text:
Are monks better teachers than ex-monks?
It seems that most of the dharma teachers in the West are lay people, as opposed to Asia where most of the teachers are ordained monks.  Many of the western teachers were monks for a while, but decided to disrobe.  My assumption is that these teachers are not enlightened because they usually get in relationships after disrobing.
My question is, is it wise to follow these lay teachers, or is it better to wait and try to find a monk who has made a firmer commitment to the dharma?
I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just that it seems like the act of disrobing is sort of a rejection of Buddhist teachings.

Seems to be an opinion-based question, so maybe not best suited for SE. However, I always approach learning a new subject with the idea of "if the teacher knows more than me, then they are probably worthwhile listening to." A white belt probably won't learn any more from a 3rd degree black belt than they would from a blue belt.

I think it's a little presumptuous to assume that people in relationships can't be enlightened!  Check out the Vimalakirti Sutra if you're of a Mahayana bent.

@nemo if "relationship" is understood as sex, romance and/or emotional binding, and enlightenment is understood as nirvana, the pali suttas do not seem to agree with such possibility

@Thiago: In the Pali suttas, that is true for the arhat and non-returners.  Once-returners and stream enters are still weakly tied by the lower five fetters.   The latter are enlightened but not 'samma sambodhi'.

1. There were lay Arhats
In the Buddha's time there were lay Arhats such as the rich merchant Vimalakirti of Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra. His knowledge was considered by the Buddha (to the discomfiture of many monks) to far surpass most monks, and equal Bodhisattvas. Thus, being lay is no reason to look down upon a teacher.
2. Having the Buddha for a teacher does not guarantee enlightenment
The Buddha was frequented by several Kings, one of them, I can't remember his name right now, and I certainly don't want to defame the wrong King, was a regular patron of the Buddha, visiting him more than once. It so happened that at one point in a succession struggle he ended up killing his own brother. So much for having the Buddha as a teacher.
On the other hand, there was a blind weaver girl who heard the Buddha speak from afar only once, and that was enough for her to begin her contemplation on death and impermanence. She died a stream entrant.
In this age of the Internet, one can be like the blind weaver girl, and listen to the great teachers of our age anytime we like. There were even people who listened to the Buddha's teachings as it was narrated by someone who had heard it from someone else who had heard it from someone else and so on, handed down several times, and still attained enlightenment.
3. Western teachers relate better to western students
There are definitely great eastern masters who have produced enlightened western students. Still,  several western students report getting very little out of the extended stays in Tibetan and Thai monasteries, other than a liking for strange food and exposure to a new culture. That's not to say it always works this way, but certainly more times than we care to admit. Especially monks who ordain as children are unfamiliar with anything other than the local culture and monastic setting, and are rather uncomfortable with foreign students.
Western teachers, lay or otherwise are often times better at relating to western students, and vice versa. That is not to say, some of them are not Dharma politicians, several of them can be that way, always saying what the student wants to hear, and presenting a false facade of calm, peace  and enlightenment, but then such teachers are everywhere, even in the East.
One Western monk's account with his Burmese teacher went as follows - he confided  his problems in attaining deep concentration to the Senior abbot, and the Abbot's only question was - "did you ever do drugs?" As a college student he had taken his share of weed, which he admitted to. That was it, the teacher decided he was unfit to be taught, and ignored him for the rest of the time he was at the monastery. The teacher's cultural perception of drugs clouded his ability to nurture the student.
I'm not discouraging you from going out to find a supremely enlightened monk to learn from, but it is the equivalent of saying, "I will not move from here until I can afford a Rolls Royce." Maybe all we need is a bicycle.

Arahantship is a Theravada concept, but the sutra you are citing is a Mahayana one. See https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/lay-arahants-why-not/2696/2

Vimalakriti was praised by the Buddha as being wiser than the two arhats (who are sent to learn from him in the Mahayana sutra), demigods and bodhisattvas though he is called an upasaka. For all intents and purposes, and by inference he is an arhat too if he can school arhats.

A person is not necessarily a better teacher because they are or are not a monk. The qualities that make a good teacher are related to how well they can teach their students. Of course, if a person is seeking to learn how to be a monk, in that case learning from a monk is a practical choice.
But in the West we have far fewer monasteries so it stands to reason we have fewer monastics than in Asia where there is a long standing and wide spread tradition of Buddhist monasteries. We can be thankful and supportive of Westerners who have trained and ordained in Asia and brought back what they've learned to teach us here. And we can be happy that there are committed lay teachers as well. Anyone who understands the Buddha's teachings well and can teach others is a jewel.
I do understand what you're saying. A person who has ordained shows a level of dedication far beyond the level of an average person. But that dedication may or may not translate to being a good teacher; it's a separate set of qualities.
Lastly regarding your concern about disrobing being a sign of rejection of the Buddha's teachings; if a person disrobes and goes from being a "bad" monk to a "good" lay person, that's not disrespect. It actually may be a sign of respect for the sangha for a person who realizes they are not up to monastic disciplines to step down and be the best lay Buddhist they can.
Best wishes in finding a great teacher.

For starters I do not think your question is disrespectful at all.
I think this depends on the particular monk(s) or ex-monk(s) that you want to compare. There could be good or bad versions of both.
Keeping vows is not easy. Buddhism also has A LOT of different vow sets one can take.
Refuge vows, Bodhisattva Vows, Monastic Vows, The five precepts, the list goes on... and on...
Sometimes people get in over their heads and make vows they cannot keep. Everyone has their story and their path, if you are friends or comrades with an ex-monk, and you find the conversions about Buddhism informative and positive I do not see harm in this kind of relationship. In fact it might even be therapeutic to the ex-monk to be able to have those kinds of conversations. If not therapeutic at least interesting to them, and from a karmic perspective (assuming conversations are accurate) beneficial for both parties.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, it's just that it seems like the
  act of disrobing is sort of a rejection of Buddhist teachings.

Atma would say it a reaction of a proper observance and even formally one needs to express the renunciation from one of the Juwels.
It's is totally right, to have doubt in such a case and being a teacher after having been monk, sometimes is just a livelihood by teaching the Dhamma, which is actually very against Buddhas economy and the ways he kept it protected from being corrupt.
There is no, no old story of a person who renounced the holy life to start to be holy.
One needs to say, that a Monk or Nun, does not make his training to be a teacher, nor do they have a duty to teach. The only real duty is the practice the path. So teachings are always "just" generosity and without strings (if followed the Vinaya).
There are case, where people argue, that they would violate the Vinaya to much, when actively teaching people in broad. Or some say, its not possible to live a monastic live today...
Arguments are many and of course, the "cheap" course of training to gain a livelihood incl. some reputations for it, is very usual today, especially under Western Teacher.
Its no time wrong and for nobody, to give the gift of Dhamma. It's wrong for everyone, may one be a monastic or a Layperson, to receive anything in return for Dhamma.
There was shortly a famous teaching monk in Thailand, for many many years, who felt in love and spontaneously left the monk hood, leaving 10.000s of devoted people behind and caused surely a lot of faith to decay.
Actually its 90% a matter of not being able to live an abstinent live. Since nothing is for sure, there are some very inspiring stories from Ajahn Chan in regard of such monastic matters. Food for the Heart
On the other hand, for example, two of the leading teachers here in Cambodia are Exmonks, both, one of them with a million following, are said to live actually a very Vinaya-Standard live.
One actually has an easier way to use gain for a certain plan.
In regard of your idea about, that they can not be enlighten, that's right, even if they would live without wife. It's merely in the other direction. Someone who gains the highest fruit would leave house, even if gained as householder and if there is no way to do so or no Sangha available, one would die within some days.
The Buddha gave drunkenness as the only reason to go back to the lower life. Drunken with youth, health, and or life.


text:
What will be the situation of the world when every beings will attain Nirvana?
The ultimate goal of a Buddhist is to attain Nirvana, i.e., to stop the cycle of rebirth. Since a Buddhist is compassionate, she/he not only wants to stop her/his own rebirth but also wants that all beings will stop their rebirth. Now suppose this has happened: all beings have been able to stop the cycle of rebirth. Then what will be the picture of the world? There will be no life anywhere, let alone human civilization. The entire world will be like a land of the dead. Is that a desirable goal? If not, where is the fallacy in the above argument?

"The entire world will look like a land of the dead" - Looking is a function of a being. The world is a construct of the 6 senses. So if there are no beings, this statement would become null & void.

Thanks! But the moon is still there when nobody looks. I've corrected it.

Isn't "the moon is still there when nobody looks" just a statement about the sixth of the 6 senses? i.e. it's a statement about being conscious of the contact between "mind" and "idea of moon"?

I recommend Sabba Sutta

BTW, If one believes in the non-rescuability of Icchantikas, then the end of Samsara can never occur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icchantika

The Buddha explicitly declined to answer:

Whether or not the cosmos is eternal
Whether or not the cosmos is infinite
Whether or not the Tathagata exists after death

Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta

And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

He seems to imply that both views are wrong view (or at least, not "right" view):

It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now.

