
Information requested on Buddhist monks self-immolation mental technique
Thích Quảng Đức was a monk who immolated himself to protest against the repression by the Vietnamese government in 1963. It was filmed how he adopted the full-lotus posture an fire was set on him. The picture which was awarded the Pulitzer was known worldwide.
In that video he does not show any signs of pain at all and he doesn't seem to be under the effect of any drug. It is said this is some sort of deep meditation or self-hypnosis technique nevertheless Hypnosurgery lacks of scientific evidence.
Plenty of other monks even younger have committed self-immolation  in Tibet to protest against the Chinese occupation. A lack of fiscal pain is a common trait. Is there more information on how this technique is done, it's difficulties and knowing that some Buddhist organizations are collaborating with modern neuro-science is there a scientific explanation for this and its possibilities or medical potential to treat chronic pain diseases?
Video here watcher discretion advised
Picture here watcher discretion advised

This may be a duplicate of this question: Experiencing physical pain

The same question asked on Psychology & Neurosciences SE: How do certain individuals, like Quang Duc, develop the ability to remain calm when enduring significant nociceptive pain?

From the question I assume you are new to Buddhism so will answer accordingly.
There is no scientific explanation for feeling pain let alone not feeling it. However, there are explanations. Indeed, the whole of Buddhist doctrine might be seen as an explanation of how to transcend suffering. You would need to study the 'Four Noble Truths'.
A very famous case is the horrific crucifixion and torture of the Sufi sage Al Hallaj. It seemed not to bother him and he expresses disappointment when one of his students sheds tears for him, for it gives away his lack of understanding that there is nobody there to suffer.
The explanation would be the ability of human beings to discover that the self that suffers is not real and to stand apart from their thoughts, feelings, sensations and emotions. We can all do this to some extent and find ourselves forced to do it situations of great pain. Many people come to Buddhist practice and that of other traditions by way of lengthy painful experiences. They discover that the pain may be viewed objectively without any sense of ownership such that they can say 'There is pain', and not 'I am in pain'.
A full explanation would require delving into the nature of consciousness and personhood and this would take us beyond 'scientific consciousness studies' and academic philosophy, while an understanding of the explanation would require a lot of practice and personal research.
This ability to transcend suffering is in the nature of consciousness. The comment by Aurobindo below indicates that it is a recognition that only our 'surface being' suffers, and this allows practitioners to display great feats of suffering. But it cannot be a theory. It has to be a reality for us or it is not the case for us. Thus practice is required for such feats, not book-learning.
"One might almost say that our surface being is only the deeper eternal self in us throwing itself out as the adventurer in Time, a gambler and speculator in infinite possibilities, limiting itself to the succession of moments so that it may have all the surprise and delight of the adventure, keeping back its self-knowledge and complete self-being so that it may win again what it seems to have lost, reconquering all itself through the chequered joy and pain of an aeonic passion and seeking and adventure." (Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine)
Thus to overcome suffering would mean realising that our surface being is a construction, much as Dennett describes it, and not our true being. For a truly realised being there would be no suffering and no person to suffer, and this is the meaning of the Four Noble Truths.
On a personal note, aged seventeen I suffered a lot of intense pain for a period due to an operation that went wrong. I had no choice but to distance myself from it and found that this is possible. It was only four decades later that I discovered Buddhism and found an explanation. There is more to human being (or perhaps less) than the natural sciences are able to discover. Hence the placebo effect may be effective in reducing pain. For a full reduction the Buddha's medicine would have to be ingested. A truly skilled monk may self-immolate without the slightest worry about pain and death. They are past all that nonsense.
Whether we believe this is not important since believing it isn't going to help. But even if we know nothing about Buddhist teachings the next time we're in great pain it may be a good chance to perform some experiments. In practice it is said that we discover not simply that we do not suffer but that there is nobody to suffer. Regrettably this knowledge is not easily won, but even a little familiarity with the skills required will help us when we are in pain.
The natural science may be able to verify that the behaviour of some people indicates an ability to transcend pain but is not able to study consciousness so cannot provide an explanation. The science of Yoga, however, as described by Patanjali, or Buddhist practice allows us to know the explanation and make it our reality.
Aurobindo (ibid) also says this.
"In our ordinary life this truth is hidden from us or only dimly glimpsed at times or imperfectly held and conceived. But if we learn to live within, we infallibly awaken to this presence within us which is our more real self, a presence profound, calm, joyous and puissant of which the world is not the master - a presence which, if it is not the Lord Himself, is the radiation of the Lord within. We are aware of it within supporting and helping the apparent and superficial self and smiling at its pleasures and pains as at the error and passion of a little child."
You may find some interesting youtube videos on this topic but I don't know of any on this exact topic. Any decent book on meditation ought to cover the main points and explain the abilities of these self-immolating monks.
Here are some suttas about giving up pleasure and pain.

