text:
Is it forbidden in Thai/Buddhist religion for a woman to perform consensual oral sex on someone?
Is it forbidden in Thailand and Buddhist religion for a Thai adult female living in the western world to perform consensual oral sex on someone?

I'd be useful for all of us to know why would someone downvote this kind of question. If people don't show us our mistakes, how could we learn anything?

I voted to close this question because it is not really related to Buddhist philosophy. For example, if the Thai female performed consensual oral sex on her husband, it would not be sexual misconduct. The question is too broad.

Are you asking if it is in conformity with the Thai culture or if it breaks the 3rd precept?

The Buddhist path is followed by those who voluntarily choose to, i.e., by those who take refuge.
Dhammapada 242 says: "misconduct is the taint in a woman" (malitthiyā duccaritaṃ). Traditionally, in Thailand, monks interpreted this to mean the only allowable sexual partner for a Buddhist woman is her husband. In traditional Thai culture, the sexual purity of a woman & a mother was considered very important. Thus, while the mother remained sexually moral, often it was acceptable for men to occasionally have sex with those women who were outcastes from mainstream society, namely, prostitutes. (Yes - this appears to be a typical characteristic Thai "double standard").
Also, the idea of "consent" has no relevance to the Buddhist path because a "consensual action" may still be an unskillful action that brings harm & suffering. For example, many people consent to have uncommitted sex with eachother yet often such sexual interactions bring suffering, such as anger, blame, addiction, regret, feeling used or heartbreak. The emotional reactions of lonely desperate people (called "hungry ghosts" in Buddhism) searching for sex is often unpredictable. Often people that engage in promiscuous sex have hidden psychological issues.
All religions, including Buddhism, include sex in their moral guidelines because sex is not 100% pleasure and can bring suffering. The Buddha said about sexual pleasures: "They bring little enjoyment and much suffering and disappointment. The perils in them are greater". For example, some individuals even commit suicide due to the loss of a lover. Many men angrily lose their financial wealth when their wife revengefully divorces them. When promiscuous women "hit the wall" due to age & menopause, they often appear susceptible to depression.
Therefore, to attempt to answer this very broad question:

If a Thai adult female living in the western world is a Buddhist that has taken refuge in Buddhism by voluntarily choosing to observe the five precepts; then to perform consensual oral sex on someone apart from her husband or her (same sex) wife would be sexual misconduct.
Regardless, random acts of performing consensual oral sex outside of committed relationships leads to 'rebirth' in the hungry ghost (addiction), animal (shamelessness) & hell (suffering) realms. It is quite obvious the significant amount Western women over 40 years of age using antidepressants is probably largely due to their former sexual promiscuity & broken relationships.

Note: Most Thai people consider themselves to be "Buddhist", even if they have not taken formal vows (refuge) and even if they do not live a moral life. Therefore, if a Thai woman performs oral sex on many different people, she may still consider herself to be a "Buddhist". Even Thai prostitutes may consider themselves to be Buddhists. When I lived in a monastery in Thailand, a renowned corrupt politician ordained as a monk after he was stood down from parliament & lived in the hut next door to me. Therefore, we should be careful not accuse a Thai of not being a (cultural) Buddhist if they do not follow the Buddhist moral precepts.

Hi DD! Do you have some source for the statement "It is quite obvious [...] women [...] using antidepressants is probably largely due to their formal sexual promiscuity & broken relationships"? Kind regards!

Yes. The source is my own insight of witnessing many women take rebirth into the hell realm. As the Taoist say: "If heaven won't free him; who can save him". Best wishes lusting over wounded women & maintaining hindrances.

Insight is a vision of the inner working of the "own" mind. To know others' minds requires a lot more investigation and objectivity (or psychic powers, I guess). Some intuitions may seem right and obvious at first, but sometimes they are the product of our prejudices and biases. I woudn't be so fast to judge and to assume statistics from appearence. Kind regards!

I am downvoting this answer with regards to overgeneralizations that doesn't reflect buddhism (point 2).

I found the phrase "hit the wall" (as defined) disrespectful and sexist -- an inappropriate way to view or to describe your mother, wife, daughter, or sister.

Sure. Cultural Marxists take offense easily. In summary, the comments are unrelated to Buddhism and is merely worldly subjective ideas. What I know with completely certainty is holding such ideas will result in never ever completing the Buddhist Path. What I also know is there is high rate of pornography addiction among those who post on Buddhism internet chat sites. Regards

@Dhammadhatu It's not necessary to be a "cultural marxist" to acknowledge and reject the sexist prejudices born from biases. And I think is for the best to concentrate on the own practice and not judge others, unless required. We are all walking toward the same goal (although with many degrees of more or less effort and commitment), so we shouldn't focus on attacking others, but to kindly and compassionately help us one another along the Path. I wish you the best, dear DD. Kind regards!

Ideas of "sexual prejudice" are Cultural Marxist. If a person does not understand how kamma works, a person cannot practise. Obviously, the laws of kamma are beyond the comprehension of many. The Buddha did not teach Dhamma to those who cannot understand Dhamma. Instead, the Buddha "killed" those students.

@Dhammadhatu "Sexual prejudices" are all the ideas that describe how men and women are and/or should be, like describing some kind of essence of "manliness" or "womanhood". In other words, these are biases and beliefs about what constitutes masculinty and femininity, without understanding how culture, society, education and context influence and conditions such expressions. Nothing "marxist" about this. Kind regards!

When you say "my own insight of witnessing many women take rebirth into the hell realm", do you mean that you literraly saw them experiencing rebirth in hellish realms or did you just saw them experience depression and other issues?
Also, i upvoted your answer because in my experience we live in an age where views about sexuality are very dogmatic and distorted, and people do not want to question their own appetites.

Hi. I saw them  experience depression and other issues, Regards

In all restricted Theravada culture...
As Arahanta Anagami and monks, all sex is for fun with 5 strings. The Buddha taught detach from 5 strings, so it is forbidden for Arahanta Anagami and monks.
However, as  Sotapanna and ordinary, who being not monks, the Buddha taught to re-understand misunderstood first, so moral sex, which being harder to detach, is not forbidden for  Sotapanna and ordinary.
Sotapanna and Sakadagami, who being not monks, are trying to avoid sex, in processing, so sex is not forbidden for them.

This is partially correct. When you say forbidden for Arahanta Anagami and monks its wrong. It should be Arahanta and Anagami monks are not having any desire to have sex as they have completely removed that desire And same applies to Sakadagami, Sotapanna and Ordinary. Nothing is forbidden.
Buddhism is not a religion its how the world works. Once you have realised that playing with a toy doesn't make sense, you stop it!

@IsuruGunawardana I agree with you. You can edit the answer. Thank you.

Is it forbidden in Thailand and Buddhist religion for a Thai adult female living in the western world to perform consensual oral sex on someone?

"Consensual" is not enough. The relationship needs to be a committed and legit. one. Adulterers "consensually" engage in sexual relationship, but that still absolutely violate the 3rd Precept. So, assuming the relationship is legit., and folks haven't reached any stage of the Noble Fruits, what and how couples conduct their "business" is their own business (obviously assuming they "do" it in their own private room). However, since Buddhism always encourages working toward higher more refined states of mind and eliminating grosser form of pleasures, certain forms of sex acts are considered cruder than the other (ie. it'd require a lot more clinging/attachment/desires to use the mouth on someone's excretory organ versus just letting the 2 excretory organs "do their work", etc.), a good Buddhist would be mindful and strive toward more and more wholesome alternatives, as taught by the Buddha in AN 8.53

Hi santa100! When you say "legit", are you using the term referring to the "buddhist law" (the Dhamma) or to laws coming from civil and penal codes? Kind regards!

The Buddhist Precepts. Although many of its laws share parallels with the law of the land. And sometime the law of the land would result in more grave consequences if one breaks it (ie. having sex with underage kids under the protection of their parents can result in monetary fine and prison terms. Some country issue capital punishment for commititng adultery, etc.)

Is it forbidden in Thailand and Buddhist religion for a Thai adult female living in the western world to perform consensual oral sex on someone?

I don't know that about in Thailand, but In Buddhism nothing is forbidden unless you observe Sila, it may be Five, Eight, Ten and willing to protect at all cost.
Simply you can do whatever you want, but the consequences for things we do were perfectly clarified and told by Lord Buddha. We need to think twice before we do something.
In this case, no matter where she live, whether she have observed Pancha Sila or not, if she isn't with her lawful husband, she broke one of five percepts which causes to very cruel consequences in this life and next afterlife.


text:
Goenkas vipassana
I focus now on bigger area from top of the nose to upper lip.When I watch breath my focus goes from upper lip to nasal passage but could not return to upper lip that is my tiny spot of focus .It gets stucked up to  nostril or base of nose.So what  should I do to focus continuously upper lip to top of nose and return back from top of nose to upper lip.

Is this similar to https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/33457/goenkas-vipassana ?