If not, where is the fallacy in the above argument?
If you don't mind me saying so, a fallacy seems to be to be that you're postulating something good (i.e. "cessation of suffering"); and then proposing your attachment to and your imagination of something (i.e. "the picture of the world" and "the entire world" and "a land of the dead" and "a desirable goal") as a counter-argument; for example the following are meant as some absurd examples:

Suppose nobody needed to die anymore: how could grave-diggers then earn their living?
Suppose everyone's basic needs were magically taken care of, with enough food and shelter and protection from violence for everyone: society would collapse! Who would go to their jobs anymore? We'd be living in a world without slaves and without armies.

I'm pretty sure he also said that there is no limit to the number of beings in existence, so there's that too.

According to Ven. Ajaan Tong, there are four things without limit: The knowledge of a Buddha, the world of beings, the universe, and space. The idea of a limited reality is more of a western concept, tied in with the Abrahamic religions which purport a creation and end. If anyone has any reference to the "four things without limit" that the Venerable sir is talking about, that'd be great. I have no doubt he is quoting a Theravada text, I just don't know which.
With that being said, as far as Buddhism is concerned, even if Samsara were "depleted" of beings, it would simply cease to exist altogether, as it arises due to supporting conditions. If you remove those supporting conditions, it no longer arises. And Buddhism views samsara as devoid of any useful or beneficial intrinsic qualities, so in  any case it is of no matter.

In retrospect I'm doubting my statement: even if Samsara were "depleted" of beings, it would simply cease to exist altogether. I feel that I've read/heard this somewhere, but now that I'm uncertain of this, does anyone have reference to this being the case? I assumed this was an aspect of dependent origination, but upon thinking about it and then looking, I can't find any such statement or assertion that samsara doesn't itself exist independent of mind.

The lotus cannot grow without the mud, the mud would be meaningless without the lotus. Thus the mud and the lotus are the same, they condition each other.
Ajahn Chah:

Nibbāna is found in samsāra. Enlightenment and delusion (samsāra)
  exist in the same place, just as do hot and cold. It's hot where it
  was cold and cold where it was hot. When heat arises, the coolness
  disappears, and when there is coolness, there's no more heat. In this
  way Nibbāna and samsāra are the same.

Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya sūtra:

« There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering,
  no path to follow »

Zen Master Ryōkan Taigu

Where beauty is, then there is ugliness;
  where right is, also there is wrong.
  Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent;
  delusion and enlightenment condition each other.
  Since olden times it has been so.
  How could it be otherwise now?
  Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other
  is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.
  Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,
  how do you deal with each thing changing?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Buddhism is not fatalism?
According to the Buddhism's theory, one man's fate is destined by the past's karma.
Suppose that he faced an unfortunate incident at birth, which is due to past karma. Besides, his genes are inherited from his parents. In other words, his brain is also initiated by past karma.
In this condition, all his ideas are also affected by the experience he has had, which is determined by past karma. To elaborate more, some are clever, some less, which can again be explained by karma.
But if the conventional human brain can be so strongly determined by the existence of karma, how can you say buddhism is not fatalism?

Welcome to Buddhism SE. We've put together some tips for new users on asking questions on the site. Also we have a page of useful resources that you may also find useful. Best wishes and I hope you have a positive experience on the site.

According to the Buddhism's theory, one man's fate is destined by the past's karma.
This is true that our conditions are determined by past karma, but they are determined by present as well.
A Brahman asked the Buddha in the Cula Kammavibhanga Sutta

Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?

The Buddha replies by saying that our conditions are due to our past karma. This; however, is not fatalistic. The idea of karma revolves around the idea that we create our future.
In the Devadaha Sutta the Buddha refutes two Jainism theories about karma

The past determines present pleasure and pain, and the present determines future present and pain.
The belief that you can do nothing in the present to get rid of suffering; all one could do is live with it.

The Buddha rejected both of those theories that were taught in Jainism. Those two statements sound fatalistic.
The Buddha said that the past and present determine the present; thus, making it not fatalistic.
Suffering, according to the Buddha, is due to past and present karma as well.
There is no fatalism in Buddhism.
The karma you mention in your question seems to be more of Jainist theories of karma than Buddhist theories of karma.

Fatalism is the error of the ajivika sect of the Buddha's time, which the Buddha unequivocably rejected. That is how we can say that Buddhism is not fatalism. Logically, the reason is that even though our present is conditioned by the unfruited karma of our past, the effective principle of karma is volition or intention, which, being identical with reality (the Absolute), is fundamentally unconditioned and therefore free. The Absolute must be both ignorant and free, because it is (by definition) unconditioned. Primarily ignorant, once it becomes self-reflexive in samsara it becomes self-determining and therefore the cause of future unfruited karmas. This is also the proof of rebirth. Thus the Buddha stated that he knows the past and the present, but the future is indeterminate.

+1 I like the way you're explaining some of these :)

This question might have been asked and answered well already, e.g. please read this answer.
Some reasons why 'belief in karma' is not 'fatalism' include:

'Fatalism' is often understood to mean "fate assigned to us by God", however Buddhist believe that "we are the author of our own karma"
Karma affects us, but it is not the only factor which affects us
Karma means, something like, 'an act of intention': our present intention affects our future (our future and present state is not pre-determined by fate, but is instead determined by our intentions)

To elaborate more, someone are clever, some less, which can be explained by the karma. But if the conventional human brain can be affected by the existence of karma, how can you say buddhism is not fatalism.

Whether intelligence is a result of birth (i.e. genes) or education (i.e. action) is a complicated subject (for example a book called The Blank Slate argued that it's the result of both).
For example, you can:

Intend to learn the first verse of the Dhammapada
As a result of having formed the intention, perform the actions which are necessary to achieve that (e.g. read the verse repeatedly until you have memorized it and can repeat it from memory)

In this example, because you had an intention, your brain was then affected: but it is not 'fatalism', instead it is you having an effect on your own brain as a result of your own choice.

The person who asked this question is wrong,as Buddhists we completely dump the theory "Karma is the last decider"
We believe in "Five niyamas"
Click this to learn "Five niyamas"
Karma is just a one variable in this not the final decider.
I guess this breaks the question and no further explaining is needed.Click the link given above and you will understand that Unlike many other beliefs Buddhism does not take away the right of free will because if it did there is no point of a Lord Buddha.
The very core of Buddhism is defying the tide and going against it with ones own free will and courage.So clearly Buddhism is not a fatalism because fate has no power over the will of a "One who is in the path".
Because no matter what he or she will reach nirvana and karma no matter how powerful it is can't change that.

Strictly speaking Fate is described by the Greeks as being fixed and unchangeable.
Karma is changeable, mutable and immutable.
People use the word Fate to try to describe karma to people unfamiliar with Buddhism.

Fatalism means things cannot be changed. However, Buddhism teaches that everything is impermanent which means everything changes all the time. Thus Buddhism is not fatalism.

Buddhism teachings teach that ultimately there is no future OR fate in the future. The future is only an idea that we make up in our heads and the past ultimately doesn't exist as well. Your fate is right now as you read this. It also changes quickly.

Buddhism is not fatalism. It doesn't teach that everything that happens to you is fated. In fact, it teaches the opposite. (SN 36.21)
Yes. You inherit your genes from your parents and you inherit part of your ideas and knowledge from your environment, country, books, teachers etc. This is called "old karma" in the suttas (SN 35.146).
You experience the results of your past karma but not all that happens to you is caused by kamma, says that suttas. For e.g. some things are caused by the weather or bile or wind or somebody hurting you. That's not caused by your karma. (SN 36.21)
The mind precedes all states (Dhp 1 - 2). Karma starts with the mind.
Karma is always based on intention. ("Intention is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." - AN 6.63)
Buddhism is not fatalism because it says instead of regretting the past or holding remorse, you should instead cultivate the shame and fear of wrongdoing to instill the mindset of virtue. It says you should not cling to the remorse and regret, because it will harm your mind. (AN 3.99)
Your intentions today can change the present and the future. (Dhp 116 - 122)
But to have the right intentions, you need to learn, think and contemplate. To do this, you need some intelligence. ("They’re wise, bright, and clever" - AN 6.87)
You don't have to be as intelligent as Nobel prize winning physicists, but you need some minimum intelligence (from your old karma), for this purpose. The very fact that you are asking this question shows that you have that minimum intelligence, in my opinion.

Hasten to do good; restrain your mind from evil. He who is slow in doing good, his mind delights in evil.

Should a person commit evil, let him not do it again and again. Let him not find pleasure therein, for painful is the accumulation of
evil.

Should a person do good, let him do it again and again. Let him find pleasure therein, for blissful is the accumulation of good.

It may be well with the evil-doer as long as the evil ripens not. But when it does ripen, then the evil-doer sees (the painful results
of) his evil deeds.

It may be ill with the doer of good as long as the good ripens not. But when it does ripen, then the doer of good sees (the pleasant
results of) his good deeds.