Good answer. Also If a person has permanent disidentification from the ego, then any negative mental formations or physical pain cannot effect their deep peace of mind and contentment.

Interesting observations but it seems that your understanding requires faith. Hypnosis also requires conviction from the subject that submits to this mental state. Your comment denotes a need to believe in the whole Buddhist doctrine without doing too much critical thinking and ignores those who want to go all the way in the search for truth. Thanks for the effort but it's not valid for me.

@Murathan1 -Amazing isn't it?. I'm still getting over the shock of discovering these facts and am lifetimes away from being able to happily self-immolate. Buddhism is exciting! The adventure to end all adventures.

@PbxMan - It has nothing whatsoever to do with belief. Believing in Buddhist doctrine is not useful unless it is motivational. It won't help when we are in pain. From your comment I conclude that my answer is poor and needs more work. In truth it is not possible to believe in Buddhist doctrine until one understands it properly, and by then faith and belief are not necessary.  . . . .

@PeterJ You're right. Buddhism is really exciting and life changing. There is always new things to learn and gain from it untill the complete unification with the Ultimate Reality

@PbxMan -  People can have deep insights about these things by "experience". Meditation is a great science that is mostly ignored in our world and there are lots of things to learn and gain from it.

@Murathan1 I agree on the meditation part. Remember that meditation is found in practically all major religions and yogis are indeed masters at meditation too. The Sidharta Gautama used all information available on his time and insight  an shared what he found out in his own school  perhaps that's what the real teaching of the Buddha is about. I'm trying not to attach myself to Maya and Buddhism can be part of that illusion too.

@PbxMan - I don't understand your first comment here but would agree with your approach. I learnt much about Christianity (my birth religion) from Buddhism (more than from my education), much about Buddhism from Taoism, much about advaita from Sufism, and much about all of them from the Upanishads. I'd agree that one may become over-attached to Buddhism if one sees it as an exclusive doctrine. It is, however, a self-sufficient doctrine and so from a practical angle I would see no harm in sticking to it if we're not interested in other.traditions.

@PeterJ attachment is a source of suffering good luck with that. My religion is the search for truth. I'm asking for something more "scientific" here.

@PbxMan - I hope we're all searching for truth. But there can be no scientific explanation for this phenomenon.for the reasons I give. Or not unless we accept that Yoga is a science,.

@PeterJ there is no scientific explanation? how come? Has this even been researched? Do you know any opinion for any remarkable neuroscientist? Do you want to science to exploit this feature or you want your unicorn to remain intact?

@PbxMan If you want a "scientific" answer do you think your question might be on-topic on another site, e.g. Psychology & Neuroscience?

@ChrisW I want to know what the buddhists monks have to say and what the scientists have to say. eg. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6796675-buddha-s-brain

@PbxMan - Talk of unicorns does not indicate a serious intent to understand the topic.  .

The brain activity has many waves, one of them is gamma-wave. One hypothesis is that with gamma-wave you can dissociate with your senses, thus feeling numb on the pain. It seems that activating the gamma wave on-demand is the key to withstand the pain. It also seems that meditation can help doing that.
Note that there is currently no consensus on this. More evidence is needed to support this.
This is taken from the article The Brain of the Buddha (Koch, American Scientific, 2013). Here is an excerpt from it:

Gamma activity in these monks is the largest seen in nonpathological conditions and 30 times greater than in the novices. The more years the monks had been practicing meditation, the stronger  the  (normalized)  power in the gamma band.


text:
Lord Yama's identity
I've been reading up on cosmology and am curious if Lord Suyama of Yama heaven and Lord Yama as judge of the recently deceased are the same figure. The latter is often said to reside in either the hell or preta realms, but since he is also a vaimanikapreta, I can't help but wonder if his time in the higher planes equates to this third level of heaven. Or are the same names simply coincidence?
Any thoughts/sources are much appreciated.