In the words of the Buddha, "pari-mukham satim"
(step 0.5) in the sutta:
http://lucid24.org/sn/sn54/sn54-003/toc-addon/index.html
Translated literally means somewhere near the mouth area. In the vinaya, pari-mukham can refer to chest hair area, facial hair, so if you take the physical interpretation of that phrase, it's not exact, and most people translate it in physical spatial terms as "in front".
There's also figurative a meaning, "pari-mukham" meaning to make that that main priority, the main task. Just like in the English expression, "focusing on the task at hand". It doesn't literally mean the spatial location of your hands.
So the answer to your question is, it doesn't really matter exactly where near the mouth you focus. 16 APS anapana isn't about that. The point is to use the breath as a way to fill up the entire bandwidth of your attention so you stop unprofitable thinking, and then thinking itself (mental talk). Using the mouth area as a spatial focal point is just a suggested preliminary way to achieve that. The important part of 16 APS is to develop a  calm, lucid state of mind that uses the pleasurable experience of attending fully to the tactile experience of breath sensation pervading the body as a natural incentive. It's easy to enter samadhi when the mind is happy and occupied. And the mind is much happier when it doesn't feel constricted, stuffed into a tiny box.

You can try the following to continuously focus on the upper lip:

Concern - one should be concerned to retain the object of meditation may it be breath or metta
Reaction - one should see if one's mind is with the object and if not bring it back. Even if not periodically are apply your mind to the objects by trying to see the meditation object (in the case the upper lip) or be with the meditation object.
Attention - one should pay attention to what the mind is doing, i.e., wandering off or staying in focus
Reviewing - periodically are checking if you are at the chosen place

Having said this:

When the area is bigger there is a chance you can feel the touch better
When the area is small one has to concentrate more, hence doing so increases concentration

So if your concentration is weak to be at the upper lip where the feeling of the breath is the very subtle increase the area to include the tip of the nose or even the top of the nose.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How & why can sexual intentions be harmful to others?
MN 19 says:

And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued
  with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with
  sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to
  the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
  discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Nibbana.'

While I gain the impression the macho blokey male Buddhist internet scene appears to have men hoping to score jhana or Nibbana, which they imagine is a higher form of pornographic sexual orgasm, in this respect, it seems MN 19 is clear when it says sensuality is harmful to "oneself", in that sensual & sexual thoughts hinder jhana & Nibbana.
But why are sensual or sexual thoughts & intentions harmful to "others", as stated on MN 19?

Then, as I meditated—diligent, keen, and resolute—a sensual thought arose. I understood: ‘This sensual thought has arisen in me. It leads to hurting myself, hurting others, and hurting both. It blocks wisdom, it’s on the side of anguish, and it doesn’t lead to extinguishment.’ When I reflected that it leads to hurting myself, it went away. When I reflected that it leads to hurting others, it went away.

If one has a sensual thought about another person, one feels an attraction, a craving, a grasping. And as one acts upon that sensual thought, that other person becomes a sense-object, an object of craving. We objectify them, reducing them to mere objects of satisfaction. This is harmful to others in that it diminishes them.
And although the person to whom we are attracted may delight in our attention, they may come to crave that attention and seek it again. This is harmful to others in that we lead them astray, tempting them to seek attention.
If the person to whom we are attracted has an unattractive friend, we ignore that unattractive friend in our pursuit of the attractive friend. This is harmful to others in that we treat them with aversion.
These are only some of the ways sensual thoughts can hurt others and why they are unskillful.

I would start my argument quoting these verses from the Dhammapada:

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.

By acting moved by sensual desires, we acquire new habits and tendencies or reinforce old ones. A lot those sensual desires (whether they are sexual in nature or not) involve the interaction with other human beings (or sentient beings in general), and most of those interactions require to influence and subjugate others' wills to make them do or help us to reach whatever desire we have. The most extreme examples of this interactions result in labour exploitation, humilliation, death, fights, objectification, etc.
In sum, people become simple means for achieving our goals, and we start to get used to manipulate them to satisfy our whims and cravings. We stop caring if the other doesn't want what we want them to do.
Or even more directly than the above is to see others as obstacles to be eliminated in order to fulfill our wishes.
Of course, not every desire leads to this, but if we not pay attention to our feelings and habits, without noticing, we might find ourselves caught in the net of the results of our own deeds and negligence. If we underestimate the potential effects of indulgence in sensual desires, the pot may get filled without noticing, and others may get wet with our own water as well; others will suffer the effects of our ignorance and lack of mindfulness.
Kind regards!

well purely logically with the usual classical logic with the usual meaning of ''or'', he says ''my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both.'' so he uses ''or'' not ''and'' and the personal affliction is ''obstructs discernment, promotes vexation'' so ''thinking imbued with sensuality''  indeed leads to ''my own affliction or to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both.''
here is the sutta which lists what " one who lives the celibate life impurely, tied to the fetter of sex" means.
https://suttacentral.net/an7.50/en/sujato

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


text:
What is Aarya dukkha Sacca?
In buddhism what is aarya dukkha? And what’s the reason for it?
Dukkha is one of four noble truth. And as I heard it’s because of the impermanence. Can in permanence be the cause for the Dukkha? Is it true? Please provide practical situations when explaining.
EDIT:
According to some answers, the direct answer to this question is attachment (upadana). To be more specific my question is how attachment become the cause for the Noble Dukkha? Eg: If I like a car, its an attachment. And how does that become the cause for the Noble Dhukka.
EDIT 2:
According to the answer given by Brian,
When attached, you find something desirable and you don't want to let it go; you want to keep it for yourself, permanently. But the thing is, conditioned phenomena are in constant change, and those things will not stay the same or with you forever.
But imagine a prince, and a car he owns, It doesn't matter the conditioned phenomena (Saṅkhāra) he can maintain the car as it was. So what's the dukkha in that.
Please note: I'm just trying to sharp my question by providing examples, if I'm doing any thing bad, please let me know, as I'm new to this.

It's not "arya dukkha" (which might mean "noble suffering" and which isn't a concept in Buddhism) -- it's dukkha-ariyasacca i.e. noble truth -- "the noble truth about dukkha".

@ChrisW, That's the same thing I meant, anyway I updated it as you suggested. This happens as in my language we called it that way too. Any way for the sake of all, I'll try to fight the language barrier.

This answer is just a complement to Dhammadhatu's wonderful answer, and it's a response to your new question added after editing the OP.
You ask about how, for instance, liking a car can lead to dukkha. Well, first we have to figure out what does "liking" mean.
To like something is to find that something likable; to find something likeble is to perceive some sense stimuli as pleasant. To perceive some stimuli as pleasant is to get in contact with a stimuli coming from and object, in this case, a car.
When you like something, two things are happening:
1) You create a concept which represents certain phenomenon (in this case, "car" is the word used to describe the sum of the parts of the car) and endow it with fixed features and qualities. And if the mind is fettered by ignorance, then your perception of such concepts also will include subjective adjective of value, i.e. you will see that concept (a car) as something nice, likable, good, desirable, etc. And if you are get more demanding, you will get obssessed only with certain kinds of such concept (certain kinds of car, with specific shapes, colors, features, etc.). In all these scenarios, you are getting attached to points of view about what is nice and what is not.
2) You can get obssessed with the sensorial features of the concept (the colors, the shape, the smell, the sound, and everything else about the car), because they gave rise to pleasant feelings in the past. In this scenario, you get attached to sense stimuli.
So, in the example given, when you like a car, you're getting attached to feeling (sensations) and points of view (about which things are good and which bad).
Attachment and clinging of any kind lead to suffering and dissatisfaction. When attached, you find something desirable and you don't want to let it go; you want to keep it for yourself, permanently. But the thing is, conditioned phenomena are in constant change, and those things will not stay the same or with you forever. This is why is so important to pay attention when craving arises, because if you let it keep its course, you will probably get attached to the object of desire.
EDIT: In my opinion, this is an excellent question, but I'm not sure if gos against the site's rules to keep expanding the question. Regardless, here are my two cents.
The "funny" thing about dukkha and dissatisfaction is that you will never get to a point where you say: it's over, I don't need anything else. One craves not because the object itself is desirable, but because we keep feeding the tendency and habit of craving.
Maybe the prince will keep its car for a long time, but some things that might affect the car are mostly still out of his control: an earthquake or a fire destroying the car, a thief stealing it, the knowledge of a car which is (according to the point of view he's attached to) "better" and "more desirable", etc. Or maybe nothing of those things will happen. But if the problem is not the car, something else will be, eventually: his health, his youth, his appearence, confrontation against his points of view, the control over his kingdom, and so on.
In sum, craving will never cease with the object of desire themselves. And so, when the object of craving and attachment goes away, dissatisfaction, stress and suffering will arise, in a greater or lesser degree and intensity. Craving only vanishes when the tendency of craving is uprooted and when ignorance in general is extinguished for good. And the training given by the Buddha in the Noble Eightfold Path is the way to achieve that end.
Kind regards, and welcome to the site!

Thanks for the answer, the initial part explains clearly, but the last part is not bit clear for me so I updated the question with another example.

Hi Isuru! I just updated the answer. If we can help you somehow, just ask us! Kind regards!