Think not lightly of evil, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the fool, gathering it
little by little, fills himself with evil.

Think not lightly of good, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it
little by little, fills himself with good.

Just as a trader with a small escort and great wealth would avoid a perilous route, or just as one desiring to live avoids poison, even
so should one shun evil.

If on the hand there is no wound, one may carry even poison in it. Poison does not affect one who is free from wounds. For him who
does no evil, there is no ill.

Like fine dust thrown against the wind, evil falls back upon that fool who offends an inoffensive, pure and guiltless man.

Dhammapada

In Buddhism you cannot change your past. It's obvious natural l aw. We cannot change the future too. Because we don't know the future as well. What we do is working to achieve our present planned destinations. What you did yesterday cannot be undone. Only we can do is change the planned activities to get different results. Cause and effect. We are not changing the future instead we are achieving what we worked for.
Fatalism is a part of Buddhism.
Problem is we cannot argive as Buddhism is out of reality.  It's out of our knowledge and wisdom. No proofs. So it's like believing in God.
There is no proofs of

Cycle of rebirth
Karmic energy and karma
Attain parinibbana or exit of cycle of rebirth
We do not know what happened to Gouthama.
Where is he now?
Yes there are some parts in Buddhism we can use in our day-to-day life but what it propose us to make our life's goal is totally misleading . Buddhism is a Gautama's private experience. It's not the truth of nature. We cannot prove it without beyond doubt.
That's why it's faith. There is neither existence of a God or existence of a cycle of rebirth. We are divided due to false beliefs which are out nature.
Thanks

Buddhism says everything is subject to change. And it also says cycle of rebirth which is due to karma. There is a contradiction.

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

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


text:
What is the relation between Nirvana and Parinirvana?
The Buddha attained Nirvana at the age of 35. He lived 45 years more after which his Parinirvana occurred. Is it not somewhat contradictory? If Nirvana means the end of rebirth and rebirth means the evolution of consciousness, did the Buddha possess no consciousness during the last 45 years of his life?

The Buddha attained Nirvana at the age of 35.

Yes.

He lived 45 years more after which his Parinirvana occurred.

Yes.

Is it not somewhat contradictory?

No.

If Nirvana means the end of rebirth

Yes. However, the word "birth" here does not refer to physical birth but to the mental birth of the "self-view" or "egoism". Nirvana is the end of self-view, egoism, conceit, I-making & my-making, as explained in many suttas.

Rebirth means the evolution of consciousness

No. Rebirth is unrelated to consciousness. Rebirth means the re-birth of self-view.

Did the Buddha possess no consciousness during the last 45 years of his life?

No. The Buddha had consciousness. This question is not relevant to the matter of rebirth.
Please read the suttas carefully about what rebirth is. It is the rebirth of "a being" ("satta"). "A being" is a "self-view" rather than an meta-physical organism. To quote:

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
  being.'
SN
  23.2 Satta Sutta: A Being

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the [verbal] convention 'a being.'
SN 5.10

What the Buddha experienced at 35 was called sa-upādisesa-nibbāna - nirvana with remainder. What he experienced at 80 was called anupādisesa-nibbāna - nirvana without remainder:

“dvemā, bhikkhave, nibbānadhātuyo. katame dve? saupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu, anupādisesā ca nibbānadhātu.
There are these two, monks, elements of nibbāna. What two? The element of nibbāna with remainder and the element of nibbāna without remainder.
-- Iti. 44

The difference is that after the former, there is still sequences of physical and mental formations that continue as a consequence of the birth of the being and have to work themselves out, which they do at the latter, signifying an end to all such physical and mental formations.
The actual experience of nirvana during the former (which can last from a few moments up to seven days) and the latter (which, due to there being no remaining sequence of formations and no craving to create new ones, is permanent) is the same.

Is there any source which would agree with that explaining, that this is meant in this sutta and anupādisesā means Parinirvana and saupādisesā means Nibbana, althought it sounds plausible at first glimpse?

The answer here is not sutta but sounds like Burmese ideas. Buddha dwelt 45 years in Nibbana for every moment. The "fuel" remaining in sa-upādisesa-nibbāna probably is vedana/feeling, per MN 140, which states: "Just as an oil lamp burns in dependence on oil & wick; and from the termination of the oil & wick — and from not being provided any other sustenance — it goes out unnourished; even so, when sensing a feeling limited to the body, one discerns that 'I am sensing a feeling limited to the body... at the termination of life, all that is felt, not being relished, will grow cold right here.'

Is it not somewhat contradictory?
Well I guess it's difficult to understand, partly because it's an uncommon experience (there are some people who live in the tropics, and to whom it would be difficult to explain "cold" or "snow").
If Nirvana means the end of rebirth ...
I think of Nirvana as related to the 2nd and 3rd noble truths (i.e. that "suffering is caused by craving" and that "suffering and craving can end").

Nirvāṇa (Sanskrit: निर्वाण nirvāna ; Pali: निब्बान nibbāna ; Prakrit: णिव्वाण ṇivvāṇa ) literally means "blown out", as in a candle. It is most commonly associated with Buddhism.
  In the Buddhist context nirvana refers to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished.

When you see a flame, the flame appears to 'cling to' or to be 'attached to' whatever is fuelling it.
A fire "goes out" when it is "unbound" from its fuel.
When an arahant or Buddha attains nirvana in this life, then they remain "unbound" for the rest of their life and are not subject to further rebirth. So it's true that after nirvanna there is no further rebirth, but nirvanna doesn't mean "no rebirth", it means "unbinding" (i.e. "no rebirth" is a consequence of nirvanna, not the meaning of it).
... and rebirth means the evolution of consciousness ...
Well I think that "rebirth" literally means physical "birth": i.e. a consciousness embodied in an embryo that's subsequently born as an infant etc. Assuming you're already human, being born again is not a prerequisite to consciousness.
... did the Buddha possess no consciousness during the last 45 years of his life?
That's not so:

For example the Buddha remained able to see (mundane sight) which implies "eye-consciousness"; and the same for the various other senses.
The Buddha is also said to have developed extraordinary powers of consciousness (e.g. being able to remember previous lives, being aware of the karmic state of other people, etc.).
The Buddha attained meditative states, called "The Jhanas" (which were also a type of meditation which he used while his body was dying)

Apart from the above there's something else unusual about his consciousness: which is that it's described as having no effluent (no āsava)
What is the relation between Nirvana and Parinirvana?
I think pari means "total": Parinirvana means "total nirvana" or "total unbinding". It implies the unbinding of the body, physical death.

Parinirvana is the nirvana that occurs after death. You are no longer reborn in any of the 31 Planes of Existence Parinirvana is not a place.
The Buddha said what nibbana is not

There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.
  - (Udana 80)

Here is what the Buddha said it is

This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana.
  - (Anguttara Nikaya 3.32)

Entering Parinirvana after death is not a rebirth, nor a place.

Nirvana = ending all rebirths by attaining enlightenment
Parinirwana = physical death of a person who has achieved Nirvana

Just as the light and heat of the sunlight are inseparable, liberation or moksha and nirvana are inseparable. The delusion that I exist, and the ignorance that I am this bodily existence are inseparable. The NOBLE TRUTH that all beings are without independent self existence, and the NOBLE WISDOM that all things are without self nature are inseparable. Buddha talks about the ONE VEHICLE, which transcends both the small and big vehicles.
If viewed from the right perspective, both jainism and buddhism talk about NIRVANA while alive. Parinirvana is attained when the human body self disintegrates by itself when the last breath is exhausted.

What is that One vehicle you are speaking of? Also are saying that Jainism and Buddhism are the same?

The answer isn't clear but I think that when Buddhists "talks about the ONE VEHICLE, which transcends both the small and big vehicles", I think that might be meant to refer Ekayāna transcending or including both Mahayana and Hinayana.

@ChrisW this answer is not from Buddhist view clearly. Moksha is Hinduism, the mixing of all terms sprinkled with Buddhist tags are confusing. One Vehicle is a metaphor Buddha used in Lotus Sutra for teaching, not related to Ekayana as u suggested.

@Bhumishu米殊 Yes I too find the answer unorthodox.

We all are combination of the body, the mind and the self.
Total liberation from the death and the rebirth is attained when the self manifests as supreme happiness, the mind manifests as light of knowlidge, and the body manifests as a positive namkarma. This is moksha.
Nirvana is attained when the body self destructs itself into pure matter after a predetermined life span. If transformation of the human mind into light of knowledge is called nirvana, then self destruction of the body or the sense mind would be called parinirvana. There is lot of similarity between jainism and buddhism.

I'm not sure this answers the question. It might be off-topic. See related question regarding *Nirvana & Moksha*.

Well, I thought it was useful. Welcome to Buddhism.SE, I look forward to reading more from you!


text:
Handling painful emotions
My students' formal feedback about teaching makes me feel defeated. What would be a Buddhist view of this pain?