It's not clear of what is asked here. Does Nyom like to know whether he is (acts on tendency)  a devoted follower of the Buddha or someone trying to force against the Dhamma?

It is in the dependent origination.
SuyamaDeva born by KusalaVipakaCitta, wholesome resultant, only. That citta is the resultant consciousness, viññāṇa, of the wholesome frabrication, sańkhaāra.
YamaVemanikaPeta born by AkusalaVipakaCitta, unwholesome resultant, only.  That citta is the resultant consciousness of wholesome frabrication.
They are completely different.
Only one karma creates all life-basis-resultants  (patisandhi, bhavanga, cuti, karmaja-matter) per each rebirth of one whole life however there are many karma cause the resultant citta at the other six senses of life, except those patisandhi, bhavanga, cuti, which created by only one same karma.

According to Theravāda perspective, Lord Yama is considered to be a vemānika-asura who sometimes enjoys all the pleasures of heaven, in a celestial mansion and at other times experiences the fruits of his kamma by being the king in hell (niraya). Lord Yama belongs to the Cātummahārājikā deva (god) category. So according to my knowledge, lord Yama and lord Suyama of Yama are two devas.
When sentient beings appear near the hell gates, hell-wardens (nirayapalas) seizing them by the arms present them to king Yama. According to "Devaduta Sutta: The Deva Messengers", he always try to remember the good deeds one did in his/her previous existence. He does not order hell-wardens to punish the sentient beings in the hell. So, he is a good king.
For more information please read this.
Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

In the Tibetan Book of the Dead ("Liberation through Hearing") , Lord Yama is one of the 6 Lords, and he is situated at the "energy center at the soles of the feet". The best translation of the "Liberation through Hearing" is by Graham Coleman, et al. From the book (Chapter 5): "

Amidst an expanse of light in the energy centre at the soles of one’s
  feet, Within a radiant and vibrant maṇḍala, that is a lustrous black
  seminal point, [Stands] Yama Dharmarāja, sage of the hell beings,
  black in colour, and carrying a flame and water. May he obstruct
  aversion, which is the entrance to rebirth among the hell realms!"

I think he is also mentioned in the Confession chapter.
Hope that helps.

According to Theravāda Buddhism, King Yāma is a ghost of mixed karma. Sometimes he lives in a godly mansion. Sometimes he is in hell. According to Mahāyāna Buddhism, King Yāma is a god and a dharmarāja. See the Avalokiteśvaraguṇakāraṇḍavyūhasūtra to see King Yāma depicted as a god and a dharmarāja. For the Theravādin classification of King Yāma as a kind of ghost, see the section of this entry on King Yāma that mentions the "vemānikapetarājā" from this encyclopedia:
https://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/y/yama.htm
From the citation:

He [Ven Buddhaghosa] says that Yama is a Vemānikapetarājā, who sometimes enjoys all the
pleasures of heaven, in a celestial mansion, surrounded by
kapparukkhas, and at other times experiences the fruits of his kamma.
He is a good king.

The entry cites two commentaries from Venerable Buddhaghosa, namely "AA.i.374; MA.ii.953." Unfortunately, I'm not educated enough in the Pāli commentaries to know what texts this citation points to.


text:
Explaining the 6th fetter?
What is exactly meant by "Material rebirth lust", and how is it properly abandoned?

The Pali is rūparāgo. 'Rūpa' means 'materiality' and 'rāgo' means 'lust'.
It is lust for rupa jhana, i.e., 1st, 2nd, 3rd &/or 4th jhana.
It is not lust for 'rebirth'. The word 'rebirth' is not found in the Pali.
It is abandoned by the destruction of lust & clinging, i.e., Nibbana.
It is abandoned as follows:

Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded
  from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption.
  They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling,
  perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering (unsatisfactory),
  as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as
  alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind
  away from those things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is
  peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the
  letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away,
  cessation, extinguishment (Nibbana).’ Abiding in that they attain the ending of
  defilements.
AN 9.36

The 6th fetter's meaning pretty straightforward: the craving for the fine-material (or form) existence/Rupa-Raga. The lower 5 fetters are lower because they're all related to our world, which is the sensuous world (Kama-Loka), while the 5 higher fetters are those that are tie to the 2 higher worlds above Kama-Loka: Rupa-Loka (form or fine-material world), and Arupa-Loka (or immaterial world) (see Planes of Existence and RupaRaga for further details).