Thanks for the answer, I'm not sure now what answer should be accepted, as the question has become broad, and two people have answered two parts of the question.
Any way as I've understood, the real reason for that (EDIT2 section): Though prince expect the car behaves the way he wants, No it is not, it's because he deserves it from Karma, when ever its gonna be end its gonna end no matter what. Its basically we can't control outside things (sankatha). It behaves the way it is supposed to. But we craves on them and try to control things which is not the reality that's why it is Dukkha

Yes, basically that's the gist of my answer. Although I'm not sure what you mean by "he deserves it from karma". The Buddha redefined 'karma' by changing the focus of the concept: to understand how actions (thoughts, speech and bodily actions) conditions the arising of suffering, he noticed that the important thing about our deeds is not the execution of it nor the external effect, but the intention underlying and preceding the action.

Karma is the intention of an act. If our karma is one of craving, craving will still be there in the mind; if it goes against craving (through renunciation and generosity, for example), craving will gradually start to debilitate. Kind regards!

In the Pali suttas, the word "dukkha" is used in three different ways:
(i) Unpleasant/painful feelings, which are not "suffering". Refer to SN 36.6, MN 37, MN 38, MN 148 and countless other suttas that explain "feelings" ("vedana") in themselves are not suffering.
(ii) The inability of impermanent things to bring true & lasting happiness (refer to SN 22.59), often loosely translated as "unsatisfactoriness", which is not "suffering". Refer to SN 22.1, which clearly explains how change (vipariṇamanti) or impermanence itself is not "suffering".
(iii) Mental suffering from mental proliferating, which is "suffering". In the 1st noble truth, all "suffering" was summarised as "attachment" ('upadana') to the five aggregates, as follows: "saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā."
In summary, the "Ariya" ("Noble") perspective of what "Dukkha" is refers to "upadana" ("attachment"). It is not related to impermanence. Impermanence only contributes to suffering when impermanence is attached to as "I", "me" & "mine" (again, refer to SN 22.1).

He does not assume the body, feelings, perception, mental formations &/or consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing, or as in the self, or the self
  as in.... He is not seized with the idea that 'I am
  the body... consciousness' or 'the body... consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with
  these ideas, his body... consciousness changes & alters, but he does not
  fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its
  change & alteration.
SN 22.1

Impermanence only contributes to suffering when impermanence is attached to as "I", "me" & "mine"
Bit confused with the above line. So you are saying that everything impermanence contribute to suffering?

If you see a leaf fall from a tree in a forest; this is impermanence but you do not suffer about it. But, alternately, if a tree you love falls down on your garden, you suffer about the impermanence of the tree. Why? Because you love the tree. You are attached to the tree.

When you take the Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ), that includes anything outside of Nibbana. Even the pleasurable feeling is included in the Noble Truth of Suffering.

And what, monks, is the Noble Truth of Suffering?
Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, (sickness is suffering),
  death is suffering, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and distress are
  suffering, the association with something that one does not like is
  suffering, the disassociation with something that one does like is
  suffering, not to get what one desires is suffering; in short, the
  clinging to the five aggregates is suffering.

https://www.tipitaka.org/stp-pali-eng-series
In order to understand this Noble Truth of Suffering, you have to contemplate (meditate) on each of the 12 parts. Start with Birth. Take the definition that Buddha gave for Birth:

'And what, monks, is birth? In whatever beings, of whatever group of
  beings, there is birth, coming to be, coming forth, the appearance of
  the aggregates, the acquisition of the sense bases that, monks, is
  called birth.

Contemplate on "whatever group of beings" for example - this means in terms of different planes you can be born in: hell, animal realm, plane of the departed, human world, divine (deva) worlds and brahma worlds. Buddha says to be born in these groups is suffering. Therefore take each realm and slowly contemplate the suffering in each of them. You can contemplate more on animal realm and human ream esp. taking your own life as an example. See how much happiness there is when you magnify a day in your life and look at each action you do and the satisfaction you get from it.
Next Buddha says the acquisition of sense bases is suffering - contemplate on that. How is the eye you got at birth is suffering? Contemplate on the type of eye that you got. Is it an eye that stays the same way? Consider how long will I be able to use this eye. Like this expand to each sense base. Use your own examples. Or take parents or grand parents and see the nature of their faculties and ask yourself will my faculties be any different from this?
Like this move to each term - aging, sickness, death. Contemplate a lot on Death. After contemplating on a dead body, ask yourself will my body be any different from this? Am I not subjected to the same way?

What is the reason for it?

It is that craving which gives rise to rebirth, accompanied by
  pleasure & delight, finding fresh delight now here & now there -- that
  is to say, craving for sensuality, craving for existance, craving for
  non-existance.

The best way to understand this is by contemplating on Concentration Sutta
See this post on how to do the meditation on this.
When you contemplate on the origin and cessation per above meditation, if you realize a link in the dependent origination, you will break the view of permanency and you'll see the Noble Dhamma of the Tathagata.
If you try the above meditation and want to learn more, see this website: https://visuddhimagga.info/

this is bit contradicting with the reality. Why / how birth is suffering? why / how getting older is suffering. Eg: getting older 40+ is a suffering but getting 18 from 17 is not a suffering. So if you are trying to say impermanence is the cause for dukkha, then it cannot be right. Because, there are many things where impermanence make us happy.
And about meditation, the first step to the eightfold path samma ditti can be obtain by listening to someone who knows the truth. Its not by doing the meditation to see the impermanence, which you call dependent origination

Try going up like that - 18 to 19, 19 to 20, etc. up to 40+ and see if you can find "at what step" your not-suffering changes to suffering.

You are right about Right View. Buddha is the "someone who knows the truth". And Buddha said, "what monks is the right view? It is the knowledge of the Noble Truth of Suffering, Knowledge of the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering, etc..". So now having heard that, you continue to understand that further - that's where you take the first noble truth - suffering and analyze that further which is what I meant above.

Then its not the birth its suffer, its getting older after 40 (with conditions) is the suffer. Isn't it?
So that can't be what Buddha has meant. It should be more deep.

Buddhist meditation is about contemplating on dhamma. Having heard some dhamma (four noble truths), one investigates. Is that so? In what way do I understand that? How do I understand it through my own examples? When you investigate this way, a realization happens - yes I see that birth is conditioned by existence. Or, this whole mass of suffering is because of craving. When you realize that, that is the understanding of a link of dependent origination.

You have to look at each of them. Understanding birth as suffering is different than understanding aging as suffering. Something to remember is, this deep, deep dhamma cannot be realized by reading an answer in a forum post. These are only pointers that can help you do the meditation. If one fully understands the Noble Truth of Suffering, that person is an Arahat. Also try to start at a place where you can understand. Start with what is visible here and now.

Upasaka Isuru Gunawardana,
In buddhism(taken as: as what the Buddha taught)what is aarya Dukkha?
would be right answered with:

Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates (be-ing) are stressful.

In very detail explained by Ven. Sariputta here.
And what’s the reason for it?
Birth, coming into be-ing, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, taking a stand, this is the cause of suffering.
Yet it is birth which is also root-cause of cessation of suffering, to go beyond.
(Note that this is not given for trade, stacks, exchange and entertainment which binds in this world)

I've questions on this, (Buddha always open for question)
How Aging is stressful? When I was 15,16 I was waiting to age and exceed 18. So how can Aging is stressful? I was very happy back then.

Althought not having faced till now, possible never met an old person (so am I to face), one of the heavenly messagers, Upasaka @IsuruGunawardana might not have read the details linked: "Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging." Drunken in three ways, it's hard to penetrate Dhamma: in youth, health, life. It's good to spend much time with old people, asking them much, and face yourself in them (proper attention).


text:
What is the Reason for Noble Dukkha and How?
The direct answer to this question is attachment (upadana). To be more specific my question is how attachment become the cause for the Noble Dukkha?
Eg: If I like a car, its an attachment. And how does that become the cause for the Noble Dhukka

Let's keep this in one piece and edit the first question to add more details from this one.

@AndreiVolkov Noted.

attachment is dukkha because it is painful. imagine you see your lover kissing & embracing another person. Immediately you suffer. You are stabbed in the heart due to egoism or attachment. The Buddha said conceiving self (MN 140) is an arrow; a dart; a cancer; a tumour. I recommend to focus on real things rather than on superstitions about past lives. Regards

@Dhammadhatu, Thanks for the answer, but it's bit hard to think this is the Noble Dukkha because, its pretty straight forward. And assume the other way round if my lover is so loving to me then I'm happy. In that case attachment is not dukkha, is it?

When the mind is pure, it also knows lust & love are disturbing. The dhamma cannot be known when the mind remains impure. For example, when the mind experiences the 4th jhana, it realises the rapture & happiness sensations of the 1st & 2nd & 3rd jhanas are disturbing compared to the purity of the 4th jhana. Its the same with sexual love. The pure mind feels lust is suffering. Regards

I agreed on that, But still it doesn't answer my question, which is how attachment is become as Noble Dukkha.