Welcome to Buddhism SE. We've put together some tips for new users on asking questions on the site. Also we have a page of useful resources that you may also find useful. Best wishes and I hope you have a positive experience on the site.

In Buddhism we learn that all conditioned things are anicca (impermanent), dukkha (unsatisfactory), and anatta (uncontrollable). So we try not to cling to conditioned things; because there is nothing permanent, satisfactory, or controllable about them to cling to. This is at the core of the Buddha's truth of suffering.
Conditioned things (in this case wanting a satisfied feeling from positive feedback) will not bring us lasting happiness. We know this. People's opinions of us can change like the wind, so we can't make it overly important to the extent of having it drag us down and depress us when we aren't perceived the way we wish to be perceived or on the opposite end having it pump up our ego too much when we are perceived favorably.
From pages 20 -21 of Venerable Yuttadhammo's book Lessons in Practical Buddhism:

Likewise, when we receive praise, we can easily become
  caught up in it, addicted to the esteem of others, and tossed
  about whenever we receive dispraise. Some meditators
  become angry and obstinate when criticized by their
  teachers, refusing to listen and even leaving the meditation
  centre without finishing their training simply because of their
  inability to withstand criticism. Others become caught up in
  their worldly accomplishments, relishing the praise that
  comes from involvement in the world, and so are unable to
  focus their minds on meditation, thinking only of the
  pleasure that comes from being among those who shower
  them with praise.

Getting caught up in praise or criticism is considered one of the Eight Worldly Vicissitudes.

"Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.    AN 8.6

The Buddhist way is the way of Upekkha; not getting too excited either way. Remaining neutral in the face of the Eight Worldly Vicissitudes is one of the ways Wikipedia describes Upekkha. In the state of mind of being calm and not having a strong or quick emotional reaction, it's easier to consider the possible merit of what the students' feedback was. Generally there is room for improvement with everyone and as others have stated, the fact the students took the time to give you that feedback is a good thing regardless of whether they gave it skillfully or not.
Whatever conditions caused you to be perceived as a teacher needing improvement are not permanent either. With wise consideration of the feedback you received, you can determine how best to proceed. Best wishes.

Most people have some story about who they are. They call this their identity, their role in life.
Think of this identity as a table with many legs. Each leg is one facet of their identity - for example, it maybe husband to the best wife, teacher to a loving children, son to wonderful parents, patriot of the greatest country, football fan of the greatest team, lover of the best food and so on.
We even call this the well rounded person, and we want to be very proud about the many interests.
Good. Now what happens when one of them is no longer true?
Since life is impermanent, any one of these legs can collapse.

When one loses one's parents to old age, one is no longer a son.
When one retires from one's job, one is no longer a teacher
When countries cease to exist, one is no longer a patriot or even a
citizen of the old country
When one's wife leaves, one is no longer a husband

and so on.
We can all admit, we have seen this happen, time and again.
Most people will watch one leg collapse and quickly prop up the table with a new interest. This is why some people take up dancing or something to fill their time when they get divorced. Or reminisce old stories about the good old times after they retire. This is their identity surviving always in new forms.
Meanwhile there is constant agony over the uncertainty about when one leg or the other is going to collapse, and they will rush to support it, and make sure it doesn't collapse.
When we aren't doing so well at work, we try to give the boss no excuse to be angry with us, is it not? We may never want to turn up late, or miss a day at work and so on. There is some fear here, and that is us trying to prop up that weak leg.
Now imagine we had no legs. Nothing to hold up. Then there'd be no fear, no pride, no ego, no sorrow. We can be whatever we want.
The nature of the mind is to produce thoughts, sometimes they can be pleasurable, and at other times they are painful.
When we identify with our thoughts, because they strengthen or weaken our identity - such as - "I am a very good teacher, or I am a sincere teacher, or I am a no good teacher" - whatever the story, positive or negative, this gives stickiness to the thoughts that relate to the story.
Then we can't let go of them. Even when they are hurting us, we hold on, obsessed with them, too attached to them, the thoughts are stuck to us.
Everything in this world is impermanent, yes?
Therefore the wisdom is not to derive our identity from such impermanent objects.
We aren't a teacher or a husband or a son or whatever - we are empty. We really are, don't take my word for it, or even the word of the Buddha, or the Buddhists, ask yourself. Were you born a teacher? Were you born a husband?
No, these things came into our lives at some point, and will leave our lives at some point. When we stop identifying with them, we are free, and our thoughts on them no longer matter.

Your student's criticism is nothing to get upset about; on the contrary, criticism is a great treasure! It is very fortuitous that you post this now, as Ven. Yuttadhammo just posted a video about this very issue a few days ago. Of course, being a teacher of (presumably) people younger than yourself, you must take the things they say, especially in a forum of anonymity where they submit feedback anonymously with no repercussion for what they might say, with a grain of salt. But with that being said, there probably is an air of truth to some if not a lot of it.
If there were criticisms levied against you, those were clearly things that, to some degree, came to your student's minds at some point, and had some impact in coming between them and fully listening to what it was that you were trying to convey to them.
This is a great lesson in two regards: First and most importantly, as Buddho already alluded to more-or-less, this is a great chance to see the attachment you have to your "ego". You feel harmed, defeated, dejected, at the idea that the thing you call yourself might dare be suggested to be less than what you thought it was. "I'm a great teacher!", "I do this well", etc etc. Letting go of these hang-ups will only open up potential for growth, and this ties-in with the more mundane issue of you becoming a better teacher by learning to take criticism and use it wisely and for your and your students benefit. I hope this helps, good luck, teaching others is a great thing!

What would be a Buddhist view of this pain?

This answer is based in Theravada Buddhism in the tradition of Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.
As i understand it there are 2 aspects to this. The first aspect is about the feedback from the student. The content of this feedback must have had some amount of value to the student or else it would not have been mentioned.
The feedback is actually a treasure for you. It gives you an oppertunity to work on your teaching skills and improve them and to become an even better teacher.
For other people to point out our flaws is great treasures for us. Sometimes we might not even be aware of a flaw we have. When getting this information it enables us to work on it and overcome it.

The second aspect is more of a practical aspect, i.e. how to deal with the flaws/feedback from other people.
In the Mahasi-method attention is placed on the dhammas, i.e. the objects that Citta knows, the objects that consciousness takes. One is observing the objects with objectivity and non-interference. Interfering with the objects is what creates suffering. One does not identify or take ownership of the objects. If one identifies with the objects, e.g. by saying "I am feeling defeated" or "I am feeling sad" one is adding a Self to the equation. A self that is not to be found anywhere. That idea of a Self is itself a mental formation, an object that is taken by consciousness.
The objects do not belong to anyone. There is no experiencing entity. There is no thinker behind the thought. There are just impersonal mental and physical phenomena arising and ceasing.
Mahasi Sayadaw made a simily about this. Picturing one sitting in a car at a rail way crossing. One sits in the car watching the train go by. One is watching all the different rail road cars which is like the different mental and physical phenomena arising to mind. One does no go out of the car to chase down a particular rail road car one just sits in the car watching them go by. In the same way one just sits in insight meditation watching the different mental and physical phenomena arise and cease without chasing after them or running away from them.
In the Mahasi-method one uses a mantra to stay centered in the present. One "notes" phenomena in order for the mind to not follow after the objects getting immersed in them. The noting is done to remind oneself to stay objective. If a feeling of sadness arises one notes it as "sadness, sadness" or "feeling, feeling". One notes it in the mind but keeps the attention on the object. One sends out the mind to the object.
We also have an anchor in the method of practice. That anchor is the feeling of the rising and falling of the abdomen. After one has noted an object a couple of times one goes back to the rising and falling and notes "rising, rising" or "falling, falling". When a phenomena arises, e.g. a feeling or mental formation one goes to note that phenomena.
By doing this one is keeping oneself objective and centered in the Citta. One sees that there is only an object arising and mind arising to that object.

Accept the feedback of the student only if it fulfills the right speech conditions laid down by Buddha ..

Was it True?
Was the intention of the person behind the feedback good?
Was it beneficial for everyone involved?
Was it said in an affectionate manner?
5.Was it said at the right time?

If what was said does not fulfill the criteria above than it is not right speech. For example , if you know for a fact that the intention behind the feedback was not to help you develop but to malign you or discourage you , you should ignore it completely.
If it fulfill all the criteria above ,you should feel yourself as extremely fortunate. Buddha said that it is only the wise , who can understand when someone tries to correct their faults. It is only the evil people who hate such feedback.


text:
What is the Theravada Buddhist lay lifestyle?
I am thinking about becoming a Buddhist, particularly a Theravada Buddhist but I must know about the lifestyle so I can change my lifestyle a bit. There is no Buddhist temple around where I am so I have nobody to ask. I do not wish to become a nun so the question are for more non-ordained Buddhist. So here are my questions.