And assume the other way round if my lover is so loving to me then I'm happy. In that case attachment is not dukkha, is it? The 1st noble truth says that, among other things, death is dukkha. And the 2nd noble truth says that the cause of dukkha is attachment. So, when your lover dies, ...

@ChrisW The death or the birth is not about what you think. If it is the death you meant how come the gold and silver is born and dead. Refer Aryaparyesana Sutta

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html

@follower Did you agree with footnote 2 of the link you posted?

No in Sri Lankan Canon gol and silver is not excluded, its there. I can confirm on this.


text:
Why living beings like / dislike things in the world?
All living beings (animals + humans) like something, and they don't like some another things? What is the reason for liking and disliking.
Eg: Imagine there are two best friends let's call friend A and friend B. Friend A likes a lady call X (very pretty lady) meanwhile friend B doesn't like lady X. What's the reason according to the buddhism.
To narrow down the question the point is though lady X is very pretty for friend A but not for friend B. Why is it?

Upasaka Isuru Gunawardana,
Touched by an pleasing object on the senses, and unwise thinking (avijjā, or improper attention) is the cause that greed arises.
Touched by an unpleasing object on the senses, and unwise thinking (avijjā, or improper attention) is the cause that aversion arises.
In short avijjā-phassa is the cause of domanassa, somanassa and indifferent mindstates, feelings. Good to keep in mind that the third is actually often miss-discriminated as real equanimity, beyond householder-equanimity.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but for release from this bonds in the world)

With Metta, Rev. @Samana, I accept Avijja is the cause. But thats too generic, isn't it? when it says improper attention, what do we need to do / understand to get the proper attention. How to become Vijja (opposite of Avijja).

Those are good questions, Upasaka @IsuruGunawardana , surely good to raise in addition. What does he think? Proper attention would not be possible, not enough to see through, if stream has not reached yet.

Rev. @Samana,
I add a separate question on that. I'm from Sri Lanka, and we have pure pali thripitaka written in Pali language using Sinhala letters. And most of the links here the community referred (english web site) does not contains most of the suttas. Therefore I can't give reference. But I'll add my thoughts as an answer to the same question which i'll be raising soon.

"How to become Vijja", gain right view: it requires hearing of the good Dhamma and proper attention, Upasaka Isuru.

Proplems with Pali-words are therefore because languages are mostly different romanized that Pali. Once knowing which character is which, don't follow internat. lang. standards, it's easier, Nyom.

Buddhism teaches about the five aggregates. One of the aggregates is feeling (vedana). Another aggregate is mental formations (sankhara). Due to a pleasant or unpleasant feeling sensations (vedana), the mental formations create the ideas or thoughts "I like it" & "I dislike it". Mental formations also brew up defilements (kilesa), such as love & hatred.
These aggregates exist as phenomena in nature. It is pointless ask the question: "Why do they exist?" They simply exist. Even Buddhas have pleasant & unpleasant vedana, which are mental impression sensation from consciousness. consciousness (vinanna) is another of the five aggregates.
The Buddha said the five aggregates are to be "comprehended" (rather than speculated about).

If you look the chain of events that lead to one another in the Dependent Origination, you may conclude that just after 'contact' (the encounter between the senses, sense stimuli, and consciousness) we can experience by ourselves the mentioned processes in action.
Feelings are the result of contact, and there are three general kinds (applied to each of the six senses): pleasant, unpleasant and not-pleasant-nor-unpleasant.
When ignorance fetters the mind, we don't understand that pleasant feelings are not so much a quality of the objects, but a modality and process of the mind dependent on the object. We think that only the desirable objects can give us pleasure and well-being, and so, we like those kinds of object which use to give rise to pleasant feelings. The ignorant mind doesn't see feelings as feelings, but sees the object as desirable and a source of pleasure to be acquired.
But sometimes we see for ourselves that pleasure is not always present when the objects considered desirable are present as well: Have you eaten so much of something you like that you get to a point where the mere thought of that food makes you want to puke? Why did the object suddenly lost its "pleasant status"?
We say "we like X thing" when we attach ourselves to the pleasant feeling X make us feel. And the more X give rise to that feeling, the more we confirm to ourselve that we like that X thing. The idea of liking gets even more consolidated (and feels more real and tangible) especially when we define ourselves as "the one who likes that X thing". Think in how many people define themselves as "gamers", or "movie geeks", or "drug addicts", "believers", or "christians"... Their identity (the idea of what their "self" is) gets defined by their likes and dislikes, which are defined by our attachment to past feelings.
EDIT: I didn't read the last part of the question.
To know why the same object feels different for two persons, I think it would be useful to ask to ourselves if we feel the same feelings over time. Do the things you liked and disliked during your childhood keep the same to the present day? Do you like and dislike the same things, now and then? If not, what makes the those feelings change over time?
Feelings and perception of what is being felt go conjoined. If perception is altered, so is feeling.
Perception is the faculty that allows us to know what an object/phenomenon is and what qualities belong to such object/phenomenon.
Views are our internalized ideas and assumptions about our experience of reality, about how reality is constitued, about how the components of reality interact with each other, and how we fit in all of that conceptual framework. Most of times, we are not aware of our views, but they are the assumption which create expectations about consequences of our possible actions; views lead our behavior, whether we aware of them or not.
Perception can be altered if our views are modified; and views can be modified by thoughts. In time, reflection can be modified or "tuned" with precise data through personal investigation and reflection, or by some external source (a book, a teacher, our parents, our culture, our friends, etc.)
Most people have different views about the world and reality, and thus, their perception of sense data varies from one person to another, or from the "same person" in a moment X compared to a moment Y.
Also, and not less important, our senses are part of the form aggregate. If our senses are structuraly different, then it is possible that feelings may differ as well.
Kind regards!

The skandhas and samskaras are the result of a complex interplay of our biology and experiences (besides the notion of rebirth). As such, we are shaped into a variety of preferences, moral or taste. It’s a result of our history.


text:
A question about my karma and how it’s affecting me
I come from a very well off family but I have issues with my parents even though I’m very grateful for everything I have,I’m having a problem with self acceptance beacuse of them which took me a very long time to get over. My family in general made fun of my skin colour and the way I look (which even though sounds silly hurt me a lot) and they always give importance to class and society and are very pretentious which forces me to behave in a certain way which is not me and my personality.Even though I feel like I have everything I feel claustrophobic and caged.Will I attract bad karma for feeling like this for being ungrateful to the people who gave life to me?

Buddhism teaches the gift of Dhamma (moral & spiritual truth) is the best of gifts. Buddhism also praises when a person establishes their immoral parents in the Dhamma (AN 2.31-32). Buddhism teaches parents can have children who are morally superior to the parents (Iti 74). Buddhism teaches neither father nor mother can do oneself a greater good than one's own well-directed mind (Dhp 43).
While your parents have done many good things for you, their criticisms of you are unrelated to Dhamma; therefore their criticism is both unnecessary & immoral. If the Gotama (who become The Buddha) did everything his parents expected of him, there would have not been a "Buddha" or "Buddhism".
In Buddhism, our self-esteem is based in our following of the Buddhist path, such as our generosity, our loving-kindness & our good harmless deeds towards ourself & others.
In summary, you should be grateful towards the "good things" your parents have provided & done for you; but you are not to be grateful towards any bad things. Instead, you should have concern for the welfare of your parents when they do bad things and you should ensure you aspire you do not repeat any unwholesome deeds of your parents.

Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they
  nourish them, they introduce them to this world. But anyone who rouses
  his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in
  conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles &
  establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles
  & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father,
  settles & establishes them in wisdom: To this extent one pays &
  repays one's mother & father.
AN 2.31-32

Neither mother, father, nor any other relative can do one greater good than one's own well-directed mind.
Dhammapada 43

Will I attract bad karma for feeling like this for being ungrateful to
the people who gave life to me?

Initially everything is balanced in this world, and we (living beings) have unbalanced it based on the thoughts / actions we do. And as soon as the nature got a chance to balance it it comes back to us and we call this Karma.
Don't be ungrateful to your parents for something you did by your self. That's the nature of the world. Next question is, in present moment you are worrying about being in that mind set will attract bad Karma? Yes it can cause to attract bad karma. Think it is like listening to the radio station, when you are tune to a particular frequency you can hear the broadcast for that frequency. So always try to avoid bad thoughts in your mind, not because it just attract bad karma, but because you are generating new bad karma which will effect you later.
So what you should do? When you are hurt by anyone, only thing you should focus on your mind is wish them all good. In buddhism there's a meditation method call, Maithree Bhavanava. There what we do is we think / wish all the living beings good. Sample phrase is added below. You can add any person in this. Do this (close your eyes and think) as a practice everyday for 20-30 mins, no matter whether you are in a bus or a train or in the bed. When you do this for around 20-30 days, you will see the results. Make sure always you are full with good thoughts.

May I be well, may I be happy, may I be free from enmity, may I be
free from ill-will. May I attain Enlightenment.
May He/She be well, may He/She be happy, may He/She be free from enmity, may He/She be free from ill-will. May I attain Enlightenment.

Being ungrateful to anyone, none of us get any thing good but the bad. So always think good for all the man kind, no matter how hard they push back on us.