What exactly is a lay Buddhist and what rules do they follow?
Are all non-ordained Buddhist considered a lay person?
Do certain things apply in Buddhism since I am female?
Can I handle money? (cash, coins, cards, etc.)
What time of day are considered inappropriate to eat? How many meals can I have a day? Can I drink liquid any time? (Milk, Water, Juice, etc.) No alcohol.
Do I need a shrine? What are considered luxury items? Should I not have luxury items?
Can I have entertainment? (TV, Computer, Phone, Music, etc.)
Do I fast? If so, when do I fast?
Do I need to wear certain clothing if I become a Buddhist? Do I need to shave my head?
Do I chant and meditate daily?
Can I meditate without a monk/nun and without a temple?

That is all I want to know. I hope all my questions can be answered. Thanks you and all may be happy.

Generally, we try to submit each question individually, but I'll do my best to answer these briefly from the Theravada tradition and give links for further information.

A lay Buddhist follows the teachings of the Buddha and observes the Five Precepts. A lay Buddhist also Takes Refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.
The Buddha defined 4 types of followers: monks, nuns, lay men and lay women. The special name for a lay man is Upāsaka and for a lay woman is Upāsikā.
All four types of followers listed above are important. Buddhism was the first religion to accept women as equals. A woman can become enlightened. A Buddha however is always a man. However, with rebirths, we'll all be men, women, etc. at one time or another, so nothing needs to be ruled out. ;-)
As a practical matter, a woman in the Theravada tradition needs to keep some distance from an ordained male and a man needs to keep some distance from an ordained female. There is no physical contact such as a handshake with an ordained person of the opposite gender. Really the most appropriate way to greet a monastic is with palms together at the heart or at the forehead.
You can handle money, only monastics have rules against that.
On ordinary days you eat as normal, though mindful eating is always good. On Uposatha Days (or during a meditation course or retreat) you may wish to observe the 8 Precepts instead of 5 Precepts. In that case you would eat only between dawn and noontime. And yes, no alcohol at all.
You don't need a shrine. Some people like to have a statue of the Buddha or an area dedicated to meditation. But it's optional.
Yes, you can have entertainment although if you are observing the 8 Precepts you would avoid entertainment during 8 Precept observation. Buddhists who are concentrating on beginning or continuing a meditation practice often limit entertainment as it's not conducive to meditation.
If you observe the 8 Precepts you wouldn't eat after noontime. But you would generally eat a full meal before noontime. So extended fasting is not really part of Buddhist tradition. It's considered an ascetic practice and Buddhism is more about the middle way.
Ordained Buddhists shave their heads. It's not necessary for lay followers; but not disallowed either. The only clothing that is different for lay followers is sometimes at intensive meditation courses or on Uposatha days or other special occasions, lay followers wear all white. It's a tradition in Thailand and other Buddhist countries in Asia and sometimes that tradition is followed in the West as well. But not always.
A regular meditation practice is considered very important. Not all Buddhists chant, but that too can be considered an important part of the practice. Some people feel chanting helps settle their mind for meditation.
Yes, you can meditate at home and find support for your practice online in communities such as this and others. But the funny thing is, there can be Buddhist temples tucked away in lots of Western communities that people don't even know about. Many are smaller and don't really stand out. Some don't have websites or do any advertising or promotion. So it can take a while to know for sure whether or not there are any local Buddhist temples, groups, or meditation centers in an area. If there is a University near you, you might find a Buddhist group that meets there. I hope you'll be happily surprised to find something near you to support your practice. But if not, the online Buddhist community is a great help as well. Best wishes. :)

Regarding point 5; has Lord Buddha explicitly forbidden alcohol consumption?


text:
Is praying to a statue of the Buddha for bad things to happen part of Buddhism?
A lady at my work has a Buddha on her desk. She's on vacation an  today and i had to work at her desk. I accidentally touched it and her friend said oh 'my don't touch that she prays to that Buddha for bad things to happen to you all'. Well let me tell you I'm more than upset about this. Is this part of this religion? I will be demanding this to be removed from our work place. This seems like voodoo. It also has my hair tie around its neck.

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Also I've just tidied up the punctuation. Again please roll back or if it isn't suitable. I believe the content of your question is the same. Best wishes,

you should get your own buddha statue, and pray to it that she overcomes her hatred and anger :)

Oh dear. Good question, but this is certainly not any form of Buddhist practice.

There's no voodoo in Buddhism. Buddha preached his doctrine to help you get rid of hatred, greed and ignorance. Any curse or black magic is not a part of Buddhism, even if the lady ignorantly uses a Buddha statue for it. She only harms herself by being ignorant and disrespectful towards the Buddha.

In Buddhism we engage in 4 special prayer-like practices regarding other beings. They are called the Four Brahma Viharas or sometimes the Four Heavenly Abodes or Four Sublime States. They are:

Love or Loving-kindness (metta)
Compassion (karuna)
Sympathetic Joy (mudita)
Equanimity (upekkha)

More information here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html
Praying for something unfortunate to happen is definitely not any part of Buddhism. For a Buddhist, keeping their mind clear of wrongdoings is a very important part of their practice and morality. Even thinking of doing something wrong can create bad karma and also make it hard to meditate with a clear conscience.
Is it possible that the person who told you that might not really understand her friend's practice at all? Perhaps she is confused or thought it would be somehow funny to spread strange stories about her Buddhist friend? Or perhaps the Buddhist friend really doesn't understand the Buddha's teachings and has Wrong Views.
In any case, I'm glad you asked here so that we can confirm, praying for bad things to happen is not any part of Buddhism. You may already know that Buddhists don't believe in a creator god and praying to a god for things to be as we wish them to be, isn't part of Buddhist practice either. We simply send out thoughts of love, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity to other beings as our form of prayer.

Buddhism teaches the cessation of anger and hatred. Anger and hatred arise from a deep suffering inside of us, and we must learn to cool down this anger and erase the suffering.
At this moment you suffer deeply because of what you heard, and this hurt has transformed into anger, and anger into hatred. It is not a pleasant feeling. But, it can be reversed. If we know how, we can transform garbage into good manure, and good manure into beautiful flowers.
It occurs to me that your friend with the Buddha statue has sadly misunderstood Buddhism, or perhaps the person informing you that she prays for bad things to happen has wrong information.
The Buddha statue isn't the cause of suffering in your life. With peaceful intentions it can also transform into a beautiful object.
It is the harmful emotions of anger and doubt that are behind it that need to be addressed.
Complaining about the Buddha statue won't help things change, will it? In all likelihood, this can create more anger, and as a result your ill feelings for her will increase, as will her's. Even when the statue is removed, the anger will remain. Nothing is solved.

To be happy, to me, is to suffer less. If we were not capable of
  transforming the pain within ourselves, happiness would not be
  possible.
When a person’s speech is full of anger, it is because he or she
  suffers deeply. Because he has so much suffering, he becomes full of
  bitterness. He is always ready to complain and blame others for his
  problems. This is why you find it very unpleasant to listen to him and
  try to avoid him. To understand and transform anger, we must learn the
  practice of compassionate listening and using loving speech.
Compassionate listening is a very deep practice. You listen not to
  judge or to blame. You listen just because you want the other person
  to suffer less. The other person might be our father, our son, our
  daughter, or our partner. Learning to listen to the other person can
  really help her to transform her anger and suffering.
If the practice is correct, if the practice is good, you don’t need
  five or ten years, just a few hours may be enough to produce
  transformation and healing.

We cannot do it immediately, or even tomorrow, but if we practice emotional awareness and deep listening in our life for a week or two, we can listen with compassion to those who hurt us, and help them transform their anger.
If you are interested in learning more about deep and compassionate listening, I recommend a short but excellent book, by Thich Nhat Hanh - "Anger - wisdom for cooling the flames". You can also find it on the internet.


text:
In the Anapanasati Sutta what is meant by 'sensitive to rapture/bliss'?
Considering these verses of the Anapanasati Sutta

He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.'
He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.'

In the commentaries I have read rapture and pleasure (bliss) are taken as jhana factors as detailed here. What exactly is been suggested here? Is it possible to experience these factors in meditation without being in the jhanas and maybe encourage them? Can one encourage them by focusing on them and almost willing them into being? I was always told this was counterproductive. Presumably this part of the sutta is samatha. Is it being suggested that you should be in the jhanas before going on any further in this meditation?
I think generally I'm just wanting some additional explanation to what these verses mean and the implication of them to meditation practice.

See "stages of anapanasati" in the wikipedia link you provided.

With that being said, I'd also like some more explanation, especially about the stages of Anapanasati, as I've never seen/heard about that before! Every explanation of Anapanasati I've seen or heard has been very basic, just watching the breath and that's it.

From my experience, it is correct to encourage and "will the rapture into being".
The most important point perhaps is that the bliss/rapture here are not just any contrived bliss/rapture, they are bliss/rapture born of the (cultivated, confirmed with insight) feeling that everything is right, that you are right. That's the key here. Suchness!
Total complete non-conceptual Emptiness is like this. You don't have ground but (and therefore) you are very steady. Some call it unmovable diamond ground, or Diamond Samadhi. That's the nature of bliss we are talking about!
Deep Groundlessness and Complete Thusness-Confidence stemming from it. The bliss of meditation is a proximate cause thereof, to induce by virtue of being a simile of.
(That said, it must be remembered that the rapture/bliss in-and-of-itself is not part of the liberating realization, groundlessness is)
PS. This is shamatha, yes, all jhanas are. But if you skip it and get to the realization through other (i.e. intellectual) means you will still have to come back and polish your suchness anyway, so why not do it upfront.
As I said before, jhanas is not something you find yourself in, it is what you work on. Any meditation that involves deliberate cultivation of certain mindset is not vipashyana. The four jhanas are a kind of shamatha specifically aimed at generation of rapture-bliss-suchness-groundlessness. Once the fourth jhana has been attained, our friend Gotama naturally found himself in vipashyana. Anapanasati is a very generic description of the same basic method, perhaps less centered on Gotama's personal experience than is the four jhanas story, a little more generalized for an average practitioner.
As I understand, the five precepts were the preliminary practice for taming the mind, followed by kasinas and cultivation of disgust (later replaced by Anapana!), followed by the four jhanas (generation of progressively subtler suhkha-becoming-suchness), followed by vipashyana. So it is like first you achieve basic isolation from unskillful qualities, then learn to focus inside and see your own mental and emotional obscurations, then learn to overcome these and generate certain mindset and mood, then start crossing over to the four noble truths while at the same time exploring relationship between suffering and craving on one hand, and bliss and suchness on the other, and then falling out from blissful kinds of suchness into true groundlessness.
So you can see that the role of rapture/bliss generation here is to both provide pleasant dwelling in the here and now, but more importantly to serve as the stepping stone to suchness and then groundlessness of nirvana.

I assume that by rapture and bliss you mean the Pali words Piti and Sukha.
Piti and Sukha are supposed to be comfortable and pleasant states of mind that arise whenever the mind is sufficiently calm, abiding in itself. However, these states have degrees of maturity, and they are not always conventionally pleasant. Diarrhea or sensations of ants crawling for example are results of Piti that the commoner wouldn't enjoy as pleasures.
Piti and Sukha can arise both in Samatha and Vipassana, leading some to compare the nanas of Vipassana with the Jhanas of Samatha, and claim they are one and the same with subtle differences. However, this is not agreed upon by all, who think there's a big difference between khanika samadhi and jhana.
My own view is nanas & jhanas are equally beneficial, but different in character to some extent, yet not as different as the hardliners make it out to be.
However Piti and Sukha are false fruits - one may be captured by them, and remaining content in them, may return to them time and again without making more effort to enter higher nanas or jhanas.

There are five types of Piti with the final kind being the jhana factor Piti.
One can be practicing Vipassana, and from the final Piti depart to a Samadhi, or exit a jhana samadhi directly into a Vipassana nana.
Five kinds or types of Piti

1. Khuddaka piti (minor rapture)
This state is characterized by the following:

The meditator may be aware of a white color.
There may be a feeling of coolness or dizziness and the hairs of the body may stand on end.
The meditator may cry or feel terrified.

2. Khanika piti (momentary rapture)
Characteristics of this piti include:

Seeing flashes of light.
Seeing sparks. Nervous twitching.
A feeling of stiffness all over the body.
A feeling as if ants were crawling on the body.
A feeling of heat all over the body.
Shivering.
Seeing red colors.
The hair on the body rising slightly.
Itchiness as if ants were crawling on one's face and body.

3. Okkantika piti (flood of joy)
In this piti:

The body may shake and tremble.
The face, hands and feet may twitch.
There may be violent shaking as if the bed is going to turn upside
  down.
Nausea and at times actual vomiting may occur.
There may be a
  rhythmic feeling like waves breaking on the shore.
Ripples of energy
  may seem to flow over the body.
The body may vibrate like a stick
  which is fixed in a flowing stream.
A light yellow color may be
  observed. The body may bend to and fro.

4. Ubbenka piti (uplifting joy)
In this piti:

The body feels as if it is extending or moving upwards.
There may be a
  feeling as though lice are climbing on the face and body.
Diarrhea may
  occur.
The body may bend forwards or backwards.
One may feel that
  one's head has been moved backwards and forwards by somebody.
There
  may be a chewing movement with the mouth either open or closed.
The
  body sways like a tree being blown by the wind.
The body bends
  forwards and may fall down.
There may be fidgeting movements of the
  body.
There may be jumping movements of the body.
Arms and legs may be
  raised or may twitch.
The body may bend forwards or may recline.
A
  silver gray color may be observed.

5. Pharana piti (pervading rapture)
In this piti:

A feeling of coldness spreads through the body.
Peace of mind sets in
  occasionally.
There may be itchy feelings all over the body.
There may
  be drowsy feelings and the meditator may not wish to open his or her
  eyes.
The meditator has no wish to move.
There may be a flushing
  sensation from feet to head or vice versa.
The body may feel cool as
  if taking a bath or touching ice.
The meditator may see blue or
  emerald green colors.
An itchy feeling as though lice are crawling on
  the face may occur.

Sukha

The fourth defilement of vipassana is sukha which means "bliss" and
  has the following characteristics:

There may be a feeling of comfort.
Due to pleasant feelings the
  meditator may wish to continue practicing for a long time.
The
  meditator may wish to tell other people of the results which he has
  already gained.
The meditator may feel immeasurably proud and happy.
Some say that they have never known such happiness.
Some feel deeply
  grateful to their teachers.
Some meditators feel that their teacher is
  at hand to give help.

Source: http://www.vipassanadhura.com/sixteen.html
One cannot understand the meaning of these terms sufficiently by poring through a Pali dictionary; true understanding in these cases is experiential.
Not everyone attains these states in sequence, one's mind can skip some steps, or one's attention may not catch them when they occur.
If one is on a retreat, and only practicing Anapanasati for several days, one can certainly come very close to the textbook definitions, but that doesn't make the experience special. What makes the experience special is the several days of sustained practice.

If all the Buddha's teachings are lost, one can recover all of them by faithfully following the breath.

I instinctively felt this statement arise in me with no doubt whatsoever when I first encountered the Anapanasati Sutta, which was the first Buddhist text of any sort that I had read. I was pleasantly surprised some days back to see the Buddha has said much the same - that one can reach enlightenment with just the Anapanasati practice.
Most monasteries in ancient times only had a few suttas at any one time, and this accounts for the great profusion of texts today which were each written from an individual's personal realization of the grand truths.
The ancient masters who took Buddhism to several distant lands had certainly not read every text there was on the topic - they couldn't have because many of them weren't yet written. Yet, their transmission was pure because their realization was personal - they had walked the same path as the Buddha, and seen the same things. That was enough.
Being flooded with various texts from several traditions today thanks to the Internet, the challenge for each of us is to find time from reading to actually practice. A foundational text like Anapanasati actually contains all the necessary elements of practice. All we need is the confidence to read no more, and lock ourselves away in the practice room.
UPDATE:
I think there are a few specific questions I forgot to answer:

Is it possible to experience these factors in meditation without being in the jhanas and maybe encourage them?

Yes

Can one encourage them by focusing on them and almost willing them into being?

I think this recent Dhamma talk by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Don't focus on Jhana, focus on the breath" (mp3 linked) answers that.

I was always told this was counterproductive.

Usually yes, because meditation becomes a strain, and goal oriented.

Presumably this part of the sutta is samatha.

It is a core meditation technique for mindfulness and concentration - both. It is mentioned in the Satipatthana sutta as such.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

"There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to
  the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his
  legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the
  fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in;
  mindful he breathes out.

The Buddha himself rarely made a clear distinction between Samatha states and Vipassana states, to him it was all meditation that co-existed, he  often called out the jhanas specifically.
A lot of the modern emphasis on Vipassana, and the resulting mindfulness movement is based on an excessive reliance on the Abhidhamma (itself a commentary), and the Visuddhimagga (which is brilliant, but has some controversial roots since Buddhagosa is said to have burned up ancient manuscripts that preceded it for reasons unknown).

In the few instances where they do mention vipassana, they almost
  always pair it with samatha — not as two alternative methods, but as
  two qualities of mind that a person may "gain" or "be endowed with,"
  and that should be developed together. One simile, for instance (SN
  35.204), compares samatha and vipassana to a swift pair of messengers who enter the citadel of the body via the noble eightfold path and
  present their accurate report — Unbinding, or nibbana — to the
  consciousness acting as the citadel's commander. Another passage (AN
  10.71) recommends that anyone who wishes to put an end to mental defilement should — in addition to perfecting the principles of moral
  behavior and cultivating seclusion — be committed to samatha and
  endowed with vipassana. This last statement is unremarkable in itself,
  but the same discourse also gives the same advice to anyone who wants
  to master the jhanas: be committed to samatha and endowed with
  vipassana. This suggests that, in the eyes of those who assembled the
  Pali discourses, samatha, jhana, and vipassana were all part of a
  single path. Samatha and vipassana were used together to master jhana
  and then — based on jhana — were developed even further to give rise
  to the end of mental defilement and to bring release from suffering.
  This is a reading that finds support in other discourses as well.