I marked this post down because the following words are unproven & therefore false: "What you are facing now is due to something that you have done previously." Kind regards

@Dhammadhatu, If you want it you can ask the evidence right, or you can edit it Without down voting. This is against coc and not helping as a community.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Maithree Bhavanava is what I'd spell as metta bhavana (transcriptions of the Pali words) -- see also Is Chant of Metta from Tipitaka? for a longer version.

karuna-full, Sadhu. Keep in mind when similar approached, and no need to go after, if not correct. It's ones kamma when hungry ghosts approach disturbing as well.

A little personal background: my mom is Filipino, and my dad is Sinhalese (he professes to be Buddhist but is verbally, physically, and psychologically abusive). My mom is not a Buddhist but her life insights have enriched my Dhamma practice.
I see toxic people as bottles of poison or pesticide: you know they’re harmful if in contact with but you don’t have any hatred or animosity. Because that’s just what they are: bottles of poison, nothing to hate there. You just avoid any contact with it.
Same approach with toxic parents: I don’t interact with them. Occasionally I get angry when I recall dad did but I counter that by:

Calming myself and acknowledging that the thought of hatred arose. I know aversion (dosa/dvesha) has arisen and that I shouldn’t act on it. A mind engulfed in raga, dosa/dvesha, and moha is like a murky glass of water stirred with dust: you can only see the water clearly when the dust has settled.

Acknowledging the thought is impermanent. I don’t reject the thought as it arises because it adds to the stress. I merely observe it BUT don’t act on it. The thought arose, sustains, and will eventually die.

Radiate metta (friendliness, not necessarily compassion) to the person because they:

(a) have unresolved issues and are victims of previous abuse and weren’t aware of that when they did those same things to me;
(b) there is no person as such to ‘hate’ because the so-called person is a constantly-changing entity composed of constantly-changing matter (rupa)  and non-matter (vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana). There is nothing to like or dislike in something that is constantly changing. The hatred doesn’t go overnight but if you practice, it will erode over time.
So if at first I was hateful of the toxic parent, now I acknowledge they’re toxic but with less aversion. Its not good to harbor thoughts of hatred because they harm you, in the short and long run. I can acknowledge that a person is abusive but at the same time have metta for them because they’re harming themselves. And it also does not mean I have to embrace them again, unless they’ve genuinely changed; and if they haven’t changed, they’ll just hurt/harm you again and you become an enabler for their bad actions. “Loving the tiger from a distance”
Forgiving toxic people does not mean rekindling a relationship with them: it’s about you healing from the past and rewiring how you perceive them and what they did. Knowing they’re toxic doesn’t mean you’re hating them: you’re just acknowledging they’re toxic and that they aren’t helpful to you. Bottles of poision
Dosa/dvesa (aversion) doesn’t go away overnight and takes diligent practice. Its not easy to practice these but its not impossible (if Buddhas and Arahats uprooted their aversion, why not I too). As much as possible, I don’t intellectualize my practice because it hinders the practice. Over time I understand the deeper meanings of some Pali terms because of my practice, so I know I’ll be fine as long as I keep steadfast on this Dhamma path. The point of Dhamma practice is to avoid and uproot raga, dosa/dvesha, moha. The Buddha laid out the path/practice but everyone treads it according to their own capacity.
Hope this helps, fellow wayfarers


text:
Nature of dependent origination, and is Buddhism non-duality?
Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering -- or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World arise dependent on other conditions (for instance how water and sun causes a flower to grow)?
I think Nagarjuna says that dependent origination is not only showing how suffering arises, but also how phenomena in the World arises. He uses a sutra in the Pali Canon where the Buddha said that this World is dominated by a duality of existence and non existence, then he continued, "when one sees the origination and cessation of the World existence and non existence do not occur to one anymore".
This seems to confirm what Nagarjuna said: that dependent origination is not only describing how suffering originates, but how phenomena in the World also originate -- isn't that so?

I have another question also: how would you describe Theravada, Mahayana, Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism -- are they non dual or not? Please describe to me the logic why you answered the way you did also.

Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering

According to the Pali scriptures, yes. Refer to SN 12.2 or AN 3.61.

or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World
  arises dependent on other conditions for instance how water and sun
  causes a flower to grow.

No. The Buddha taught about suffering & its cessation (MN 22; SN 56.31; AN 3.61; etc).

I Think Nagarjuna says that dependent origination is not only
  showing how suffering arises but also how phenomena in the World
  arises.

Nagarjuna has his own philosophy. You are free to follow Nagarjuna rather than the Buddha.

He uses a sutra in the Pali Canon where the Buddha said that this
  World is dominated by a duality of existence and non existence then he
  continued when one sees the origination and cessation of the World
  existence and non existence do not occur to one anymore.

The above is a misunderstanding of SN 12.15. Its funny how you think one single sutta that uses words (namely, "atthitañceva" & "natthitañca") that are difficult to translate defines what the Buddha taught. Possibly, the discussion of the word 'atthi' at this link can help you.

This seems to confirm what Nagarjuna said that dependent
  origination is not only describing how suffering originate but how
  phenomena in the World also originate?.

No. When the Pali suttas use the word "world" ("loka"), this does not necessarily refer to the physical world. Refer to SN 12.44 and AN 4.45, which use the word "the world" synonymously with the word "suffering".

I have Another question also how would you describe
  Thervada,Mahayana,Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism are they non dual or
  not and please describe to me the logic why you answered the way you
  did also.

The Buddha did not teach "non-duality". Refer to my answer here.

Thank you for your answer I am a beginner I have no clue so I am happy to learn and as I learn and understand I will have a better view.

Is dependent arising meant for us to understand the arising of suffering -- or is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World arise dependent on other conditions
I don't think that's an important difference -- not a valid duality ;-)
-- I think that understanding that worldly phenomena are dependent (i.e. empty of self-existence) also helps to understand the arising of suffering.
If you imagined that something "really exists" then you might imagine that suffering too was one of its real properties.
Whereas instead it might be good instead to see that everything about the phenomena -- including whether it really exists, what it really is, and whether it's really desirable or dislikable -- is empty.
See also What is the purpose of the Mahayana 'emptiness' doctrine?
You might get a hint of that -- not believing that something really exists -- in this answer (which I assume is Theravada):

... the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death - the latter being merely a concept ...

Theravada, Mahayana, Vajryana and Tibetan Buddhism -- are they non dual or not?
The Pali suttas seem to me to be full of dualities -- e.g. it describes:

Right and wrong views
Skilful and unskillful actions
Fetters and liberation
Wise and unwise, noble and ignoble, virtuous and not

Some of the "unanswered questions" seem to me to hint at a non-dual approach to some topics --

See for example How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
See also Parable of the Poisoned Arrow

They include a waring that "there is nothing" is a wrong view:

And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view...

I don't know about Mahayana, I guess one of the more famous quotes from that literature is,

Qingyuan declared that there were three stages in his understanding of the dharma: the first stage, seeing mountain as mountain and water as water; the second stage, seeing mountain not as mountain and water not as water; and the third stage, seeing mountain still as mountain and water still as water.

The little I've read of Tibetan/Vajryana for beginners seems to me one-sided -- it emphasises what I'd call "positive" mental energies (e.g., determination, gratitude), and maybe only characterises the mind as "pure" and so on rather (instead of e.g. "defiled").

Thank you for your answer Chris.

Only the people who invented mahayana say ''is it also meant to describe how phenomena in the outside World arises dependent on other conditions for instance how water and sun causes a flower to grow.''. They are obsessed with rupa and fail to focus on other aggregates. this is why those people do not understand the dhamma.
For dependent arising, Stick to the condition of the arising of an aggregate and the condition of the cessation of an aggregate.

Okay thanks for your answer.


text:
What is exactly Avijja -- and how to uproot it?
To most of the questions about Nibbana, the easiest answer is "Avijja".

But what exactly this Avijja? Improper attention, ignorance?
What are we ignoring, and then what's the fact that we should not ignore or we should look in the world?
How can we uproot it?

I know Avijja can be easily answered in few words (e.g. with definitions, or some other synonyms) -- but why I'm asking this question is, it says that uprooting Avijja is the path to Enlightenment.
If we take an example:

If someone "ask how to be a mathematician?", an answer would be (I'm limiting the answer set in a way to explain the question), "you need to learn addition / subtraction, integration, differentiation, etc."
So what I'm asking is like "how to be enlightened?", an answer is "uproot the Avijja".
So now I'm asking "what is Avijja?" like "what is addition?".
I'm not expecting an answer like "the action or process of adding something to something else." Instead I'm expecting an answer like, how it is taught to us in elementary school (like using Abacus).
Because for Buddhism most of us are like children -- if not we are Arhat by now.

Please I just try to explain the answer with these stories, but not to offend anyone. With Metta, I'm expecting a detailed answer from the wise people in the community.

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

Maybe you've heard of the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article):

In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey needs to let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice.
But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance about how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would be free from his suffering.
Also you can say that the monkey's suffering originated with his ignorance of the trap.
Knowing how the trap works, i.e. gaining insight and wisdom into the nature of reality, is the way to overcome ignorance.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)

But what exactly this Avijja? Improper attention, ignorance?

Its "ignorance" or "not-knowing"; as defined in the suttas. Its not "improper attention". "Improper attention" is attention polluted by ignorance. Compare this to water polluted by poison. The poison is one thing & the water is another thing. Similarly, the ignorance is one thing and the attention is another thing.

What are we ignoring, and then what's the fact that we should not
  ignore or we should look in the world?

It does not mean "ignoring". It appears you read "ignoring" on another answer, which used the word "ignore" incorrectly.

How can we uproot it?

It is uprooted by insight (vipassana).

I know Avijja can be easily answered in few words

It appears you do not "know". It is best to not say: "I know". "Ignorance" does not mean "ignoring". It does not mean "improper attention". Therefore, it is best to not claim "I know".

(e.g. with definitions, or some other synonyms) -- but why I'm asking this question is, it says that uprooting Avijja is the path to Enlightenment.
If someone "ask how to be a mathematician?", an answer would be (I'm limiting the answer set in a way to explain the question), "you need
  to learn addition / subtraction, integration, differentiation, etc."
  So what I'm asking is like "how to be enlightened?", an answer is
  "uproot the Avijja".

The above is illogical. To be a mathematician requires to learn addition / subtraction, integration, differentiation. To enlightened requires to learn four noble truths, three characteristics, dependent origination, emptiness, etc. We cannot say merely "uprooting ignorance".

So now I'm asking "what is Avijja?" like "what is addition?".

Ignorance is defined in the suttas as not knowing or not understanding the four noble truths & the three characteristics.

Please I just try to explain the answer with these stories, but not to offend anyone. With Metta, I'm expecting a detailed answer from the wise people in the community.

I am a wise person in the community. Study my answer if you are also wise.

Not knowing Dukkha, Upasaka Isuru Gunawardana, not seeing Dukkha in all phenomenas around the senses, is avijjā.
Not giving proper attention to what gives birth (to avijjā), ignore Dukkha in all phenomenas around the senses, is avijjā.
Not uprooting the cause of avijja, not giving proper attention to what lies beyond the senses, not realizing Nibbana, is avijjā.
Not knowing the path that leads to the uprooting and ending of avijjā, not putting it into practice, is avijjā.
On how one can uproot avijjā, as the cause of suffering, to it's very end:

"It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former times. He would follow it... And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration... I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.

And why does one not simply follow it? Because not knowing Dukkha, Upasaka Isuru Gunawardana, not seeing Dukkha in all phenomenas around the senses, avijjā stays present. So leaving home to meet it, to come accross the four devadūtas, before a forced breaking up with it, is a wise track.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as means to get out of the wheel caught here, and beyond)

If it's like learning mathematics, an analogy might be that it's like a proof by "induction".
So:

Step 1 -- learn to apply the four noble truths.

For example, experience dukkha, and (perhaps from personal experience but also from being taught the dhamma) understand it -- including understanding its cause.

Understanding the cause of dukkha, "abandon" that.

Having abandoned the cause, realise the cessation.

Step 2 -- like step 1

Step 3 -- like step 2

If it's like what's taught to children, then the suttas to Rahula (e.g. MN 61) might be on-topic.
When I was taught mathematics, the first half of the class was the teacher explaining theory, and the second half was the students each trying to apply that newly-learned theory to solving a new problem.
So I think experience comes from using doctrine (the Dhamma), to solve the actual problems you experience in your personal life.
When you are (and//or have been) able to do that, then you're already more fortunate than you would be if you didn't know (i.e. if you were completely ignorant about) how to.
I gather from reading about the Four stages of enlightenment that students eventually learn not just to solve problems but even to avoid them -- for example:

If the problem is dukkha caused by craving and attachment, the solution might be to cease the craving and attachment

But a more advanced practitioner might avoid even forming attachments in the first place, might uproot the "tendencies" or "effluents" (see e.g. here), maybe "guard the senses" to avoid "delighting" in sensual phenomena, and maybe pay more attention to what's more worthy.
Taking morality (or "skilful virtue") as a guide means there's less or no cause for remorse.

Because for Buddhism most of us are like children -- if not we are Arhat by now.
I'm not sure, it might take some practice -- for example this says,

The monks, we believe, are the Olympic athletes of certain kinds of mental training," Davidson says. "These are individuals who have spent years in practice. To recruit individuals who have undergone more than 10,000 hours of training of their mind is not an easy task and there aren't that many of these individuals on the planet.

Given that it takes time and practice -- and, almost always, good teaching -- to learn a skill like mathematics.
It took a while for the Gautama Buddha to learn, didn't it.
I like to think it's possible to learn it, though, because the Buddha also discovered how to teach it.

If it's like what's taught to children, then the suttas to Rahula (e.g. MN 61) might be on-topic. Buddhism is for wise people, and that wiseness doesn't depend on age. What I meant by children is from the wiseness. If we are not in the path (at least not a stream entrant) we are children to the Nivana which Buddha showed.

I think that the Buddha adapted the way in which he spoke and taught, to suit/address the specific listener. And Rahula was, like, 7 years old or something -- so maybe that's a sutta anyone can understand. Whether they're willing, able to practice is another matter -- Rahula was, presumably, willing to make the necessary effort (and to live in a suitable community).

Agree on that, but its based on the wiseness, not on age. Anyway as I've understood (based on the Sri Lankan canon), to become stream entrant, below points should be fulfilled. 1. Associate Sekha who is in the path to Nivana (on or above stream entrant level). 2. Listening to the correct Dhamma from him. 3. Deeply think on what's listened (not meditate) 4. Act in Dhamma.

Avijja is the lack of total understanding of

And what, bhikkhus, is the dukkha ariyasacca? Jāti is dukkha, aging
  is dukkha (sickness is dukkha) maraṇa is dukkha, sorrow, lamentation,
  dukkha, domanassa and distress is dukkha, association with what is
  disliked is dukkha, dissociation from what is liked is dukkha, not to
  get what one wants is dukkha; in short, the five upādāna·k·khandhas
  are dukkha.
And what, bhikkhus, is the dukkha-samudaya ariyasacca? It is this
  taṇhā leading to rebirth, connected with desire and enjoyment, finding
  delight here or there, that is to say: kāma-taṇhā, bhava-taṇhā and
  vibhava-taṇhā. But this taṇhā, bhikkhus, when arising, where does it
  arise, and when settling [itself], where does it settle? In that in
  the world which seems pleasant and agreeable, that is where taṇhā,
  when arising, arises, where when settling, it settles.
And what, bhikkhus, is the dukkha-samudaya ariyasacca? It is this
  taṇhā leading to rebirth, connected with desire and enjoyment, finding
  delight here or there, that is to say: kāma-taṇhā, bhava-taṇhā and
  vibhava-taṇhā. But this taṇhā, bhikkhus, when abandoned, where is it
  abandoned, and when ceasing, where does it cease? In that in the world
  which seems pleasant and agreeable, that is where taṇhā, when
  abandoned, is abandoned, where when ceasing, it ceases.
And what, bhikkhus, is the dukkha·nirodha·gāminī paṭipadā ariyasacca?
  It is just this ariya aṭṭhaṅgika magga, that is to say sammādiṭṭhi,
  sammāsaṅkappo, sammāvācā, sammākammanto, sammā-ājīvo, sammāvāyāmo,
  sammāsati and sammāsamādhi.

http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/digha/dn22.html


text:
The World and Five Aggregates of Clinging
As I've heard, the "world" referred by Buddha (mentioned in the Loka Sutta and in Samyutta Nikaya - 4 -> LokaSamudaya Sutta) is the same as "Five Aggregates of Clinging" (Five-Updana-Skandas).
That's why the world in one's mind is different than the other's world.
It would be great if anyone can explain this further.

Possibly-related topic -- Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?

@ChrisW, Thanks for pointing this out. It seems this question is not talking about the world (Updated my question adding more details)

Two people, Upasaka would slander the Buddha: One who explains further of what does not require such and one who does not explain further, of what would require such. There is no such as world explained beyond the experiences around the six senses by the Buddha. It's good to investigate the world, ones world, no other could do.

Is this the "LokaSamudaya Sutta" which you said was missing from the English source: SN 35.107? In general, "accesstoinsight" includes many of the suttas, and "suttacentral" maybe contains all of them.

Here says that Bhikkhu Bodhi says that SN 35.107 is identical to SN 12.44 (i.e. the first sutta you quoted).

There's a translation into Sinhala too.

Related: Difference between aggregates and clinging-aggregates?

The world (loka) here refers to the world or reality that one is in, a mentally-generated reality. The term papanca (reification or objectification-classification) is used to describe the generation of the mental reality.
Everything is objectified and classified as either self or non-self, and there will be created an association between non-self objects and the self (also see this question for sutta quotes). For example, once you have tasted the pleasant taste of milk, you like it, know it as "milk" and think about it when it's not there. Milk is therefore classified as a "tasty drink" and "I like milk because it is tasty".
You also identify people and animals, as well as classify them, for e.g. this is my mother, that is not my mother. This is a cat and it's not dangerous to me, while that's a snake and that's dangerous to me.
The Sabba Sutta or the discourse on The All states:

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.