Is it being suggested that you should be in the jhanas before going on any further in this meditation?

No, that isn't the intent.

Below are what I hope is some relevant material from several prominent teachers of jhāna.
Ajahn Brahm
Here are what I take to be some helpful comments from Ajahn Brahm's book, The Jhanas regarding pitisukha:
Pitisukha—Joy and Happiness

In Pali, the compound word pitisukha means the combination of joy and
  happiness. One can use those words for all sorts of experiences, even
  for worldly experiences. But in meditation, pitisukha refers only to
  that joy and happiness that is generated through letting go. Just as
  various types of fire may be distinguished by their fuel—such as a
  wood fire, oil fire or brushfire—so the various types of happiness can
  be distinguished by their cause. The joy and happiness that arises
  with the beautiful breath is fueled by the letting go of burdens such
  as past and future, internal commentary and diversity of
  consciousness.

What if pitisukha hasn't appeared?

When pitisukha doesn’t arise, it must be because there is not enough
    contentment, that is, one is still trying too much. One should reflect
    on the first two of the five hindrances. The first hindrance, sensory
    desire, draws the attention towards the object of desire and thus away
    from the breath. The second hindrance, ill will, finds fault with the
    experience of breath, and the dissatisfaction repels the attention
    away from the breath. Contentment is the “middle way” between desire
    and ill will. It keeps one’s mindfulness with the breath long enough
    for the pitisukha to arise...Putting all one’s effort into the knowing is another way of generating pitisukha along with the breath.
    For the energy of the mind is equivalent to happiness. So if pitisukha
    hasn’t appeared yet, it might be that one is not directing effort away
    from the doer and into the knowing.

Cultivate Sufficient Joy and Happiness (Pitisukha).

The state above [nimitta doesn't appear] arises because one did not cultivate sufficient
  pitisukha along with the breath. There was not enough delight when the
  breath disappeared, so mindfulness had no clear mental object of
  beauty to latch on to. Understanding this, one needs to put more value
  on developing delight when one is watching the breath, and cultivating
  that delight into a strong sense of beauty. For example, one may
  regard the breath as the messenger bringing you oxygen as a life
  support gift from the flowers and trees. The breath unites you vitally
  with all of the plant world, supporting one another with the pulse of
  the air. Whatever skillful means one employs, by paying careful
  attention to the beauty alongside the breath, the beauty will blossom.
  What one pays attention to usually grows. In the previous chapter, one
  was cautioned not to be afraid of delight in meditation. I regard this
  exhortation as so important that I am going to repeat it again almost
  word for word. (emphasis mine)

Do not be afraid of delight

I want to stress that one should be cautious not to be afraid of
  delight in meditation. Too many meditators dismiss happiness thinking
  it unimportant or, even worse, thinking that they don’t deserve such
  delight. Happiness in meditation is important! Moreover, you deserve
  to bliss out! Blissing out on the breath is an essential part of the
  path. So when delight does arise alongside the breath, one should
  cherish it like a valuable treasure, and guard it accordingly. The
  delight that arises at the stage of the beautiful breath is the “glue”
  that holds the mind’s attention on the breath. It results in the
  mindfulness staying with the breath without effort. One stays with
  full attention on the breath because the mind wants to stay with the
  breath. The mind, at this stage, enjoys watching the breath so much
  that it doesn’t want to go anywhere else. It just remains with the
  breath, automatically. It is so content being with the delightful,
  beautiful breath that all wandering ceases. One remains fully aware of
  the breath without any need to control the mind. Mindfulness of the
  breath, here, becomes effortless. Without the experience of delight,
  there will be some discontent. And discontent is the source of the
  wandering mind. Before one reaches the stage of the beautiful breath,
  discontent pushes mindfulness away from the breath.

Leigh Brasington
Leigh Brasington and some others teach a 'soft' version of the jhanas insofar as the level of concentration and absorption is much lesser than the 'hard' jhānas taught by Ajahn Brahm, Pa Auk Sayadaw, and others; this method involves focusing explicitly on the feelings of pitisukha; his instructions are as follows:
Instructions for entering 'soft' jhāna

So to summarize the method for entering the first jhana: You sit in a
  nice comfortable upright position, and generate access concentration
  by putting and maintaining your attention on a single meditation
  object. When access concentration arises, then you shift your
  attention from the breath (or whatever your method is) to a pleasant
  sensation, preferably a pleasant physical sensation. You put your
  attention on that sensation, and maintain your attention on that
  sensation, and do nothing else.
The hard part is the do nothing else part. You put your attention on
  the pleasant sensation, and nothing happens, so you might think to
  yourself, "He said something was supposed to happen." No, I did not
  say to make comments about watching the pleasant sensation. Or, you
  might put your attention on the pleasant sensation and it starts to
  increase, so you think, "Oh! Oh! Something's happening!" No. Or it
  comes up just a little bit and then it stops, and you sort of try and
  help it. No. None of this works.
You are to simply observe the pleasant sensation. You become totally
  immersed in the pleasantness of the pleasant sensation. And I mean by
  this just what I say: the pleasantness of the pleasant sensation. I
  don't mean the location of the pleasant sensation; nor its intensity;
  nor its duration. I don't mean whether the pleasant sensation is
  increasing or decreasing or staying the same. Just focus entirely upon
  the pleasant aspect of the pleasant sensation, and the jhana will
  arise on its own.
All you can do is set up the conditions for the jhana to arise, by
  cultivating a calm and quiet mind focused on pleasantness. And then
  just let go -- be that calm quiet mind focused on pleasantness -- and
  the jhana will appear. Any attempt to do anything more does not work.
  You actually have to become a human being, as opposed to a human
  doing. You have to become a being that is simply focused on the
  pleasant sensation which is existing, and then the jhana comes all on
  its own.

Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder
Two meditation teachers that I have worked with--Tina Rasmussen and Stephen Snyder--that teach jhānas in the tradition of Pa Auk Sayadaw give instructions, as you say, to initially not take pīti or sukha as meditation objects; rather, one is instructed to remain with the breath at the 'anapana spot' and ignore them (although not pushing them away). They teach that the jhāna factors may be present in varying strengths prior to actual absorption. I do recall them saying on retreat that if, after sustained practice, the factors are imbalanced, e.g., one has a lot of one-pointedness of mind (ekkagatā) but little joy is arising, that there are ways one can try to encourage pitisukha.

Towards the later stages of the meditation you come to a stage where you are fully concentrated on the breath. Your concentration is very high. Rapturous joy, calm, and peace of mind are incredible experiences for you – something have have not experienced before. Now I will go to a third party person (You will become 'he/his/him from now on.) Remember, he is training himself. Therefore, he does not cling to this rapturous joy. He trains himself to breathe in experiencing rapture, and to breathe out experiencing rapture. He continues this in a calm detached way.
Some people become elated when they get the feeling of happiness and bliss to the body and mind. A mind that is obsessed by elation cannot concentrate. At that point, the concentration he gained would disappear. Then he starts regretting as to why he could not uphold the concentration he developed previously. Concentration, rapturous joy, calm, and peace of mind and body, are causally dependent; they are conditioned results. They do not arise by chance. If the mind is self, there wouldn’t be a problem. As it would be possible to say with regards to the mind, ‘Let my mind be thus.’ However, mind is not self.
Now he trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. Calming the entire process of body and mind, he is experiencing rapture. He is experiencing this as a result of continuous exertion for deliverance from mental defilements (atapi) and from clear comprehension (sampajano).
Is the rapture easeful or stressful? It is indeed easeful – physically and mentally. He is breathing in sensitive to pleasure and breathing out sensitive to pleasure, experiencing bliss. You can understand to what extent he has tamed his mind. The common nature of the mind is that it can be swayed by anything. He has trained himself and therefore, his mind is not being mesmerized by pleasure and rapture. His mind is tamed, controlled and restrained with continuous exertion for deliverance from defilements. His mind is fully concentrated on the breath, and his concentration is very high. What will he do next? He Trains Experiencing the Mental Formations. That is the next step.

Stage 4 is calming the breath ('kaya sankhara': 'body conditioner'). Thus, naturally, stage 5 (experiencing rapture) is a product of stage 4. Stage 4 is a product of the instruction: "He trains himself", which means training in letting go of craving & attachment. Therefore, why would anyone crave to experience rapture? Is not such craving contrary to the training instructions?
Rapture is certainly a jhana factor however rapture can also arise on the lower levels of momentary (khanikasamadhi) & neighborhood concentration (upacāra-samādhi).
Enthusiastic beginner meditators can generate momentary rapture from momentary concentration by heavily suppressing thought. Such beginners end up in the situation described in this thread by Saptha Visuddhi, where they cling to & crave this coarse rapture.
Neighborhood concentration (unlike momentary concentration) produces genuine rapture since in neighborhood concentration the mind is sufficiently detached for rapture to arise from tranquility (rather than from the will) and sufficiently detached to see the rapture as 'dukkha' & 'not-self'.
Both neighborhood concentration & attainment (jhana) concentration are path factors or transcendent (enlightened) concentration. (Stream-enterers, for example, have mastered neighborhood concentration but not reached jhana).
When the mind has path level concentration, it already knows the (preliminary) taste of peace (Nibbana) that comes from letting go. Therefore, when rapture arises, in comparison to the nibbanic peace, the rapture is felt as disturbing & dukkha.
The momentary concentration taught by people such as Leigh Brasington is spiritual materialism or spiritual egoism. It is unrelated to the instructions & description in the Anapanasati Sutta since the last 14 stages of the Anapanasati Sutta each have the instruction of: "He trains himself", which means full training in morality, concentration & wisdom.
Whenever the mind is engaged in clinging, craving & delighting in pleasant feelings, this is not training in wisdom. Instead, the Buddha compared it to children that delight in building sandcastles.


text:
Do Paramittas need to be part of Theravada Buddhist training?
Do Paramittas need to be part of Theravada Buddhist training, much like keeping the 5 precepts or the noble eightfold path? Or are they just results/rewards we get for practicing the noble eightfold path/keeping the precepts? And is there are specific order (eg.Dhana-->Seela-->Nekkhamma etc. ) or should all be concentrated on at the same time?

I've edited the title to better reflect the content of the question. Please roll back if the title isn't suitable. Metta

The Pāramitās, are "perfections" or ideals of different wholesome aspects of character that can be worked on (perfected) over the course of many lifetimes. A Buddha has already perfected all of these virtues in previous lives according to Theravada teachings.
Just for background information there are 10 Pāramitās in the Theravada tradition:

Dāna pāramī : generosity, giving of oneself
Sīla pāramī : virtue, morality, proper conduct
Nekkhamma pāramī : renunciation
Paññā pāramī : transcendental wisdom, insight
Viriya (also spelled vīriya) pāramī : energy, diligence, vigour, effort
Khanti pāramī : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance
Sacca pāramī : truthfulness, honesty
Adhiṭṭhāna (adhitthana) pāramī : determination, resolution
Mettā pāramī : loving-kindness
Upekkhā (also spelled upekhā) pāramī : equanimity, serenity

There are 6 Pāramitās in the Mahayana tradition:

Dāna pāramitā: generosity, giving of oneself (in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, 布施波羅蜜; in Wylie Tibetan, sbyin-pa)
Śīla pāramitā : virtue, morality, discipline, proper conduct (持戒波羅蜜; tshul-khrims)
Kṣānti (kshanti) pāramitā : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance (忍辱波羅蜜, bzod-pa)
Vīrya pāramitā : energy, diligence, vigor, effort (精進波羅蜜, brtson-’grus)
Dhyāna pāramitā : one-pointed concentration, contemplation (禪定波羅蜜, bsam-gtan)
Prajñā pāramitā : wisdom, insight (般若波羅蜜, shes-rab)

As you can see, there is a lot of overlap with such things as the 5 Precepts (sila parami, sacca parami), the 4 Brahma Viharas (metta parami, upekkha parami), the 5 Spiritual Faculties (viriya parami, panna parami) and other Buddhist teachings.
So the perfections aren't something you work on separate from other things. They are intertwined with daily life and seeing opportunities everywhere to perfect your qualities. Stuck in a long line at the market? An opportunity to improve khanti parami. Feeling discouraged about your meditation practice? An opportunity to improve adhitthana parami and viriya parami. Realizing the tough things that arise in daily life are opportunities to perfect your qualities makes them easier to bear; even a challenge of sorts.
I remember an awesome story from a dhamma talk about the Buddha (while he was still a Bhodisatta), finding himself buried up to his neck in the ground with a band of hungry jackals coming at him. He used this opportunity to perfect some of his, as yet to be perfected, qualities. Similar story here.
So you can see there is nothing that can't be turned into an opportunity to work on Pāramitās! :)

Actually, everyone who wishes to be enlightened has to practice all of them. Not just a Buddha. But a Sammasambuddha has to practice them in 3 ways and a Pacceka Buddha has to practice them in 2 ways.

@SankhaKulathantille I know this is a popular modern concept, but the word "parami" suggests that what is being referred to is not just the practice but the perfection of the said states, which is impossible for a non-Buddha.

ven. @yuttadhammo I agree Bhante! Perfecting is Paramatta Parami.
ex:  Giving out someone objects such as wives, children,
assets are dana parami; give organs
such as hands, feet, etc., is the Dana Upa parami;
giving life is dana Paramattha parami.

Sila grows Samadhi, Samadhi grows Panna, Panna grows Sila.

and

Paramitas grow the eight fold path, the eight fold path grows the 5 precepts, the 5 precepts grow the Paramitas

The human body needs a holistic balance of all its components, and weakness in one can lead to weakness in another, and growing good health by fixing one health problem will generally fix other problems.
They are all interdependent. They all need to be at healthy levels for one to remain in good spiritual health.
The essence of Buddhism is inter dependence. Both inside ourselves, and outside.
If we live in a culture where generosity (dana) is frowned upon, then a little of that miserliness will stick to us, and the opposite is true - it's hard not to be infected by the abundant generosity of a culture that surrounds us.
Let's not focus on things so much like a formula, instead we begin feeling with our heart instead of using only the head. Becoming aware of the emotions that arise from practicing dana, becoming aware of the emotions that arise from selfishness, becoming aware of the state of the body during the arising of the emotions, we can see for ourselves, which is gainful, which is painful and so on.
Dharma is not a race where one suffers a lot to win, it's an enjoyable path where one let's go of the self.
As soon as one realises the art of practicing without practicing, one succeeds beautifully.


text:
Role of food as an allowed monastic luxury
Whenever the Buddha and his retinue were invited to the palace of a great King or a big merchant, the suttas don't forget to mention the feast was delicious and rich.

Then King Prasenajit, for the sake of his father, the late king,
  arranged on the day of mourning a vegetarian feast and invited the
  Buddha to the side rooms of the palace. He welcomed the Tathagata in
  person with a vast array of superb delicacies of unsurpassed wonderful
  flavors and himself invited the great Bodhisattvas. SS 1:121

Of course the Buddha was never attached to such things, as we are told he ate grass meant to feed horses offered by a stablehand with the same beatific smile as he ate palace delicacies.
Yet, how is it that when high beds, and perfumes and all manner of luxuries are disallowed, throwing a feast or banquet is actually encouraged as a means of merit making for the lay follower? Especially when one considers how this sets apart the poor lay follower who can only afford to feed the occasional monk on his alms rounds.
A casual analysis of monastic accounts over the ages reveals to me a general tendency for monks to even look forward to such feasts. I can imagine there are good reasons for this loophole - after all, a feast probably was a good source of much needed calories while living in the forest.
Still it is one of those odd things - who in their right mind could think they could honor the Buddha with a feast? If anything, he probably favored the simple flavors of fruits of the forest over puddings and rich food.

Actually, high beds and seats are not disallowed; making them is. It's not really so cut and dried, and the Buddha seems to have allowed for the fact that (some) luxury is not the problem; attachment is.

throwing a feast or banquet is actually encouraged as a means of merit making for the lay follower?

Not in the texts, it isn't. It is actually stated rather simply as "refined food both hard and soft". If anything, the point is to make mention of the rich people putting care and sincerity into their gift, which is very important for cultivating wholesome mind states.

Especially when one considers how this sets apart the poor lay follower who can only afford to feed the occasional monk on his alms rounds.

The texts often make mention of the greatness of poor people giving coarse fare according to or beyond their means. The important point is one's quality of mind.

who in their right mind could think they could honor the Buddha with a feast? If anything, he probably favored the simple flavors of fruits of the forest over puddings and rich food.

Not according to the Buddha; he was raised as a prince and his palate was quite refined; when he first went on alms as a bodhisatta, he said that it felt like his stomach was going to come out of his throat in protest of the coarse fare. I think it is unfair, though, to suggest that the Buddha favoured any type of fare. He did praise a monk who  separated his food into wholesome and unwholesome once, though, so there is that.

I see your point. I had assumed that given the importance assigned to sewing, dying and making one's own robes even in this day and age, there wasn't much wiggle room if one were to interpret the rules strictly.

@Buddho I'm not sure that any importance was assigned to sewing, dying and making one's own robes... importance was assigned to striving to be content with rags for robes and alms for food, but refraining from fine robes and food was never a part of the Buddha's teaching, afaics.

This has been a revelation to me. I remember the controversy over Thai monks being filmed on a private jet, and I do believe the justification that it was a gift by a lay person was submitted. Somehow the idea that there was a ban on luxury, and hence the national outcry was in my head.

"he said that it felt like his stomach was going to come out of his throat in protest of the coarse fare" -- @yuttadhammo, do you remember where is this from? I'm extremely sensitive to food taste, and that speaks deeply to me