So, the mentally-generated world is based on eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas.
The five aggregates are form, sensations, perception, mental formations and consciousness. If you cling to them, that is, have an association to them with the self, then they are called clinging aggregates.
Basically, the mentally-generated world is the same as these clinging aggregates, because it's formed in the mind, and it's based on six senses and their inputs, and also the mental idea of the duality of self and non-self, as well as the association with the self (clinging). It's also a mental formation (sankhara), isn't it?
An arahat does not cling any more, so he does not have the clinging aggregates anymore - only aggregates. He does not have a sense of self. He also does not have papanca, and also does not have a mentally-generated world. He sees things as they truly are, and not as how it is objectified and classified relative to the self. This is apparently also known as tathata.
From MN 1:

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has
  lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is
  completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows
  earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not
  conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he
  does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth
  to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he
  has fully understood it, I say.

From Sutta Nipata 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 (papañca):
  'I am the thinker.'
Commentary (Thanissaro):
  The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at
  the root of these classifications in that it reads into the immediate
  present a set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being;
  thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate
  into mental and physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this
  perception thus forms a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one
  must learn to examine these distinctions — which we all take for
  granted — to see that they are simply assumptions that are not
  inherent in experience, and that we would be better off to be able to
  drop them.

From Bahiya Sutta (Udana 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."

There is no such thing as "five aggregates of clinging". The aggregates are things clung to therefore the meaning is "five aggregates clung to".
As for the word "loka" ("world"), there are many suttas that do not refer to this as the "physical world". The Loka Sutta refers to the "world" in the mind that is produced by egoism, such as "my family", "my country", "my planet earth", "my favourite television", "my life", "my career", "my purpose", etc.
Or other times, the suttas refer to "the world" is a predominant mental state; such as "jhana" as "the world exclusively of pleasant feelings" (MN 79).
The "world in the mind" is different for different individuals because each individual views & conceives (creates; manufacturers) the world differently. For some, the world is a place of "pleasure" or a place of "sacredness" or "produced by god" or something with a "plan for humanity". For others, the world is an "illusion", "unsatisfactory", "meaningless" and "worthless".
For example, right now, there are powerful people ("the gods") planning the future of the world to benefit themselves & their future generations. Where as there are also other people who have given up on the world, merely waiting for what they regard as a stupid world & life to end & pass.
For each individual mind, the conception of "the world" is different. These conceptions are endless in number & variety.


text:
Kalachakra Tantra (translation of the original text)
Where can I find the English / Chinese translation of the Kalachakra Tantra? (not commentary) Thank you.

This footnote suggests you might be looking for "Kilty, G: Ornament of Stainless Light, Wisdom 2004".


text:
How to avoid the dangers of gain and honor (lābhasakkara)?
It's said that desire for gains as intention for one undertakings, beyond simply that for liberation from suffering, is a huge hindrance, obstacle.
No, the Buddha also warned even Arahats, at least in regard of the accumulation of sakkara (honor, amassing honor, Labāsakkara), as being a cause that leads to unease.
Now, what could, should one do, should avoid, that all kinds of such accumulations do not take place and do not endanger ones intention, aspiration, to bend from highest path and fruits, awakening?
Which role does maccharia (stinginess of five kinds and one primare cause) plays here, and if related, what kind of practice would work against such?
(Note that this task is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainments but just to bind toward liberation)

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

Sooo... If i give a thorough answer that will reward the bounty, i will boost reputation, gain and honor?

My person did not say it's easy, especially when bond on certain not so proper circumsatances, householder @Erik  So here you are where other unseen often struggle.

Consider that you would need to hold on it, and it would be good when reputations are seen as nothing static, making good better flow, or. your answer, householder @Erik

Related topic and answer may be Should Buddhist teachers get rich?

Is that the same discussion from this forum?

I marked this question down because it appears very irrelevant to the members here, including Johann, who is unlikely to acquire fame & honor. Regards

So Doodoot, Element, Dhammadhatu has pure desire to help other in destroying their gains for their good... also a way, if smart, who knows.

@SamanaJohann: You started your question in neutral tone without referring to  any  scripture - "It's said that desire for gains as intention for one undertakings, beyond simply that for liberation from suffering, is a huge hindrance, obstacle.".  And, the 2 questions, you had put forward, are also general in nature.  Are you expecting answers general in nature, based on SPIRITUAL concepts only, without referring to any scripture? or can be answered from other ways of thinking, say Hinduism?

What ever householder @srimannarayanakv thinks that it would clarify and is truthfully, leads to release when put into practice.

As much as I like Hinduism, it is offtopic on this site. Please stay on topic (Buddhist questions and answers).

Just to mention in regard of the bounty. My person abounded that and would not (even not proper in certain situations) transfere personal to someone, independed of owing credits in Dhamma. So it's up to your system here who might take on it, not sure how it would work. It's to be regarded as simply abound and to heavy, to much, as to care on it. May the gainer, how ever, use it for his long time benefit and as a good means.

Now, what could, should one do, should avoid, that all kinds of such accumulations do not take place and do not endanger ones intention, aspiration, to bend from highest path and fruits, awakening?
That sutta implies that even accumulating dung can be a problem for some.
So I'm not sure it's feasible to solve that by avoiding literally everything (especially for a house-holder, but presumably mendicants too -- the sutta seems to be addressed to bhikkhus, not to arhats) -- even including, for example, "food" and "honours".
Instead the problem seems to be in the mental attitude toward accumulation, for example:

"With a mind overcome and overwhelmed by possessions, honor, and popularity"
"they look down on other good-hearted mendicants"

There are other suttas nearby on the same or similar theme -- for example, SN 17.3 offers,

Whoever enjoys and likes arisen possessions, honor, and popularity is called a mendicant who has been pierced with a harpoon

I suppose the problem originates from the delighting in such things.
Perhaps the sutta itself suggests one of the remedies -- if you see (view) it as being like dung, not nourishing, then you might not be inclined to accumulate (eat) it.
And, as you pointed out in a comment, SN 17.30 says,

We will give up arisen possessions, honor, and popularity, and we won’t let them occupy our minds.

Will someone carry candies with him, even if not delighted, attracts flies and be not burdened, Nyom Chris? "We will give up arisen possessions"

From SN 17.5 sutta itself and other SN 17 suttas, you can read:

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will put aside any gains,
  offerings, & fame that have arisen; and we will not let any gains,
  offerings, & fame that have arisen keep our minds consumed.' That's
  how you should train yourselves."

It is not the gains, offering and fame that is to be avoided, but rather the mental obsession with them, that is to be avoided (for future) and put aside (for past), as karma is all about intention.
I don't understand the second question.
This type of mental obsession is due to clinging (upādāna) to gains, offering and fame. It's greed (lobha / rāga).
If one monk is envious due to another's gains and fames, then he too suffers from clinging, and this time it's aversion (dosa / dveṣa).
In SN 35.153, the Buddha taught:

“Further, bhikkhus, having heard a sound with the ear … … Having
  cognized a mental phenomenon with the mind, if there is lust, hatred,
  or delusion internally, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is lust, hatred,
  or delusion internally’; or, if there is no lust, hatred, or delusion
  internally, he understands: ‘There is no lust, hatred, or delusion
  internally.’ Since this is so, are these things to be understood by
  faith, or by personal preference, or by oral tradition, or by reasoned
  reflection, or by acceptance of a view after pondering it?”
“No, venerable sir.”
“Aren’t these things to be understood by seeing them with wisdom?”
“Yes, venerable sir.”
“This, bhikkhus, is the method of exposition by means of which a
  bhikkhu—apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from
  oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance
  of a view after pondering it—can declare final knowledge thus:
  ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done
  has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”

Since it is also called a danger for Arahats, housholder ruben, it might be not said only in relation to mindstates. The point to maccharia denotes on more raw levels of training, as it is possible to oversee the tree standing in the forest, while thinking to make the final works on a chair, smoothing the actually bark. So good if staying where one actually is.

Where does it say that it is a danger for Arahats?

Rude and undisciplined does householder Ruben approach, does he appear. Nevertheless...: he may find it in the same, accumulating-Honor Vagga as the 30. one.

SN 17.30 implies that gains, offering and fame does not disturb or reverse an arahat's liberation, but it may disturb the arahat's blissful meditations. In this sense, they may need to give it up.

Yes...!? Possible to get to similar level in use for householders? Imagining something that is far off seen would not help them to stop cutting the bark, would such for householder Ruben work conductive?

As the Buddha said (AN 5.159 PTS: A iii 184 Udayi Sutta: About Udayin),  "It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be taught to others only when five qualities are established within the person teaching. Of the five qualities, the fourth was, “The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the purpose of material reward.'"
Much more than the seeking of any kind of material reward, the biggest of all diseases of the mind is that of our ego-desire(s), our ego-conceit and the underlying tendency to manifest that notion of an ego-entity inside us.  The strongest defilement of the mind, the biggest inner fire (thapa) is this ego-desire and ego-conceit. The only cure for this, as well as all other desires of the mind, is the Saddhamma. The Dhamma is like medicine, the only cure for the basic disease of the mind.
According to the Buddha, it’s the tendency of the mind to compare itself with others. Even if you say, “I’m worse than that other person,” or, ”I’m equal to that other person,” that’s conceit. There’s an “I” there: the “I‐making, mine‐making, and tendency to conceit.” To overcome this, the Buddha recommend that we develop a sense of disenchantment—nibbida—and that we do it skillfully. He
teaches us to get attached to more and more refined states of wellbeing in the mind, and to become disenchanted with everything else.
Getting rid of attachments is not easy, and more refined states of wellbeing are a good place to be attached: states of concentration, states of wellbeing in the mind that don’t have to depend on circumstances outside. That’s a lot better than being attached to the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas we’re normally attached to.  A good time to look at your attachments is when you meditate. When the mind has a sense of ease and wellbeing, you can, you can look at all of the other mistakes you’ve been making, with a much greater sense of fairness, a much greater sense of objectivity, with less sense of being desperate.
One who is well trained in the traditions of the noble ones, or the customs of the noble ones, accumulate Inner wealth — conviction, virtue, a sense of conscience, scrupulousness, breadth of learning, generosity, and discernment— the inner qualities we build within ourselves. Outer wealth—money and material goods—doesn’t have any hard and fast owners. Today it may be ours, tomorrow someone else may take it away.  Outer wealth such as having lots of food, lots of clothing, a lot of worldly possessions have their drawbacks. When you learn to see the world through Dhamma, you will learn to say, “No.” to tendencies of the mind. You’re not sucked into those things, and as a result the mind is more independent, has a lot more peace. It can keep its values straight.
The more you live the life of a noble one, the more you will immerse in the culture of the noble ones. Amidst all dangers of gain and honor (laabhasakkara), that voice of restraint inside is going to be your protection. You will begin to learn how to listen to it, to strengthen it, so that restraint in day‐to‐day life will begin to augment the restraint of your meditation.
When you really get a taste of what it’s like to get the mind to settle down, you find how liberating it is. When you see the rewards, you’re more and more willing to let go of the things that you’re normally attached to in favor of the freedom of not being attached.  As the Buddha said, “The mind well trained brings happiness.” It needs to be well trained because it’s always doing things, so make sure that what it’s doing is in line with where you want to go.

Good so, Upasaka @Saptha Visuddhi. But there seems to be two problems, one is that "ego-desire", desire for beauty, perfection, is one of the governing principles, a required force toward skillful and liberation, the other that reputatiins will pull unease behind one, the dart is in the back.. Could the solution, at first place, be found in neiter sekha nor asekha, sekha and asekha? In regard of different approaches. As known conceit is to be used to overcome conceit. Maybe a skilled taking, let go, taking next, let go...?

And where, is having taken for a while, to best put it back, whom or what to give reputations, merits made, before?

The Buddha describes the sense of “I am” as the underlying cause for the mind’s tendency to proliferate ideas, its tendency to make differentiations, to complicate things, and all the categories and conflicts that come from those complications. You become selective: Where can you make a difference? Where can you not make a difference? Where is your craving helping you in the path? Where is it getting in the way? You must learn how to be selective, how to be skillful in where you direct your wants, where you direct your aspirations.

Both punnabhi sankhara (merits) and apunnabhi sankhara (demerits) that a person has accumulated throughout past samsaaric journey is a hinderance to achiving Nibbana in this very life. But it requires a lengthy explanation to tell why it is so, and how this can be overcome.

First, my person does think that it is a hindrence aside that one with merits could fall into selft-complacency like the foolish son of a rich, second, Upasaka Saptha Visuddhi doesn't like to hold on his merits he could share, or does he :-). The path is plastered with skillful deeds, not by inaction, resignation or stinginess.

Selective: greedy toward what, aversive toward what? Whats right effort?

We do need to accumulate punnābhi sankhāra to avoid rebirth in the lowest four realms. One should not shy away from doing meritorious deeds, “BUT” one needs to stay away from wishing for “things in return” for such meritorious deeds as much as possible, because such thoughts are based on greed. If one does a good deed AND wishes for something in return, that wishing is done with greed. Any good deed “WILL” produce good results whether one wishes or not.

Better to say “PERFECT EFFORT”, than “Right Effort”. This is where a person could or could not continue in the Path. If a person let go of the Path and falls back in to the worldly manner of doing things again & again, the suffering gets more with time. So focus & have the right efforts to go through the Path, in order to be free & have an end towards all forms of suffering.

Here, given place where merits would not fall back into the world, as here not so welcome, both, Upasaka @Saphta Visuddhi (forgot the Canadians user name)

No... thats the end of discussion. No more comments or replies on my part. with metta....

They will say Saptha Visuddhi only approaches when a lot of reputations can be expected.

I am offering my answer based on the OP's reply to my query:

My query; You started your question in neutral tone without referring to any scripture - "It's said that desire for gains as intention for one undertakings, beyond simply that for liberation from suffering, is a huge hindrance, obstacle.". And, the 2 questions, you had put forward, are also general in nature. Are you expecting answers general in nature, based on SPIRITUAL concepts only, without referring to any scripture? or can be answered from other ways of thinking, say Hinduism?
answer; What ever householder @srimannarayanakv thinks that it would clarify and is truthfully, leads to release when put into practice.

So the OP is interested to know the answer from the householder's perspective.  The questions are:

1) Now, what could, should one do, should avoid, that all kinds of such accumulations do not take place and do not endanger ones intention, aspiration, to bend from highest path and fruits, awakening?
2) Which role does maccharia (stinginess of five kinds and one primare cause) plays here, and if related, what kind of practice would work against such?

Rebirth in Buddhism refers to

its teaching that the actions of a person lead to a new existence after death, in endless cycles called saṃsāra. This cycle is considered to be dukkha, unsatisfactory and painful. The cycle stops only if liberation is achieved by insight and the extinguishing of desire. Rebirth is one of the foundational doctrines of Buddhism, along with Karma, nirvana and moksha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

The key issues are: The cycle stops only
(i) if liberation is achieved by insight, and
(ii) the extinguishing of desire.

I am quoting 2 slokas from Bhagavad Gita here, as the OP permitted me to do so.

ध्यायतो विषयान्पुंसः सङ्गस्तेषूपजायते।
सङ्गात् संजायते कामः कामात्क्रोधोऽभिजायते।।2.62।।
In a person, meditating on sense-objects, attachment or them is born in succession; from attachment springs passion; from passion arises wrath.
क्रोधाद्भवति संमोहः संमोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रमः।
स्मृतिभ्रंशाद् बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति।।2.63।।
From wrath delusion comes to be; from delusion is the loss of memory; from the loss of memory is the loss of capacity to decide; due to the loss of capacity to decide, he perishes outright.
https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/srimad?etgb=1&etssa=1&choose=1&&language=dv&field_chapter_value=2&field_nsutra_value=63

Desire >> possessiveness >> anger (jealousy) >> delusion >> loss of memory >> loss of capacity to decide >> perishment
So every downfall starts with a desire and ends with perishment.  This is the core area, which is common both to Hinduism and Buddhism.

Let us get back to rebirth as per Buddhism;;
The cycle stops only
(i) if liberation is achieved by insight, and
(ii) the extinguishing of desire.
Both actions are to be carried out parallelly either by a monk or by a householder, for getting liberation.

It should not be misunderstood that insight can be achieved (i) by attending to the discourses of scholars or (ii) by reading the preachings of the great Buddha or (iii) by doing meditation, duly following the techniques prescribed by masters of meditation.
No, it is not possible, as the desires, mentioned in the 2nd prerequisite will not allow one to get insight, unless they were brought under control.

Again, desires can never be satiated or cooled down by the enjoyment of objects. But as fire blazes forth the more when fed with butter and wood, so it grows the more when it feeds on objects of enjoyment.
If all the foods of the earth, all the precious metals, all animals, and all beautiful women were to pass into the possession of a man deluded by desire, they would fail to give him satisfaction.

The Indriyas or senses bring the man in contact with external objects and the desires are thereby created. But the senses are not all-in-all. If the mind co-operates with the Indriyas, then only is mischief wrought. Mind is more powerful than the Indriyas. Mind is the commander.
Reason is more powerful than the mind. Even if the mind brings a message into the mental factory by its association with the Indriyas, the pure reason can reject it altogether. Reason is more powerful than the mind. Behind reason is the Self, who is the director and witness of reason and who is superior to reason.

So practice to attain insight through meditation and checking the desires with reasoning should go parallelly, which slowly, but surely, brings the cycle of birth to end.

Good so, good householder. Yet it was not very specific and practical in regard of the question, althought of course, can be adopted.

@SamanaJohann: I am delighted to know that atleast my answer satisfied you to some extent:-).  Spiritual practices, which are practical, should be learnt from an accomplished master only. Getting rid of desires should be practiced by one on his own, which cannot be taught or made easy by any master.